jaapv Posted January 20, 2012 Share #41 Posted January 20, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Cheers and prosit! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 20, 2012 Posted January 20, 2012 Hi jaapv, Take a look here the 35 summicron asph sharpness issue continued. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
lct Posted January 20, 2012 Share #42 Posted January 20, 2012 Hehe for those interested: Chateau Pesquie - Visit us Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografr Posted January 20, 2012 Share #43 Posted January 20, 2012 Hehe for those interested: Chateau Pesquie - Visit us They make some great wines! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografr Posted January 20, 2012 Share #44 Posted January 20, 2012 Cheers and prosit! Back at you, Jaap! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LotharZhou Posted January 22, 2012 Author Share #45 Posted January 22, 2012 thanks for the test, that's how it should look like for a normal summicron asph, however mine isn't even close to this. I am getting a Biogon anyway. After reading this thread I decided to put my 35/2 asph on my M8 and run a quick test. My conclusion is that you must have a bad copy. I can't imagine needing a lens to be sharper than this. The image was shot at f/2.0 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 31, 2012 Share #46 Posted January 31, 2012 Hi Japp, this is the reply from Leica: Dear Mr. Zhou, Thank you for your mail. We forwarded your lens to our quality control department. They just told us that there is no fault with the lens. It was constructed for analog cameras and is for use with digital cameras restricted only. When do you leave Germany? Kind regards Customer Service Ursula Brand-Gerheim I have a reaction to this post that I brought to the attention of Leica: As I already thought, we had a new Summicron M 2/35mm here in our service because of focusing problems. I don´t know the whole case but I do know that the remark made by one of my colleagues wasn´t correct. Maybe it was a misunderstanding somewhere during communication and translation.The lens in mention hasn´t been built with new optical calculations but that does not mean that it can only be used with restrictions on a digital* camera. All new lenses are made for the use on a digital camera. In the below mentioned case it happened that the lens needed adjustments. Lenses which have been built before 2006 or before Leica came out with a digital M camera, will almost all need adjustments as they have been made for film cameras. The film does not sit as plane as the sensor does and so it can be that an older lens which has not been adjusted to digital cameras will show back or front focus problems on the M8/M9 and M9-P as many of our customers have experienced. After these adjustments took place, the lens can be used on all of our new M cameras. * I hope this will help ! * Mit freundlichen Grüssen / Kind regards Leica Camera AG Customer Care Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted January 31, 2012 Share #47 Posted January 31, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Frankly, Jaap, the answer you received from Customer Care did surprise me.... "will almost ALL need adjustments..." : i suppose this does refer to this : - Probably the "lenses for film" were finely calibrated to the film surface, taking into account its thickness and maybe even a "mean" curvature at borders which could translate into a very small "addon thickness". - "lenses for digital" are finely calibrated on sensor surface (after bayer filter thickness ? dunno how much is it... microlenses I think are not significant in this sense) - and this, at the end, means that the focus plane on a film M and a digital M are effectively at a different distance from body's flange... probably the "digital calibration" is acceptable for film Ms... not vice-versa... I thought that the values involved were absolutely unsignificant , even for a Noctilux wide open... not to speak of a 35 at f2... Leica statement is indeed surprising... ... what do you think about ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-hawinkler Posted January 31, 2012 Share #48 Posted January 31, 2012 Frankly, Jaap, the answer you received from Customer Care did surprise me.... "will almost ALL need adjustments..." : i suppose this does refer to this : - Probably the "lenses for film" were finely calibrated to the film surface, taking into account its thickness and maybe even a "mean" curvature at borders which could translate into a very small "addon thickness". - "lenses for digital" are finely calibrated on sensor surface (after bayer filter thickness ? dunno how much is it... microlenses I think are not significant in this sense) - and this, at the end, means that the focus plane on a film M and a digital M are effectively at a different distance from body's flange... probably the "digital calibration" is acceptable for film Ms... not vice-versa... I thought that the values involved were absolutely unsignificant , even for a Noctilux wide open... not to speak of a 35 at f2... Leica statement is indeed surprising... ... what do you think about ? If true, it would imply that Leica didn't correctly determine the flange - focus plane distance in the M8/9, consistent with their film Ms. Or in the past they had much lower accuracy standards for focus adjustments. Sloppy by comparison to what the digital Ms require. So, I give Leica the benefit of the doubt and assume the latter is correct! K-H. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted January 31, 2012 Share #49 Posted January 31, 2012 Curious indeed. Last time i've had a lens calibrated (a 'cron 90/2 from 1995), nobody asked me if it were for film or digital and the lens is OK for digital fortunately. Also this reply from Solms does not explain why Lothar's 35/2 is still too soft after two trips to Germany. Hardly up to Leica's reputation all that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tobey bilek Posted January 31, 2012 Share #50 Posted January 31, 2012 When digital first came out, there were some discrepancies as to where the focus should be. The optimum spot is indeed different due to debth of film channel although flange to pressure plate/sensor are the same or close. I do not know if they calculated film thickness and the fact it never lies flat. I do believe things are different now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-hawinkler Posted January 31, 2012 Share #51 Posted January 31, 2012 Well in that case a clarifying definitive statement from Leica would be in order! K-H. