M9--35 Lux or cron

[wattsy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

In my experience of the 35 Summilux ASPH (I've owned two and tried three or four others), it arrives from the factory in one of three states:

 

1) It back-focusses at all apertures - including F1.4. This is the worst possible scenario for this lens (at least when used on a digital M) because the focus shift exacerbates the backfocus through F2-F8. Unfortunately, most of the Summiluxes I've tried (and the first I owned) are like this. The only way to get the full benefit of the lens sharpness is to learn to tweak the focus slightly after nailing the focus in the rangefinder - a wholly unsatisfactory situation.

2) The lens is bang on at F1.4 but displays shift (less optimum focus) between F2-F8. My 35 Summilux is like this and was specifically calibrated at the factory prior to purchase as being suitable for use on the M8 (the poster above with the M9 and 35 on order might note this). I've learned to live with the lens like this but do tend to treat the lens as an F1.4-F2 only lens.

3) As described in one of the posts above where the lens is "calibrated to distribute the focus imperfection over a broader range of apertures". I've actually never used one like this but it makes sense as being the calibration that minimises the effects of focus shift and, in my opinion, explains why some users claim to have a 35 Summilux that doesn't focus shift.

 

Incidentally, there are a number of forum members (stand up Lars) who claim that those who complain about the focus shift are whinging pixel peepers, etc. This is bollocks as anyone who owns the lens in either of the first two categories would be able to attest. The focus shift is sufficient at middling apertures to be obvious even at very modest enlargements.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[markowich]

In my experience of the 35 Summilux ASPH (I've owned two and tried three or four others), it arrives from the factory in one of three states:

 

1) It back-focusses at all apertures - including F1.4. This is the worst possible scenario for this lens (at least when used on a digital M) because the focus shift exacerbates the backfocus through F2-F8. Unfortunately, most of the Summiluxes I've tried (and the first I owned) are like this. The only way to get the full benefit of the lens sharpness is to learn to tweak the focus slightly after nailing the focus in the rangefinder - a wholly unsatisfactory situation.

2) The lens is bang on at F1.4 but displays shift (less optimum focus) between F2-F8. My 35 Summilux is like this and was specifically calibrated at the factory prior to purchase as being suitable for use on the M8 (the poster above with the M9 and 35 on order might note this). I've learned to live with the lens like this but do tend to treat the lens as an F1.4-F2 only lens.

3) As described in one of the posts above where the lens is "calibrated to distribute the focus imperfection over a broader range of apertures". I've actually never used one like this but it makes sense as being the calibration that minimises the effects of focus shift and, in my opinion, explains why some users claim to have a 35 Summilux that doesn't focus shift.

 

Incidentally, there are a number of forum members (stand up Lars) who claim that those who complain about the focus shift are whinging pixel peepers, etc. This is bollocks as anyone who owns the lens in either of the first two categories would be able to attest. The focus shift is sufficient at middling apertures to be obvious even at very modest enlargements.

 

i bought a 35mm Summicron today. first tests show that it shows its best performance at f2, then very slightly deteriorates, probably nothing like the Lux but still.... this is consistent with sean reid's findings. so at this point i am deliberating to send it back and get the Summarit instead.

peter

[air]

2) The lens is bang on at F1.4 but displays shift (less optimum focus) between F2-F8. My 35 Summilux is like this and was specifically calibrated at the factory prior to purchase as being suitable for use on the M8 (the poster above with the M9 and 35 on order might note this). I've learned to live with the lens like this but do tend to treat the lens as an F1.4-F2 only lens.

 

Wattsy,

 

I've read a lot which is exactly confirming what you say. But what I don't understand is, how can it be an issue to focus correctly at F8? Isn't the DOF "wide" enough in 99% of the cases? I'm planning to buy this lense - and I could live with it, if I just can use it at F1.4 and F8. You don't think, this works?

 

Michael

[yanidel]

Wattsy,

 

I've read a lot which is exactly confirming what you say. But what I don't understand is, how can it be an issue to focus correctly at F8? Isn't the DOF "wide" enough in 99% of the cases? I'm planning to buy this lense - and I could live with it, if I just can use it at F1.4 and F8. You don't think, this works?

