colorflow Posted October 22, 2009 Share #41 Posted October 22, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Be this as it may - but this is a question of tolerances, of quality standards - and many claim the chrome lenses have better quality. IF there is REALLY an issue with the black LuxA 35s compared to the chromes, this issue is NOT of SA or focus shift, but another, that hasn't been discussed in full. I remember sb claiming a lens inside the blacks might not be fitted correctly or could come out of the correct position and the "aspherical" was better in this regard. But this would be another issue. We should not mess different issues up, when there is a problem with a lens. This drives everyone crazy. The bottom line is it is what it is. There are good ones and not so good ones out there. The good ones draw exceptionally beautiful pictures in my opinion (and many others'). I think the backfocusing problem is a little overblown. It is not difficult to find a good one either in black or chrome. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 22, 2009 Posted October 22, 2009 Hi colorflow, Take a look here 35mm on M9. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
rebelfocus Posted October 23, 2009 Share #42 Posted October 23, 2009 I have just tested my new M9 with my 35mm Summilux ASPH and cannot see any discernible focus shift issues at the different apertures. Additionally, it takes on a new sharpness, richness and depth that I was never able to get on the cropped frame of my M8.2. I'm getting the same character as I see on film but strangely with even snappier focus. The 35mm Lux ASPH was bought new in early 2009 so I wonder if samples from recent manufacturing runs have been optimised for an f-stop that just works well better with digital Ms. It's possible that I just lucked out with a good sample but I would prefer to give Leica the benefit of the doubt; they know what they are doing. I don't doubt that some focus-shift issues are inherent in the design of many fast lenses that don't have floating elements. However, with good testing and calibration this can be minimised to be hardly noticeable in real-world shooting. If you have problems with the one you have it might be worth sending it back to have it adjusted. For those of you lusting after the 35 Lux ASPH, please don't be put off by all this talk of focus-shift problems. It's an gorgeous lens and a perfect fit for the M9. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
footsurg Posted November 17, 2009 Share #43 Posted November 17, 2009 Is there a chance that I might damage my new M9 by trying to fit and focus my 35mm lux (Circa 1975)? Richard Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted November 17, 2009 Share #44 Posted November 17, 2009 Richard - should be OK. I'm using a c. 1970 35 f/1.4 myself, and have also tried a much more recent (probably mid-1990's) titanium 35 f/1.4 (pre-ASPH) that fitted fine. The M9 has a slightly larger - well, it used to be called a film chamber, so I guess "sensor chamber" is the phrase - and it doesn't seem to obstruct the 35 f/1.4's protective flange the way the M8 did. In any case, the 35 f/1.4 doesn't get anywhere near the shutter, which is what some lenses might damage (collapsible 90, Zeiss Hologon, e.g.) Of course, it wouldn't hurt to be - careful - on the first trial. Leica includes the non-ASPH 35 f/1.4 on their internal menu of lens corrections, so they obviously think it can be used.... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
footsurg Posted November 17, 2009 Share #45 Posted November 17, 2009 Adan, Thanks for calming my fears. Its just that the instruction book that comes with the M9 says not to use "some" of these lenses but they don't elucidate. I wonder why. I'll be gentle and try it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted November 17, 2009 Share #46 Posted November 17, 2009 I suspect there may have been some variations in the design of that flange or rim that protects the rear element over the years (lens was in production from 1961-1997 or so), and perhaps some are large enough to still bind against the inside of the camera. Thus Leica's caveat. Only "damage" likely would be marring the matte black paint in the camera mouth, in the area of that semi-circular cutout in the bottom. Suggestion - set the lens to minimum focus (1 meter) for mounting on your first trial, and then slowly focus to infinity. You'll be able to feel resistance if the flange starts to hit something, otherwise it's OK. If it does happen to bind, Leica or other service shops can trim the protective rim to fit. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
markowich Posted November 17, 2009 Share #47 Posted November 17, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) as i have mentioned in another thread, i have just tested two lenses: a 35mm lul asph. in titanium finish and a black 35mm cron asph. i could not dedect any focus shift in the titanium lux and some in the cron. no idea what the reason is....but i am going to keep the titanium lux and send back the cron. p This forum is an excellent source of information (and opinion, God help us). It is also a prime source of superstition. When skimming through this thread I find again that old chestnut about black lenses shifting focus and chrome lenses not, or at least less. The purveyors of this 'information', which is of course always unsubstantiated and anecdotical, seem to think that it is the brass and the aluminum, or even the surface finish, that bends the light. Focus shift is caused by spherical aberration which is a feature of all spherical lens surfaces, be they mounted in brass, ormolu or mahogany ... This SA can be corrected to a high degree in slow lenses, because the effect is caused by the difference between axial and peripheral rays, and thus ultimately by the radius of the lens. From 1:2.8 or so, SA starts to become troublesome, and is of course a prime headache in a Summilux-speed lens. And all this is in the glass. Got it? We have had since about 1610 to get it, but some people seem incapable of understanding what it is in the lens that bends the light. Little chromium-plated imps? The effect proposed would have been possible if chromed lenses were systematically adjusted for final focus differently than black lenses, back in Solms. Anybody who wants to make that claim -- and to corroborrate it with evidence and reasoning? Why the devil would they do that? The old man from the Age of Reason (v-e-e-r-y long ago) Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tashley Posted November 17, 2009 Share #48 Posted November 17, 2009 Well, as the person who started this entire whinge off nearly three years ago I can only say that I would love to get one of these perfect focussing 35 luxes. I tried two, and two crons, in detail with tripods and carefully focus bracketed sequences and they all suffered focus shift that was, to me at least, unacceptable. And this behaviour was positively identified by Leica themselves as normal for the design. But there are so many reports of chrome/silver/titanium finish luxes that don't have the problem that I am tempted. Trouble is, they don't make them in anything other than black these days and I am not sure when they stopped making the others, nor whether they have the same optical design in terms of CA, distortion, etc. A non-focus-shifting 35 lux would be my ultimate treat. If anyone can tell me where to find one (or demonstrate that they behave better on M9s than M8s) then I'd be a very happy bunny! Tim Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.