Leica Glass

[novice9]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This may seem an odd question, but I was wondering to what degree is the superior performance of Leica lenses attributable to the physical glass that Leica uses in their lenses? I am sure Leica designs and construction are first rate, as is the glass itself, but is the glass essentially the same "kind" of glass that the japanese use, or is it better or different? Does some of the Leica magic come from the properties of the physical glass that the light passes through, either because of the way it is made, or that is hand polished, or made from a special combination of minerals, or whatever? If so, what is different about the glass itself in comparison to the japanese?

[jaapv]

Leica used to have their own glass labaratory, where they designed and made their own special glass types. It was, in the end, sold to Schott, who still produce small batches of special recipe glass for Leica. However, the secret of Leica lenses is not the glass itself, but the way it is used in the lens design. Leica has an unparalled expertise in the field and has had the luck to employ a series of the most brilliant lens designers the world has ever seen. Barnack-Mandler-Karbe.

[Advertisement]

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

[Jeff S]

You might be interested in this...Shutterbug: The Leica Lens Saga

 

Or this....http://www.imx.nl/photo/leica/lenses/lenses/page57.html (Note section on glass types)

 

Jeff

Edited January 15, 2010 by Jeff S

[adan]

Lensmakers use optical glass - which just means it is a more precise mixture of silica and other compounds than glass for general use, so that the light-bending characteristics are predictable. To that extent, there is not a lot of difference overall between what Leica uses and what Nikon/Canon use, at least for their best primes and pro zooms.

 

Leica will go the extra mile (and extra $1500) to use premium glass where it will make a difference - as noted in Jeff S's second link, where it is revealed that ONE element of the 50 Summilux ASPH costs more than all the other glass in the lens combined. The same was true of the old Noctilux, which also had one element made of "Noctilux glass" that cost more than the rest of the lens.

 

Nikon and Canon have made and used their own "premium" glass.

 

Canon used artificial (lab-grown) fluorite crystal in place of glass for a while in their early 300 f/2.8 lenses - they may still use it on occasion: Canon Advantage - Fluorite and UD Glass - Canon USA Consumer Products.

 

In the early 50's, as Nikon and Canon were entering the market, it was noted they both were using "rare-earth" glass for some lenses, more so that Leitz or Zeiss had been doing up to that point (rare-earth glass is just silica glass doped with rare-earth elements to change the optical properties - Rare earth element - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). Leica jumped on that bandwagon with the "radioactive" thorium-doped glass in one of the original Summicron designs.

Edited January 16, 2010 by adan

[tdtaylor]

Thanks for the links- fascinating

[Jeff S]

as noted in Jeff S's second link, where it is revealed that ONE element of the 50 Summilux ASPH costs more than all the other glass in the lens combined.

 

...and more than all 7 glass elements of the prior Summilux.

 

Jeff

[offshore]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This may seem an odd question, but I was wondering to what degree is the superior performance of Leica lenses attributable to the physical glass that Leica uses in their lenses? I am sure Leica designs and construction are first rate, as is the glass itself, but is the glass essentially the same "kind" of glass that the japanese use, or is it better or different? Does some of the Leica magic come from the properties of the physical glass that the light passes through, either because of the way it is made, or that is hand polished, or made from a special combination of minerals, or whatever? If so, what is different about the glass itself in comparison to the japanese?

 

I don't know what changes have taken place in Leica glass manufacture since 1991 but I was working at Del's Camera in Santa Barbara then and one evening the Leica rep came in to talk to us about Leica and their processes. He had two glass blanks with him, a Leica blank for the 35 mm F2 Summicron and a blank for the Nikon 35 mm F2.8. The Leitz blank was half the size of the Nikon but weighed almost twice as much. That, to me, would indicate a much denser glass and I don't know if that has anything to do with it but I found it interesting at the time.

[rsolomon]

I also understand that the lens coatings are unique and special in their application, i donlt know or understand the differentce but have heard it what makes leica lenses special and better.

 

on another thread no one really agreed withthe following statement i made but i stand by it .....

 

leica is about lenses....not cameras, Leica is about high quality lenses that provide the ability to capture superior images.

[lars_bergquist]

Apart from a few glasses specially made to recipes from the old Leica glass laboratory, Leica use glass from the catalogs of the major manufacturers, just as everybody else does. What distinguishes Leica products is a certain fanaticism about product quality. They are of course not insensitive to the market, but their market niche is top notch optics, and they know it.