 

Michael

that would mean you restrict yourself to very thin DOF (F1.4) or everything in focus (F8).

Reality is that the aperture is here to play with the DOF so sometimes you want to be in between these extremes.

[air]

that would mean you restrict yourself to very thin DOF (F1.4) or everything in focus (F8).

Reality is that the aperture is here to play with the DOF so sometimes you want to be in between these extremes.

 

I know - and I don't like it

But I do about 90% at F1.4 and 8% at F8 I guess (not the entire truth but not far away from it)

I don't see any alternative?! Maybe the Nokton 1.2 - but this one is too large and heavy for me

[Mokkacream]

Come on, is it really that difficult?

I do not understand this discussion anymore.

Just wait until Spring 2010. Then this issue won't be one anymore.

[wattsy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Just wait until Spring 2010. Then this issue won't be one anymore.

 

Quite possibly but that doesn't help anyone looking to buy a 35 now. A new version of the 35 Summiliux will also no doubt hit a new price point for Leica 35mm lenses - my guess would be well in excess of £3000 - so it may not be quite the answer everyone is looking for. My advice for anyone concerned about the focus shift is simple - buy the Summicron. It's a 'non-sexy' lens that you can't go wrong with.

[biglouis]

What do you want a 35 for? If it is for landscape work then does focus shift even matter? If you want clever focus selection stuff then I'd have thought on a M9 a lux-50-asph or even a cron-75-asph would be better.

 

Personally, my lux-35 is my favourite lens on either my M8 or my M7. For landscape work I can count on sharpness right down to f1.4 (at or before dawn).

 

LouisB

[Jeff S]

2) The lens is bang on at F1.4 but displays shift (less optimum focus) between F2-F8. My 35 Summilux is like this and was specifically calibrated at the factory prior to purchase as being suitable for use on the M8

 

This focus shift is common among some fast lenses, even the 35 cron. Sean Reid performs excellent tests in his reviews, particularly in his review of various 35 RF lenses, including the Leica 35 lux and cron.

 

In fact, his test on the cron matches mine exactly...focus is accurate at f2 and f2.8, then shifts back slightly at f4 and even more at f5.6, then fine thereafter. But, one must also take into account (as Sean's tests do) subject distance and increased DOF when stopped down. So, for practical purposes, with subjects usually greater than a few feet away, there is no problem...as my prints show.

 

Jeff

[luigi bertolotti]

Andreas, you must be a VIP.

Where did you buy an M9 (or just the M8.2?), a new Nocti 0.95 and a Lux 24 all at once?

If you're not kidding, then you're a lucky man indeed.

 

Maybe "Where" is allusive to the fact that there is another lucky man... the dealer : M9+Noct+Lux24 is a pleasant single order to take on...

[Mauribix]

Maybe "Where" is allusive to the fact that there is another lucky man... the dealer : M9+Noct+Lux24 is a pleasant single order to take on...

 

Oh yes Luigi!

Then it's not easy to find a dealer with both a 24lux and a 0.95 nocti togethere with an M9 on the shelf!

I'm still waiting for the 24lux to show up at my local dealer's shop!

[markowich]

Come on, is it really that difficult?

I do not understand this discussion anymore.

Just wait until Spring 2010. Then this issue won't be one anymore.

 

any definite information about that or only the rumor mill?

peter

[Bo_Lorentzen]

Hmm.

 

I still have my CV 35 1.4 - it too have the backfocus issue, so it works great at 1.4 wide open and at 5.6 and down... fits me fine.

 

Am buying a 35cron for now. if there is a new future 35 lux, I might re-evaluate this entire thing.

 

.

[lars_bergquist]

[ ... ] Incidentally, there are a number of forum members (stand up Lars) who claim that those who complain about the focus shift are whinging pixel peepers, etc. This is bollocks as anyone who owns the lens in either of the first two categories would be able to attest. The focus shift is sufficient at middling apertures to be obvious even at very modest enlargements.

I am completely unrepentant. I am speaking of practical photography. I have stated repeatedly that both experiments and field observation (in galleries etc.) indicate that when we visually process a picture *as a picture*, i.e. in its entirety, and not by parts, as a technical specimen, we spontaneously seek the viewing angle that corresponds to a viewing distance equal to the diagonal of the square format. So that is my criterion. What you will see, and object to, using a 7x magnifier on a one meter print while standing on your head, is your personal problem, and not mine.

