SLR Magic 50mm f0.95 M Lens

[bpalme]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

When I describe a used item as "mint" it is actually mint. Too many people throwing that term around. I bought a Pentax takumar off ebay a few years ago described as mint.. arrived with the lens yellowing. I also bought from one of the big Leica dealers and had oil on blades and spots on rear element. Could be an honest mistake but there is nothing like new if you can get one.

I think SLR magic is way ahead of themselves rushing this lens to market. They should have tested it a lot longer and go back to redo this loctite nonsense. Change that silly name.. I heard they won't because it cost a lot but it has to change.

S.L.R.Similar Lens Ripoff. Magic

[swamiji]

+1

 

I attempted to purchase a new "in stock" MP from a couple of reputable online sites, but a quick phone call revealed neither had one, so I certainly won't fall for that old chestnut again.

Its far better to find a local dealer you can visit and develop a good rapport with. As far as buying secondhand from the internet, I'd rather wait a little longer to buy new

 

Well to second that with another example. I was looking for a good 90mm and thought about getting the 90mm APO-Summicron ASPH. So I check around and the only dealer claimed to have it was in Hong Kong.. for over $9,000.00 US... I called them up and they said they actually did not have it in stock, but that it was available from their supplier at that price, and it would take a few weeks to get it.

 

Well thats when I looked for alternatives... But in the end I purchased a Factory Refurbished 90mm APO-Summicron ASPH (6-bit) with a Leica warrantee from my Brick and Mortar dealer for $3,800 US.

[Advertisement]

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

[brianv]

When I describe a used item as "mint" it is actually mint. Too many people throwing that term around. I bought a Pentax takumar off ebay a few years ago described as mint.. arrived with the lens yellowing. I

 

 

In this example- the lens could indeed be "Mint", "New Old Stock", "Vault Condition" and still yellow. It is the radioactive decay of the Thoriated glass that causes the yellowing, not misuse. It is a function of age, not use or abuse. It clears up with exposure to certain types of UV light.

[janrzm]

The documentation of my experience is both accurate and fair, I'm not out to bash SLR Magic.

 

It's clear reading the comments by 3D-Kraft.com that he is part of the same program I entered with SLR Magic, had my lens performed perfectly then I may well have kept it regardless of the issues experienced by others. Also, it was made clear that the lens being supplied was still potentially a work in progress. However having read the initial rave reviews on various sites I made a decision that surely the lens could only improve by the time I got mine, naive perhaps.

 

I also have a non commercial blog, with my version of the lens I could not in good conscience post images and write-ups, others may feel differently, after all, If you have a good version that is what you must consider first, not the experiences of others.

 

A couple of things have annoyed me about the experience though -

 

Firstly, if you pay a deposit by Paypal and don't receive the goods within 45 days of that, forget a refund from Paypal. In my case SLR Magic still offered it but there was no Paypal protection. Clearly not the right mechanism for deposits.....

 

Secondly, I paid the balance when it was requested, being told the lens was ready to ship. It wasn't and I came quite close to passing the 45 day period again, this would have left me without Paypal protection period. We will never know what the outcome would have been then. I do make my Paypal payment via cc card so maybe there was some mileage there, I don't know.

 

and finally, the lens should not have been sold to anyone outside the testing program (I don't know that it has been). Anyone who's paid a deposit under the impression they will receive the finished article should be refunded as it falls short of this.

 

The whole thing has been badly managed, that can't be denied. Unfortunate for everyone concerned.

Edited July 15, 2012 by janrzm

[chrism]

I did not disassemble the lens but what you see and what you feel from outside seems rock solid - and contains a lot of screws.

 

I'm surprised to hear there are lots of screws in the non-coupled version of the lens, but none in the RF-coupled version. Any explanation for this observation?

 

Chris

[bpalme]

In this example- the lens could indeed be "Mint", "New Old Stock", "Vault Condition" and still yellow. It is the radioactive decay of the Thoriated glass that causes the yellowing, not misuse. It is a function of age, not use or abuse. It clears up with exposure to certain types of UV light.

I was well aware of the yellowing before i bought it and that is still not mint. Mint is like new condition. If a lens turns yellow sitting on a shelf for 40 years it is not like new. It should be mentioned not described as "mint". Also the clearing up using UV light is easier said than done. I spent months exposing it to UV light with no change.

