Jump to content

The new 28 Summicron vs the old 28 Summicron


jonoslack

Recommended Posts

Thanks for the comparison, Jono.

 

Would it be possible though, to see the full frame compared rather than just the corners?

My particular interest is in the m240 images at f2 and f5.6.

 

All of the other comparisons I've seen thus far of this lens only show corner crops. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

HI There 

Sadly the whole frames aren't terribly relevant as they're mostly fast moving clouds, and it's the distance images which are significant.

It's really really tough to fill the frame with something relevant at infinity with a 28mm - a very large mountain range is pretty much the only option!

 

Still, they are much more than corner crops - coming about half way to the centre of the frame:

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

I can tell you though, for the rest of the frame the old lens does almost (but not quite) as well as the new lens

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there - this was posted and answered in the 35 summicron thread . . so I thought I'd repost it here


I read this thread and I'm tooootally lost.

In short:
What are the supposed shortcomings of the old 28 cron?
What are the supposed ameliorated aspects of the new one?

 

 

Supposed Shortcomings of the old 28 Summicron:

1. rather extreme curvature of field, especially at infinity, which makes it tough to get the corners and centre in focus at the same time

2. soft corners at wider apertures on digital cameras (not so sure about film)

3. crappy fall of and stamp on lens hood (which is also huge).

 

Supposed ameliorated aspects of the new 28 Summicron

1. Much less curvature of field

2. improved optical formula and thus MTF figures

3. Screw in lens hood which doesn't fall off and get stamped on

 

 

. . .  and if you want to see the effects of this you can look here at the blog post: 

 

http://www.l-camera-...summicron-asph/

 

I hope that helps

 

 
  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at the MTF's you can see some small improvements towards the edges. Shame the MTF'd dont show curvature

 

I have used my 28mm Summicron for many years on the M8 and M9 and think it's one of Leica's best lenses, amazed they have been able to improve it further. I for one was and am very happy with the original (With a 12466 hood)

 

Tks for the great write up

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Jono,

 

Your review, after reading a bit from others, tipped the scale in favour of the new lens and I ordering one. 

 

FWIW, the first one I received had massive RF mis-calibration, resulting in gross back focus by several feet at near MFD. Focusing on anything distant put focus past infinity. When using live view it was possible to focus accurately, but the distance scale on the lens was well off. I.e. something ~20m away resulted in the focusing ring set to about 2.5m. As soon as I discovered this, I immediately packed it up for exchange. In hindsight, I should have done some live view focused tests with it.

 

That's because I'm not sure the second copy is a good example of what the new 28 Cron should do based on my comparison photos of it against my old Cron.

 

At far distances it never really gets sharp at the left and right edges, with the left being a bit softer than the right, whereas my old 28 Cron is sharp at the edges by f/5.6 by a very similar degree compared to central sharpness. At near distances the new Cron is sharper into the corners wide open, but the old one catches up fairly quickly. The new Cron has field curvature, though in the opposite direction of the old Cron. 

 

The old Cron's field curvature bends away from the camera towards infinity. With the new lens it bends towards the camera and appears to get stronger as it's stopped down. For example, photographing a stand of trees from the middle of a field, the bottom corners just feet away from the camera are quite sharp, whereas those areas are soft with the old Cron. 

 

The problem for me is that the 28 Cron is one of my main lenses for a variety of work. Probably half is people photos at wider apertures (where corner performance isn't typically critical, though field curvature can become a problem with wider aperture group photos). The other half is 'documentary landscapes' that are fairly technically demanding, usually stopped down between f/5.6-11, shot at various distance, with many being 10m or farther away. For these landscape, the new Cron's field curvature towards the camera will generally be detrimental to the majority of these types of photos, unless I always have nearer content at the edges. 

 

I'm torn. Out of focus background rendering of the new Cron is smoother at the edges when focused on nearer subjects at wider apertures and edges are sharper at nearer distances wide open (though not that important for many of my images). But for typical landscapes, I like what I'm getting from the old Cron better, which is more consistent across-frame sharpness at f/5.6 and smaller.

 

To top that off, my results don't really mesh with your example crops, so of course I'm wondering if my second copy is possibly sub-optimal. Given the lottery of getting these kinds of lens problems fixed and Leica's current extremely lengthy turnaround times, I'd rather just return or exchange it (again, which will possibly test the patience of my dealer).

