pico Posted January 19, 2011 Share #1 Posted January 19, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) . It might be very interesting if Leica introduced 'vintage' optics into their new line. The retro-lenses would be free of fungus, scratches (so common with earlier lenses) and so-forth and retain the nature of earlier lenses; if the originals were not coated, then the new versions should also not be coated. (Think of the manufacturing savings) I would vote for a re-introduction of the 1949 Summitar 50mm. I would also wish version II of the 35mm Summilux. (Place your favorites here. There is lots of room for suggestions!) Such a line could be a major market that fits well within the Leica heritage. Certainly, none of the Asian manufactures would dare to follow for many reasons - the greatest being that their clients have no historical knowledge of rendering, and also because they do not care - their clients read MTF charts (or have no interest) or sort their preferences from lowest price to highest. Bringing back vintage optics could challenge the photographic community to consider what really matters. It ain't all about MTF! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 19, 2011 Posted January 19, 2011 Hi pico, Take a look here Back to the Future for Leica Lenses. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
pgk Posted January 19, 2011 Share #2 Posted January 19, 2011 Whilst its an interesting idea, I actually wonder if glass of the same specifications as used in the original lenses is still available. If not it would mean redesigning the lenses and to do so and mimic older lens' attributes would probably be just as expensive as producing a new and 'better' design. Given a low volume of sales I'd doubt that this would be worthwhile. It might however be worth considering that, provided the mechanics of an old lens are fine, damaged or worn elements might be replaceable if the glass is available, although I suspect repairers would be doing this if possible already. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UliWer Posted January 19, 2011 Share #3 Posted January 19, 2011 .It might be very interesting if Leica introduced 'vintage' optics into their new line. The retro-lenses would be free of fungus, scratches (so common with earlier lenses) and so-forth and retain the nature of earlier lenses; if the originals were not coated, then the new versions should also not be coated. (Think of the manufacturing savings) I would vote for a re-introduction of the 1949 Summitar 50mm. .... Well, wishlists are coming up again just one months after Christmas. I don't think this is realistic. The Summitar for example is one of the lenses with the highest production nuimers ever, so yopu won't have too much problems to find some in almost mint condition on the second hand market for about 200,-€ or considerably less. A new one by Leica would cost five times at much - to get the same faults and restrictions the old lens had. There might be a chance for limited editions of some classical lenses (5cm Elmar, rigid Summicron) with new glass. Leica already did this for the Anastigmat which was fixed to the retro edition of the Leica "0-Serie". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted January 19, 2011 Share #4 Posted January 19, 2011 I've always advocated that Leica should have made at least a few (say 35/50/90) lenses available in LTM mount. Yes, I know they released a limited batch of 35 and 50's a while back but they've become 'collectors' items and are more expensive than the M versions. It's a shame they discontinued the 50 2.8 Elmar, that would have made an ideal LTM lens. I can't be the only person whose Barnack was given a new lease of life from buying Voigtlander glass for it. It also has something of that 'vintage' look. As for recreating the vintage lenses, it's an interesting idea, but they would again most likely be in the realm of collectors with prices to match. You can buy a very clean 5cm 3.5 Elmar for £150-£300, and I saw a mint/boxed 5cm Summar (which I'll always regret not buying) for £300. How much would a new issue version cost? £2000? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted January 19, 2011 Share #5 Posted January 19, 2011 Hi I'm sure 1st officer Spock or Scotti...said something to his commander, The glass catalogue is controlled by factory hazard legal eagles, the glass in used in Summitars/Elmars, quarantined long time ago, e.g. lead, thorium, all verboten. The CV 35mm f1.2 production currently closed cause of unavailability of a particular glass, a normal event. Because the refractive index at the time were so limited (1.65 or less typically), the lenses needed to be ground to very small radi, and some tolerances were thereby very tight, this made the process very expensive, lots of discards... Reproductions well expensive, current lenses have large radia and large tolerances, cheap, e.g. the current 5cm cron has many plane surfaces, easy peasy. Some of the glasses used were prone to dissolve in industrial atmospheres or when exposed to lubricant fumes. Acquiring shootable examples only practical cause few people like antique lenses signatures. Modern glasses 1.9 typically and melt at low enough temperatures to be poured in to cermaic moulds. Some of the modern glasses are unstable and only now viable cause of the 'teflon' quality coating that needs to be applied immediatley after final polish. I use old Contax, Nikon, Leitz and Canon lenses. Startled when some people like the signature, they are just mechanical toys to me. Cosina initially planned for a 500 off limited batch of the SC 40mm f/1.4 for the Ja market, they learnt a bitter lesson, think they were eventually manufactured 50/50 SC/MC. So there is a marketing problem that is not small Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UliWer Posted January 19, 2011 Share #6 Posted January 19, 2011 ...It's a shame they discontinued the 50 2.8 Elmar, that would have made an ideal LTM lens.... In 2013 we'll see some "100 years Leica" editions. An Elmar-M 3.5/5cm apo. asph. would be on my wishlist (though I don't know what aspherical lenses would do in an Elmar). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted January 19, 2011 Share #7 Posted January 19, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) They don't have the capacity to make the lenses in the catalogue now... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted January 19, 2011 Share #8 Posted January 19, 2011 Surely there must be an iPod/iPad app to just that already isn't there? Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted January 19, 2011 Author Share #9 Posted January 19, 2011 Thank you all. I get some goofy ideas at times. There are some new lenses out there that attempt to replicate classic 'looks' of earlier lenses, but I'm only aware of LF and MF versions, for example, Cooke's Portrait PS945, and the Imagon. I would love to try a Thambar, but I'd like to live in Monaco, too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tobey bilek Posted January 19, 2011 Share #10 Posted January 19, 2011 I have 2 mint Summitars, a nearly mint 50 1.5 Summarit all with original shades. The wides were junk until the Summaron 3.5. 50 Elmars are still good. I put my 125 2.5 on the Nikon D3. Yummy is all I can say. The glass types can no longer be made so they are impossible to recreate. Leica closed the glass factory 20 years ago. That was the last of the Noctilux glass for 50 1.0, 75 1.4, 80 1.4 R lens. That glass has a ten year cooling period so it would not crack. Nobody will make it today. Plus it contained high amounts of lead which can not be used today. I picked up 1" cube one time. It weighed two pounds. What a shock. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted January 19, 2011 Share #11 Posted January 19, 2011 I wouldn't suggest Leica simply remake old lenses, but it would be nice if they had a line of lenses that gave you more to work with, like lower contrast lenses do. Its easy to increase contrast in an image, less easy to reduce it. Another stop of digital dynamic range could be had if lenses weren't made to comply with the 'nice and contrasty' mantra that seems to define a good lens nowadays. So lets have some internal shuffling of the light, not to take away detail, but to lift those dense shadows and dampen those harsh highlights. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest nafpie Posted January 19, 2011 Share #12 Posted January 19, 2011 Leica: Please look forward. Be innovative. Don't look back. A new 'retro lens' can't substitute a real oltimer. And there are enough oltimers out there. Stefan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted January 19, 2011 Share #13 Posted January 19, 2011 The logic being expressed in this thread is exactly why I bought a new Sonnar last year instead of a Summilux... Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest nafpie Posted January 19, 2011 Share #14 Posted January 19, 2011 many plane surfaces, easy peasy. Are you sure? I heared making a plane surface is more difficult (=more expensive) compared to a spheric one. Stefan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
giordano Posted January 19, 2011 Share #15 Posted January 19, 2011 Are you sure? I heared making a plane surface is more difficult (=more expensive) compared to a spheric one. For one thing, centering isn't an issue when one's grinding a flat surface on a lens. Is it possible that you're thinking of workshop practice, where it's possible to create a spherical surface by simply by grinding two pieces of glass or metal together by hand with some abrasive, but impossible to create a truly flat surface that way (you have to work with at least three pieces). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
spylaw4 Posted January 20, 2011 Share #16 Posted January 20, 2011 Instead of pfaffing around with re-creating the past, and indeed making special editions (Titan, Hermes etc) which divert precious resources away from standard production (why is there a shortage of a particular lens - 'cos the glass was needed elsewhere perhaps?) Leica should concentrate on producing their current lens line-up to satisfy the huge backlog of orders. Anyone tried to get a 0.95 Noctilux of late? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted January 20, 2011 Share #17 Posted January 20, 2011 How many would they SELL ? few---->stellar prices...and probably not with the ur-glasses... many old lenses are available for cheap, and being of strictly hand made assemblying, are even possible to be CLAed/repolished... and are even nice to have: personally, I'd prefer a very good original Elmar 5cm over a similar lens with a 4.xxx.xxx s/n...and a high cost . If I have to put lot of money in a lens I prefer it is : 1) Brand new and technologically "modern" (say... a Summilux 21) OR 2) Very old, rare, in good conditions (say... a VG black Summarex 85) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
timd. Posted January 20, 2011 Share #18 Posted January 20, 2011 .Certainly, none of the Asian manufactures would dare to follow for many reasons - the greatest being that their clients have no historical knowledge of rendering, and also because they do not care - their clients read MTF charts (or have no interest) or sort their preferences from lowest price to highest. hmmm. which company made single coated 35/1,4 lenses one or two years ago, just to give japanese b&w-geeks what they wanted? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest nafpie Posted January 20, 2011 Share #19 Posted January 20, 2011 For one thing, centering isn't an issue when one's grinding a flat surface on a lens. Is it possible that you're thinking of workshop practice, where it's possible to create a spherical surface by simply by grinding two pieces of glass or metal together by hand with some abrasive, but impossible to create a truly flat surface that way (you have to work with at least three pieces). For example compare 1/4λ Precision Spherical Mirrors - Edmund Optics with 1/4λ Spherical Mirrors - Edmund Optics A spherical mirror with 8" (20cm) diameter and 1/4 lambda quality is around US$ 800, a flat mirror in the same size and surface quality around US$ 2.000. Stefan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
giordano Posted January 20, 2011 Share #20 Posted January 20, 2011 Interesting. Can you account for the difference? Edit: on looking at the Edmund Optics specs I see that the 8" dia. 24" FL spherical mirror has a focal length tolerance of ±2%. With a concave spherical mirror the focal length is half the radius of the sphere. So this mirror is a cap of a sphere of radius 48" ±2%, i.e. anywhere between 1.2436 metres and 1.1948 metres. A few Pythagorean calculations show that if we think of the mirror as a dish its depth is between about 4.157mm and 4.328mm - i.e. a variation of up to 0.17mm between samples. No doubt this is acceptable in a spherical mirror - but it wouldn't be acceptable if a mirror sold as flat were in fact dished or bowed to anything like that extent. In a precision mirror, flat means flat. On the other hand, in dioptric lens manufacture, I can't think of any reason why a "flat" surface should be ground to higher precision than a spherical one. BTW, this fits with my earlier point about workshop practice: with two pieces of glass or metal it's simple to grind a spherical surface - but only if you're not very fussy about its radius. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.