[brianv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

There are different UV Bands. Whatever UV light that I stumbled across in an optics lab with stuff from the 1960s being cleared out did the trick within days. I suspect it is deep UV, beyond what is transmitted by optical glass. I will try to find out. In the case of a Thorium Glass lens- it is impossible for the glass to be like new. You can bleach out much of the yellowing, but there is going to be residual damage.

 

The term "Mint" has meaning for coin collecting. A "mint" coin is direct from the mint, distributed in a bag, and may have marks in it. There is also "Proof" and "Brilliant Uncirculated". It is out of context in terms of describing condition of camera equipment, and is subjective. You should have been able to return the lens, get your money back with such a defect. I rid mine of much of the yellowing with the UV lamp.

 

I buy from Ebay expecting parts cameras and equipment that needs complete rebuilds, no matter how it is described. I am never disappointed.

 

And, just to add, at least the SLR Magic lens was not held together with sewing thread as you might find in a 60+ year old "mint" condition Jupiter-3. Or Brilliant, uncirculated, never used for a single picture.

 

http://www.seriouscompacts.com/f96/1950-kmz-j-3-first-infocus-images-very-early-jupiter-8364/

 

A bit off topic, unless SLR Magic starts using Hot Glass.

 

http://www.mu-43.com/gallery/data/1814/L1010282.jpg

 

My Hot Glass Summicron, cleared up using the UV Lamp.

 

http://www.mu-43.com/gallery/g1814-summicron-5cm-f2-collapsible-3a-first-generation.html

 

The lens originally looked like it had a light yellow filter on it. Much improved with the UV Lamp after a couple of days. Auto-White balance on the M9, no color corrections applied.

Edited July 15, 2012 by brianv

[bpalme]

I like those J3 photos.

[M. Valdemar]

By the way:

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/customer-forum/247057-here-we-go-again-mitakon-0-a.html

[brianv]

Reading reports from owners being able to successfully remove the yellowing from Thorium Glass lenses: those that used lamps that emitted UVA/UVB worked; users that tried lamps that emit UVC do not work. Looking at some quick spectral transmission curves of Thoriated Glass lenses- the drop off in transmission is between those two bands. The UVC does not get very far. I'm going to speculate that it is the wavelength that partially absorbed that does the bleaching. The UVC gets absorbed up front, does not make it deep into the lens. UVA only- most of it passes through the lens. Somewhere in between UVA and UVB- partial transmission means it bleaches throughout the lens.

 

MAybe SLR Magic could use UV Cured Epoxy.

[Guest]

This thread is reminding me of the first Japanese motor cycles and Hondas attempt to copy our mini ( cart springs for the front suspension) and dare I suggest Nikon and Canons copy Leica etc etc.

Lots of comments such as what a load of rubbish.

They have all done rather well.While I have no intension of trading my Noctilux for the SLR magic I would not dismiss the company.Lets just see what happens.:roll eyes:

BrianP

[Guest]

When I describe a used item as "mint" it is actually mint. Too many people throwing that term around. I bought a Pentax takumar off ebay a few years ago described as mint.. arrived with the lens yellowing. I also bought from one of the big Leica dealers and had oil on blades and spots on rear element. Could be an honest mistake but there is nothing like new if you can get one.

I think SLR magic is way ahead of themselves rushing this lens to market. They should have tested it a lot longer and go back to redo this loctite nonsense. Change that silly name.. I heard they won't because it cost a lot but it has to change.

S.L.R.Similar Lens Ripoff. Magic

 

The designation MINT etc was introduced by Peter Walnes (not sure if I have the correct spelling) in the early 1960,s to help clarify all the various terms used at the time.

Mint should mean as new.Totally unmarked,all packaging,instructions and original receipt if pos. It has been"improved"that often that it has lost all meaning.Ffordes never call any used item mint ,usually say Mint-.In my experience these items are usually pretty close to mint.When my usual dealer describes things as mint to me we never have had any problem.

Brian

[myinoshi]

Bill, have you got your refund back yet? Or did they ship a lens out to you already?

[leohong]

I placed an order when I heard the price is going up. At that time I thought I was getting a great deal at a great price. What happens following that is down hill all the way. 10 days ago, I decided to cancel the order. Andrew told me about the 20% reduction for the cancelling saying that was the charges he incurred with Paypal. After a few emails back and forth, we agreed to 12% and I got the refund a few days ago.

 

I placed the order because I read all the glowing review at the time. I cancel it because SLR magic did not show me that they can handle the problem surfaced.

