new Summilux 35mm [ Merged ]

[ho_co]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

... Sad day for everyone if they have compromised the use of the lens on most of their cameras....

Andy, I agree with Andy on this pretty much.

 

The thing that made the current 35/1.4 so excellent on film was the ability to optimize it to make use of focus shift and the fact that film has thickness.

 

After Tim Ashley's problems with the lens, Leica had to change their test procedures. Some months later LFI reported that if Leica were designing the lens today, it would have a floating element.

 

From appearance and description, the new lens looks to me like an update of the old one. Physically they're very similar; except for the floating element, the description is the same, 9 elements, 5 groups, 1 aspheric surface. (I haven't seen an optical diagram.)

 

I think you're right in one respect: The demands of a plane sensor reduces their flexibility in making use of spherical aberration as they could do previously. (As they told Tim before they understood the problem, this was the way the Summilux was supposed to work; the Summicron 35 had much less of the behavior; and the 28 Elmarit none. As Andy said, they've already been moving this direction.)

 

Some years back, Erwin Puts had an article on what "designing for digital" meant, and concluded that there was no difference between analog and digital lenses. That held at the time.

 

All the phrase means is, "we've taken care of those little snags the M8 revealed."

 

Remember, when they designed the f/0.95 Noctilux, they were careful to keep wide open performance almost identical with that of the f/1.0. Leica has such a fabulous lens in the current 35/1.4 that they're not about to mess that up in the new one.

[yanidel]

On top of the focus shift issue, I think the important factors towards an "upgrade"/purchase decision will be :

- rendering wide open, will it retain the signature and smoothness of the current one ?

- will contrast be stronger? The current version is contrasty but not too excessive like other Asph lenses.

- weight/size. I would love that the current 35mm Lux Asph be a bit smaller as I use it as my main lens. This one seems a bit bigger, though not heavier.

 

Let's see what comes out of the first reviews when it is released, but so far I see no reason to sell my current version and put another €2000 on the table. The focus shift is a minor bug to me compared to the wonderful imagery I get from it.

[rosuna]

The pictures of the lens with and without the sun hood are a bit strange. How may yo put in the screw-type hood? I don't see screw marks on the front of the lens...

[rosuna]

The focus shift is a major bug, and it makes the lens difficult to use. I am unable to adapt to this "feature". It is very difficult to focus with accuracy when you are taking pictures fast, on the street. The focus displacement is serious. More than 1 meter of backfocus for objects at 3m or so, f/2.8. The current lens is a great design but in digital it cannot be comfortably used.

[lct]

The hood can be rectangular or screw-in but not both IMHO.

[doug_m]

The hood can be rectangular or screw-in but not both IMHO.

 

The 24 lux is both rectangular and screw in. I think the 21 lux is as well, but am not sure of this. It must be a pain for Leica to make such lenses so that the hood is square with the body rather than tilted one way or the other.

[luigi bertolotti]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The hood can be rectangular or screw-in but not both IMHO.

 

But they declare is this way... and specify it's "patented" ! I wonder if it's so easy to have a patent granted for a honest hood...

 

... delicious they don't forget to detail that the lens uses the in-camera Viewfinder... except on M3...

[andybarton]

Just a thought. Is the Ukranian Leica site legit? It seems a little odd that some of the pages have adverts for completely seperate companies on it.

[andybarton]

Andy, I agree with Andy on this pretty much.

 

Fair enough

 

I was just asking a question that may well be on the minds of other film users.

[luigi bertolotti]

Just a thought. Is the Ukranian Leica site legit? It seems a little odd that some of the pages have adverts for completely seperate companies on it.

 

Seems to me there is some oddity into this site (but, of course, can't read a word in Ukrainan)... the red dot of the underwater housing is also a bit strange... but it looks a fantastic design, if true... with some doubt about the effective RF usage...

[UliWer]

The 24 lux is both rectangular and screw in. I think the 21 lux is as well, but am not sure of this. It must be a pain for Leica to make such lenses so that the hood is square with the body rather than tilted one way or the other.

 

The 3.8/18 also has this design for the rectangular screw-in hood. It works very smooth and precise, clicking in at the right position. The best solution for a lenshood I have seen yet.

[UliWer]

Seems to me there is some oddity into this site (but, of course, can't read a word in Ukrainan)... the red dot of the underwater housing is also a bit strange... but it looks a fantastic design, if true... with some doubt about the effective RF usage...

