50mm Summilux Focussing Ring Problem

[marknorton]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I think a number of users have found the focussing action on this lens difficult, binding part way through the range, inconsistent feel and a stickiness which prevents very small adjustments. It's undoubtedly complex. As you focus, the main lens barrel moves out by the usual 5 or so mm for a 50mm lens but the rear lens group, enclosed by the back inner ring seen from the back of the lens moves back relative to the front of the lens by about 0.5mm. Getting all this right is complex and was the reason why the 21 and 24mm Summiluxes were delayed.

 

It's clear that something went badly wrong with your lens and the fact they fixed it out of warranty free of charge suggests it does cause problems. Interesting you have had the red thread replaced on your WATE - mine too is damaged and I should get it replaced.

[jaapv]

I

 

 

I've argued for a long time that the Leica rangefinder has a focal length "sweet-spot" of, maybe, 28 - 50mm. Go wider, and you need an aux finder, go longer and you need a magnifier.

r.

Indeed you have. That does not make the statement correct, however.

[Rick]

Mark, interesting... this 50 slux that is acknowledged by many as the best 50mm ever made should have such a complex and exacting design. Thanks for that explanation. I guess complex must go with the performance. Hard to get Lamborghini performance without some temperamentally. Not making excuses for it, just saying that I'll take performance every time if, the upkeep doesn't kill me. So far the 50 slux has been pretty good.

 

My 50 has been anything but temperamental. It is easy to focus and I just tested it and it is smooth and silky through the entire range.

 

Also, your premise that something clearly went badly wrong with my lens; it is 6 years old and has had a semi-hard life. You yourself just explained how precise the dance of the movement of the lens elements is. So, why is it clear that something went badly wrong? Maybe something just came loose, you know, something as simple as a screw. Maybe, Leica just fixed it out of warrantee, not because it suggests that something is fishy, maybe they just fixed it because the service is good and they know that this lens has problems with the mount and it isn't always clear if it is from misuse.

 

I love my WATE. I think it is almost impossible to take a bad photo with it. I wrecked the red threads when I incorrectly put the Milch filter holder on it when I had my M8. I incorrectly screwed the set screw down on the red thread because I thought that was how the filter was held oriented and tight. Wrong. Hated that filter adapter. It caused me to have this very cool Wide Angle Tri-Elmar, with this even cooler looking red thread, and the coolest part (the red thread) was screwed up and marred. So, I had them replace it for cosmetic reasons only. Hey, I have rubbed out scratches on my car's paint finish sometimes. So, I allowed myself to be superficial. I had them fix it for me. And, they charged me, as they should have. I got it back and it looks great. Long way of saying, I agree with you, send yours in and get it fixed, even if it is just cosmetic.

[lct]

Nothing personal folks but all these complaints about the so-called RF inaccuracy begin to be painful frankly. An RF is an RF. SLRs -and now mirrorless cameras- are more adapted for macro and long teles it's always been like that, nothing new under the sun.

Just did a trivial focus test with a lens i bought 30 years ago, the Elmarit 135/2.8 on my M8.2 at the minimum focus distance (1.5m). Equivalent of a 180mm lens on full frame cameras. Handheld, 1/30s, f/3.5 where DoF is 2 centimeters thin. I focused on "4x" and you can see the result here (6MB file, C1 default settings, no added sharpening).

In 30 years time, this lens has never been repaired, coded, "digital adapted" or otherwise modified. It just needs a photog with a not too bad sight (i use a +2d eyepiece correction lens), who knows his lens and the limits of his rangefinder and does not waste his time with brick walls and rulers to avoid paranoia. At f/2.8 i would have focus bracketed and at f/2 i would have chosen one of my Nikons instead, simple as that.

[wda]

Mark, I think you have been singularly unlucky with your faulty Summilux lens. You deserve a direct replacement with a new one; no questions. A lens with such a high reputation for performance should not disintegrate in the manner depicted. I assume there is no unrecorded story attached to the specimen? If not, press for an immediate replacement.

[Double Negative]

Some people get on with an RF, others not. Be it for personal reasons or subject matter. It's all good. Use what works and be honest with yourself. That's what really matters.

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I think a number of users have found the focussing action on this lens difficult, binding part way through the range, inconsistent feel and a stickiness which prevents very small adjustments. It's undoubtedly complex. As you focus, the main lens barrel moves out by the usual 5 or so mm for a 50mm lens but the rear lens group, enclosed by the back inner ring seen from the back of the lens moves back relative to the front of the lens by about 0.5mm. Getting all this right is complex and was the reason why the 21 and 24mm Summiluxes were delayed.

 

This is a much better explanation of the issue I cited earlier, including both the way Leica described the circumstances as "tight tolerances," and the way I presented the problem to them as "not smooth focus action." Mark, you should be their communications liaison.

 

Jeff