 

So, yes, my specimen of the 35 Summilux is bang on at 1.4 and does show some focus shift when stopping down (and when using a 7x magnifier etc.) The point is that I do not give a damn. You are talking of shifts that lie well inside the focusing tolerance -- that of the rangefinder, and even more your and mine own. There are people who incessantly wash their hands, suffer from bacteria panic or won't tread on the seams between paving stones too. That behaviour is neurotic.

 

The old man from the Age of Box Cameras

[wattsy]

What you will see, and object to, using a 7x magnifier on a one meter print while standing on your head, is your personal problem, and not mine.

 

I'm talking about the difference between a soft looking face and a sharp looking face (focussed at a distance of say 5 yards) in something like a 10" x 8" print at normal viewing distance. The shift between F2.8-F5.6 takes the point focussed on well out of normal DOF. Sorry Lars but I'm also unrepentant and insist you are talking bollocks (not the only time I may add).

[manilius]

Apologies!

 

I earlier said that the appearance of a new 35mm Lux in the 2010 would be merely 'wishful thinking'... (Based on an email I received from Leica UK)...

 

However, I have since been told by Leica Germany, that a new 35mm Lux WILL be available in early March, 2010...

 

So, I'm now going to buy a 35mm Cron for my M9, use that until March, then try and get hold of a new Lux for a weekend and compare the results... And perhaps trade up!

[Mauribix]

Apologies!

 

I earlier said that the appearance of a new 35mm Lux in the 2010 would be merely 'wishful thinking'... (Based on an email I received from Leica UK)...

 

However, I have since been told by Leica Germany, that a new 35mm Lux WILL be available in early March, 2010...

 

So, I'm now going to buy a 35mm Cron for my M9, use that until March, then try and get hold of a new Lux for a weekend and compare the results... And perhaps trade up!

 

I'm so please to read a gentleman's word. No apologies needed.

Good luck with your 35mm future!

 

all the best,

Maurizio

[Bo_Lorentzen]

manilius,

 

Well that probably answers a question for me, picking up a used 35 cron for now.

 

.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[fotografr]

I am completely unrepentant. I am speaking of practical photography. I have stated repeatedly that both experiments and field observation (in galleries etc.) indicate that when we visually process a picture *as a picture*, i.e. in its entirety, and not by parts, as a technical specimen, we spontaneously seek the viewing angle that corresponds to a viewing distance equal to the diagonal of the square format. So that is my criterion. What you will see, and object to, using a 7x magnifier on a one meter print while standing on your head, is your personal problem, and not mine.

 

So, yes, my specimen of the 35 Summilux is bang on at 1.4 and does show some focus shift when stopping down (and when using a 7x magnifier etc.) The point is that I do not give a damn. You are talking of shifts that lie well inside the focusing tolerance -- that of the rangefinder, and even more your and mine own. There are people who incessantly wash their hands, suffer from bacteria panic or won't tread on the seams between paving stones too. That behaviour is neurotic.

 

The old man from the Age of Box Cameras

 

I will echo that comment. This whole discussion got me wondering about my own 35 Summicron ASPH, so I got it out, set up a tripod, taped my lens test chart to the wall and ran tests at f2, 2.8, 4 and 5.6. The result: Yes, there is a very minute focus shift. I can see it clearly when I blow the images up 200%. However, in day to day use, is this something I am ever going to notice or care about? Absolutely not.

 

Now I'm going back out to shoot.

[michali]

I bought a new 35mm Summilux about 3 weeks ago and have had it just about glued on to the M9 since.

 

I have found a small amount of back focusing at f1.4 at a distance of 2 to 3 metres from the subject. It's only really noticeable when looking at a 100% crop on the computer screen.

On my particular lens the back focus issue just about disappears from f2.0 onwards

When shooting at f1.4 I now compensate for it, focus and roll focus back maybe 2mm.

 

I must agree with Lars & Brent, in reality it's not an issue, and well within tolerances. IMO it only becomes an issue because we have the ability to examine every square mm of the image on a computer screen, and only for those who are inclined to do so.