 

Hasn't there been an underwater housing for the IIIf or IIIg? Not sure about this, as I havn't got my reference books at hand.

 

Though it seems strange that the "housing" is said to fit the M8, or M8.2 (as fas as I can decipher the Ukranian writing, which I can't... ) - but not the M9; I don't see a reason for this.

 

BTW: the link to this site shows a different content now than I saw this morning. This morning it was obviously a pdf for dealers, giving the net prices...

[lct]

The 24 lux is both rectangular and screw in. I think the 21 lux is as well, but am not sure of this. It must be a pain for Leica to make such lenses so that the hood is square with the body rather than tilted one way or the other.

Ah yes thanks looks like i'm outdated on that. Do those hoods click in the right position?

[Guest zwicko]

pdf file no longer available...

[UliWer]

pdf file no longer available...

 

If it were still available this would be a sign that the pdf was a fraud.

[rsh]

The price will far surpass what I would be willing to pay for a lens.

[tgray]

If any one wants to see it, pm me with your email address.

[lars_bergquist]

Lars ! A quick question : what would you do if you had :

- A Summicron 35 Asph

- A Summilux 50 of 1963 - perfect - and no other (newer) 50 ?

 

(supposing you are in the mood to buy ONE lens ?)

Luigi --

 

I MIGHT sell the 35mm Summicron ASPH -- but I do have a v.4 Summicron nicely coded and refurbished, and I have no intention to sell it. It is a wonderfuly compact and remarkably good 'walking out lens'.

 

I have owned a late version (collapsible hood, chrome) v.2 Summilux and it is a lovely lens, within its limitations. I now own a Summilux ASPH and this is a wonderlens you simply don't sell -- how many used specimens have you seen lately?

 

On the other hand, I do have a 28mm Summicron, near mint, and I find that I do not use it with the M9. So I will probably sell it. My preferred 'real wide angle lens' is the Zeiss 25mm Distagon.

 

The old man from the Age of the Box Camera

[adan]

Points about the lens shade/hood:

 

1. This has been Leica's new paradigm for add-on lens shades ever since the WATE. The following recent lenses all have external threads to screw on (not "in") lens shades - most of them rectangular:

 

16-28-21 Tri-Elmar

18 Elmar

21 Summilux

24 Summilux

24 Elmar

35 Summarit

50 Summarit

75 Summarit

90 Summarit

 

The threads are covered with a removable screw-on protection ring when no shade is mounted, in some cases (Summarits, 24 Elmar - apparently this new 35). Unscrew the protective ring to expose the threads, screw on the lens hood - then try to remember to put the protective ring in a safe and easy-to-find place.

 

For the rectangular shades, there is a stop so that the rectangle aligns with the image rectangle. In the WATE it was a step in the shade that hit a step on the lens. The more recent designs just change the thread pitch at the end of travel to cause intentional binding of the threads at the proper point, both to stop the shade and also provide extra friction to lock the shade in place.

 

RE underwater housing. I didn't see the link - but generally UW photography is done with extreme wide-angles, due to the fact that the housing/water interface acts as a focal-length extender. The prime dedicated UW camera for decades was the Nikonos, which scale-focused with 20-28-35-80mm lenses. No reason why a Leica M with 16 to 35 lenses could not work just as well, without access to the RF.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[pgk]

I was looking through that website and this is interesting, an underwater M case:

Leica Camera Ukraine -

I would be VERY surprised if this is legit!!!

 

Firstly, assuming that you could see through the viewfinder, which I would say would be near impossible with a diving mask on unless a high eye-point auxiliary viewfinder was fitted to the housing, the the rangefinder will not work accurately underwater. And secondly, using a flat port for a 28mm lens will create substantial optical problems in the corners as well as substantial distortion - the Nikonos 28mm lens had a concave front port as part of its design. I cannot see Leica endorsing the design shown, which looks like a 'point and shoot' design housing (perfectly possible to build) with a flat port and irrelevant windows.

 

Underwater photography has moved on and the idea of using an M underwater is sadly laughable - its size appeals but nothing else. Elcan used to produce underwater corrected lenses and if Leica were to build a housing then I assume that with high MPixel sensors, they would have to look at proper (and expensive) optical solutions.