 

Assembly and coating techniques are important too, of course. Leica lenses are manually assembled, and adjusted during assembly, not put together by mindless robots. Yes, you can get a lemon -- but not a turkey. I remember one Japanese lens that arrived minus one element ...

 

The old man from the Screwdriver Age

[clw]

I'm going to read the links, but I just wanted to say that someone once told me that German glass was typically made from Volcanic silica, whereas Japanese glass was made from Volcanic silica. Any truth to this?

[lars_bergquist]

I'm going to read the links, but I just wanted to say that someone once told me that German glass was typically made from Volcanic silica, whereas Japanese glass was made from Volcanic silica. Any truth to this?

This is an old urban legend from the 1950's, when Nikon and Canon lenses first made an impact in the west. It was said then that the 'bite' (i.e. the higher contrast) of Japanese lenses was a result of using volcanic sand in the manufacture of optical glass. Actually, it was a matter of different philosophies: Japanese designers wanted contrast, while the Germans simply counted resolved lines, without much concern for contrast. Contrast, they thought, was something you fixed under the enlarger.

 

But the age of Kodachrome dawned, and you got the contrast the lens gave you, period. The market did soon tell the Germans that counting lines was not enough, and Leica did soon up the contrast. See for instance the difference between the early versions of the 50mm Summicron: Collapsible, low contrast; Rigid higher contrast; early 1960's version of the same, even higher; v.3 even higher ...

 

Optical glass is nowadays made to very detailed and rigid specs, and there is certainly no room for volcanic surprises.

 

The old man from the Age of Crown and Flint

[Digitom]

I think it is not the rawmaterial only. It is in addition a summary of handling, producing, very extreme high quality control, combined with the long experience of the Leica people. They do not "produce" lenses, they "manufacture" them. That makes the leica lens what it is - legendary! If you ever have the chance, visit the Leica manufactory in Solms - it is really great.

[stunsworth]

...someone once told me that German glass was typically made from Volcanic silica, whereas Japanese glass was made from Volcanic silica

 

What's the difference?

[nhabedi]

What's the difference?

 

Maybe the pronunciation?

 

[earleygallery]

Japanese lenses use any old glass, recycled coke bottles mostly in the case of Nikon and Canon lenses (Canon L are different, they use champagne bottles) but Leica use 'lens glass' only.

 

Also you need to consider the air. German air refracts light differently to Japanese air and the air gets trapped in the lenses elements during manufacture.

[lct]

What's the difference?

Not the same volcanos, Steve. German ones are much hotter.

http://tinyurl.com/yeqjf3w

[lars_bergquist]

What's the difference?

The idea was that the volcanic sand contained some rare earth metal compounds, so that the Japanese did inadvertently produce 'rare earth lenses'. This is nonsense. The first optical glasses with e.g. lanthanum oxide were the results of long and difficult evelopment work. The first smeltings were produced, by Kodak and others, already during the 1930's, and they were optically very promising -- except that they were practically opaque! The rare earth glass that Leica developed, and used in the Summicron lenses, was nothing that you just stumble over by pure chance.

 

The old man from the Age B.C.B. (Before Coke Bottles)

[ho_co]

Lars and others have said it above.

 

Leica was able to use its glass lab when glasses of special characteristics weren't commercially available. But that meant a lot of headaches as well as accomplishments, because the glass lab was small, and only one batch of glass could be poured at a time. So if they needed a specific glass for, say, a 28/2.8, those lenses had to wait their turn while the other special types for other lenses were made.

 

I was sorry to see Leica lose a "Unique Selling Proposition" when they closed the lab, particularly since I had visited the lab and watched the pouring of one of the special Noctilux glasses. But it's better business for them to design and build the lenses while purchasing the glass on the market.

 

Occasionally that can cause problems, though: The Tri-Elmar 28-35-50 was discontinued because a certain very-small-production-volume glass was discontinued by one of their suppliers.

 

For more, see Erwin Puts on "the myth of the glass lab" (Cosina glass).

 

 

Oh, FWIW, I once heard someone 'explain' why Leica lenses were so good by saying, "They have good sand in Germany."

 

Right. More of that volcanic ash that's different from someone else's volcanic ash.

Edited January 18, 2010 by ho_co

[giordano]

I remember being told in the 60s by people who'd had their photographic formation in the 30s and 40s that the very best optical glass always had tiny bubbles in it.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[nhabedi]

I think those of you who came with explanations still didn't see what Steve and I saw - that there's no difference between "Volcanic silica" and "Volcanic silica". Look at the original sentence. It's obviously a typo, but it means that one of them (which one?) probably is not Volcanic silica. And if not, what is it then?