 

It is an expensive lesson. I took the loss and look to the future.

[pico]

This thread is reminding me of the first Japanese motor cycles and Hondas attempt to copy

 

Harley-Davidson, Japan, 1921.

 

An early Honda Civic was a tiny thing with a chain drive!

[Guest]

Harley-Davidson, Japan, 1921.

 

An early Honda Civic was a tiny thing with a chain drive!

 

And look how the cars have improved.From a personal point I can not see where SLR Magic are coming from with this project and starting with an attemp to copy a Noctilux. It would make more sense to start with something a bit less ambitious and with more volume sales potential. However I would not dismiss the Chinese. They are clever people and I am sure this project will be finished. Not of any interest to myself but if they produced a 35mm f1.0 that was finished properly who knows.at present Leica increase prices because they are aware the market will stand it ,but there has got to be a limit?

BrianP

[3D-Kraft.com]

From a personal point I can not see where SLR Magic are coming from with this project and starting with an attemp to copy a Noctilux. It would make more sense to start with something a bit less ambitious and with more volume sales potential.

 

In earlier days they simply reworked CCTV lenses to "toy lenses" before they acquired "Noktor". Also the earlier Noktor 50/0.95 lens was a CCTV lens and not a good seller - and it's name was too similar to "Nokton" so that they were sued by Cosina. So you see that they are coming from lenses for movie makers. Their first "own" HyperPrime construction was a very good 12mm/T1.6 lens for m4/3 which seems to have a reasonable sales volume meanwhile. So the CINE and LM 50/T0.95 is not their first project and not simply copying the Noctilux. It is designed with focus on film makers who want less vignetting than a Noctilux 50/0.95 and a stepless aperture adjusted to T-stops and circles of confusion kept nicely round even when stopped down. But the LM version is their first project with rangefinder calibration. As you can read here in many other post about the accuracy of the Noctilux focus, this is something that requires calibration of the camera and lens together (and perhaps also the iMac that is used to inspect the images later ). Especially for the earlier Noctilux 50/1.0, a focus shift was a common problem and the HyperPrime 50/T0.95 has no shift (also a requirement of film makers) but front and back focus is a common problem with lenses used at about F1.0 and a limitation of that system as you can read for example in LFI 2/2011. Thats why I prefer using the CINE version with an EVF when most accurate focusing is required. You can see the results in this Flickr pool.

 

Regarding the usage of adhesives in lens production: The attached image shows a disassembled part of the 90mm Summicron-M.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited July 27, 2012 by 3D-Kraft.com

[algrove]

[quote name=3D-Kraft.com;2136679. As you can read here in many other post about the accuracy of the Noctilux focus' date=' this is something that requires calibration of the camera and lens together (and perhaps also the iMac that is used to inspect the images later ). [/quote]

 

If you calibrate a camera to one lens it could cause other lenses to be out of calibration with that specific camera. From my experience it is best to have all lenses and cameras calibrated to tolerances Leica deems as acceptable. This works for me with the 50/1.0 and the 50/0,95.

[brianv]

Especially for the earlier Noctilux 50/1.0, a focus shift was a common problem and the HyperPrime 50/T0.95 has no shift (also a requirement of film makers) but front and back focus is a common problem with lenses used at about F1.0 and a limitation of that system as you can read for example in LFI 2/2011. Thats why I prefer using the CINE version with an EVF when most accurate focusing is required. You can see the results in this Flickr pool.

 

Regarding the usage of adhesives in lens production: The attached image shows a disassembled part of the 90mm Summicron-M.

 

Is the SLRMAGIC lens an Aspheric design? I thought it was a 12 element design, all spherical optics. This lens is nothing like a Noctilux or any other 50mm~60mm super-speed lens ever built. 12 elements in 7 (or 9) groups? The company does not give much information for the specifics. Multiple aspheric surfaces would minimize focus shift. With an EVF or TTL finder, focus shift is not an issue for a lens with a manual aperture. You focus at the aperture in use. It is a problem for an RF camera.

 

The issue with Loctite being used in the SLR Magic lens was where it was being used. From the descriptions given, it was used in place of screws holding the mechanical fixture together. It is a poor practice.

Edited July 28, 2012 by brianv

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jaapv]

:confused:If you mean an SLR by a "TTL finder", it will certainly be affected by focus shift, as it will be focussed at full aperture and stopped down for exposure.