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted January 31, 2012 Share #52 Posted January 31, 2012 Anyway, I agree that this odd statement by Leica isn't really related to the OP issue wthi his 35 asph...it must have something strange in the optical elements... I played a little with DOF calculator,... even assuming very little CoC diameters like 0,005 mm (to say, with a strongly enlarged view, i.e.a normal sized print seen from very very near) a 35 at f2 shows a DOF in the range of (few) centimeters for a focus distance of 2 meters !! Considerations about focus plane positioning on film thickness / sensor' surface etc imho become pure academia.. we are in the range of millimeters, probably some 10ths of... : I doubt any real difference can be spotted even with pixel/peeping... I have one lens that is terrible about focusing... the Summarex 85 f 1,5... the DOF calculator computes, at f 1,5, a DOF of 4 cm at 2 meters for (my) M8... indeed, in practical terms when I tried portraits from around such distance it was indeed a matter of centimeters... with no appreciable differences film/M8 on 20x30 prints looked at from nearer.than-normal distances. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LotharZhou Posted February 1, 2012 Author Share #53 Posted February 1, 2012 First of all, thanks Japp for raise the issue to Leica, and they emailed me 3 days ago, here is the email: Dear Mr. Zhou, I hope you are well. I send you this e-mail about your Summicron-M 1:2/35 mm ASPH. I found out that I made a mistake withmy statement about theconstruction of the lens, it was unfortunatelynot correct. To find a solution, please tell me if it will be possible to make a pick up arrangement to let a technician check it in our work shop again. Thanks for your understanding and patience. Have a nice weekend. Kind regards Customer Care Also as the lens been to solms 3 times( not twice) with the camera together, and all my other 7 lenses are in good focus, it's gotta to be some issue with my lens itself. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted February 1, 2012 Share #54 Posted February 1, 2012 I prefer this. Better late than never. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted February 1, 2012 Share #55 Posted February 1, 2012 Yes... at least they seem to recognize that THAT item has to be inspected seriously... keep us informed, Lothar... ... I hope you'll finally enjoy your Cron asph as me enjoy my one... in my long life I had 3 Summicrons 35, plus some Summarons, a Summilux unasph... from the first day I used my Cron asph, all the other stay apart : I find difficult to imagine a better 35... if I have to go out with a single lens (on M8), it's IT (or the Elmarit 24, to be sincere...) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fWord Posted February 1, 2012 Share #56 Posted February 1, 2012 Best wishes on resolving the issues with your lens. I used this lens in the past and its simply superb. The only reason I sold it was to get something wider on an M8. Mine never gave me any troubles and the results were always fascinating. Surely there is an issue with your copy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted February 5, 2012 Share #57 Posted February 5, 2012 If true, it would imply that Leica didn't correctly determine the flange - focus plane distance in the M8/9, consistent with their film Ms. Or in the past they had much lower accuracy standards for focus adjustments. Sloppy by comparison to what the digital Ms require. So, I give Leica the benefit of the doubt and assume the latter is correct! K-H. flange to focal plane will be identical whether film or digital... but film has some slack and sensors dont... the M9 assembly film shows them shimming the sensor mounts to achieve exact alignment ... If I recall correctly the thinnest shim used was 1/100 mm, so that is clearly the tolerance they are working to.... no idea how this relates to what goes on at the other end of the optical pathway, but as the flange to focal plane distance is 27.8mm this represents 0.036% ....... not a clue if this represents stupendous accuracy or just so-so.... no doubt someone with some optical know-how will enlighten me.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted February 6, 2012 Share #58 Posted February 6, 2012 Following the introduction of the M8, lens focal plane tolerances were tightened up into a new "digital standard" by Leica. Therefore its nothing to do with the type of lens but when it was manufactured. Although most of film era lenses should be fine, its just there is a higher probability of one needing more fine adjustment. This could have been the misunderstanding of the employee. I have recently purchased the 35mm Summicron ASPH for use on a M8 Its one d@mn crazy sharp lens. I am finding as sharp or slightly sharper corner to corner then the venerated 28mm Elmarit ASPH and the 50mm Summilux ASPH. Although at this level its all a bit psychedelic. Three reviews are overwhelmingly positve, Steve Huff, Ken Rockwell and Erwin Puts THE LEICA 35 SUMMICRON ASPH LENS REVIEW Leica 35mm f/2 SUMMICRON-M ASPH OlderMlenses Erwin does say in his later test of the Summarit that this is as good after f4 except for some barrel distortion. The Summicron is almost perfect with regards to distortion except for some pincushioning only viewable in lab conditions. This was the main determinant for me buying it over the Summarit as I take alot of landscapes. In the reid reviews, a highly detailed test, he indicates some focus shift apparent between f4 and f5.6 at close range. I would be a bad judge of that as I 99% only shoot this lens at f2 (people and low light) or f8/f11 (outdoor scenes and architecture). This could be sample variation, but as the 35mm Summicron does not have a floating element so anyone who wants zero focus shift and a heavier lens and another $1,500 on the price is welcome, but not me ..... I would think it unlikely that such giants of an@l pixel peeping reviews would all get this wrong. If you are not satisfied on such an expensive new lens on purchase, like anything else, I would swap it out. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
oculux Posted February 29, 2012 Share #59 Posted February 29, 2012 I just swapped a 35mm Summicron that I diagnosed immediately with back focus issues. Problem was that even with focus bracketing it wasn't even producing sharpness that my mediocre Olympus 17mm 2.8 PEN lens could. After discussing it with the dealer he swapped it for another and lo and behold even roughly focused images have better sharpness than the other copy. I think Leica isn't immune to the odd bad copy that gets through. The tolerances on these lenses are minuscule so slight misalignments can get through. I'd advise you to swap it out as it sounds like you also have a bad copy. The focus action was stiff compared to the one I now have also. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.