 

 

Some other observations:

 

I prefer the new hood, but when removing the lens from the camera, it's too easy to start to unscrew the hood while trying to remove the lens. A bit of gaffers tape will help...

 

The new lens handles flare better wide open, particularly veiling flare with the sun just out of the frame. But the gap between the lenses narrows a fair amount once stopped down. Both will show the exact same ghosting patterns.

 

The new lens appears to be slightly better corrected for distortion.

 

There has been some question about focus shift. I've tested this a bit and would say there is some. The area behind the wide open point of focus sharpens up much more than the area in front, but there is always sufficient focus on the zone where wide open focus fell. It seems depth of field expands to keep enough focus on area where wide open focus was placed.

 

Looking at the optics of the two lenses side by side and they are pretty much identical. The front element has slightly different coatings, but there is no sign of the exit pupil difference. 6-bit code is the same for both.

Edited by rscheffler
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Just a clarification about possible focus shift - the same behaviour I described above was seen in both the new and old versions. 

 

I hadn't tested the old Cron for focus shift until now but through the years of using it found that I often had to slightly front focus it for certain types of photos. For example, people photos at f/2.8-4 seemed to benefit from this technique, which I now realize shifted the depth of field zone slightly forward so that it was slightly in front of the point I wanted in focus, and not so that the focus only just started at that point and continued behind. Due to the old Cron's field curvature towards infinity and the inevitable focus shift with focus and recompose when placing a subject off-center, it was necessary to intentionally front focus the old Cron. I haven't tested the new Cron yet for this scenario, but it's field curvature towards the camera will likely require slightly different technique.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your review, after reading a bit from others, tipped the scale in favour of the new lens and I ordering one. 

 

 

A good example of how effective these "reviews" are as part of Leica's ongoing marketing mix.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a pity that Leica have not yet released the "Technical Data", i.e. MTF, Distortion etc., for the redesigned lens.

 

I agree and was wondering about this. It's one of the first things I look at before deciding on lens purchases. Instead I had to rely on snippets of images sprinkled across various forums to try to piece together enough information and opinion about whether the lens would be a worthwhile purchase.

 

Unfortunately none painted a full picture about the lens's characteristics, which I only learned the hard way, once I'd paid for one and now will likely take a loss on its return to the dealer as a no longer new lens....

Link to post
Share on other sites

They have but not at the right place i guess:

attachicon.gifLeicaM_2820_v2_tech.pdf

 

Thank you for the link - it's not in the right place on the Leica AG web site.

 

Interestingly the optical diagram in this document shows a 9 element design, (rather like the previous version), also the product description states that it is a 9 element design. 

 

However the engineering section drawing clearly shows it as an 8 element design - hum! 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

A good question. The old 28mm summicron is far better than the old 35 summicron IMO the MTF's are way better the bokeh is way better. The resolution is noticeably higher and I prefer the rendering and colouring

I don't understand.

 

How can you compare two differe t focal lengths and say one is better than the other?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be interested to know which 35/2 in the world is or has been better than the current Summicron. I have only 3 of them (M 35/2 asph, M 35/2 v4 & R 35/2), i like them all but to me the 35/2 asph is still the winner.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be interested to know which 35/2 in the world is or has been better than the current Summicron. I have only 3 of them (M 35/2 asph, M 35/2 v4 & R 35/2), i like them all but to me the 35/2 asph is still the winner.  

 

I quite agree - I think it's a cracking lens . . . I don't know, but I imagine they didn't change it because they didn't think it needed changing. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand.

 

How can you compare two differe t focal lengths and say one is better than the other?

 

Okay here's my view, ignoring image size :

 

It is technically better in respect of the MTF's. Take a look at F2 the ONLY M lens Leica made with better MTF's at F2 under 50mm is the 50 APO. I don't like the tendency for the pink colouring of the 35mm ASPH and the bokeh is not great either. Other than the hood and build issues reported for the old Summicron which I have never experienced the 35 ASPH in my view is MUCH more in need of an upgrade. I also never really liked the images I got from the ASPH, didn't dislike but didnt regret selling it twice. Oh and While I'm on my soap box the hood is small but 'ugly' at best, I know we don't buy things just to look good but design is about combining performance and aesthetics and for me the hood only ticked one of those boxes  ;)

 

I'll be shocked if the 35mm Summicron is not on Karbe's hit list

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...