Tim Ashley - 35mm FLE review

[tashley]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

About a year and a half ago I realised to my shock and horror that under certain circumstances, especially at moderate distance and aperture, my $700 35mm Perar was sharper than my $5000 1.4/35mm Summilux ASPH (FLE)

 

I sent the Summilux back to Solms via Camera Clinic (in Melbourne) and the lens is now fine. As usual there was no report with the lens when returned via Camera Clinic. I assumed a decentred lens element .

 

Regardless, the lens is now performing perfectly

 

Good to hear that! My 50 lux has been my favourite lens for years but even it starts to show some new behaviours on the M240. Lloyd Chambers has been finding some fascinating things regarding focus shift and effective resolution of even the new 50 Apo on the M240 so think Leica users are about to discover something that Nikon owners discovered last year, namely that even some of the great lenses can start to be stretched by the new generation of sensors. I am pretty firmly convinced that there's nothing wrong at all with my 35 Lux FLE - in fact I think it's probably quite a good copy, and I have a bit of a reputation for being very picky about lenses!

[tashley]

Never got DoF problems with my sample (# 41931**) on the M8.2.

 

I am glad to hear that. My new Lux appeared after the M8 had left my ownership but is did show the field issues to some extent on the M9 - don't forget that the higher the pixel count, the more evident these things become. But as the recently added part of my review shows (and as posted above) a well-calibrated rangefinder can find the 'sweet spot' of maximum planar sharpness. Just don't go focussing with an EVF at stopped down mid-apertures and expect to effortlessly get great results across the frame...

[tappan]

Tim,

Thanks for your work on this. Can you please provide us the serial number (first 4#'s) of the 35mmFLE if you don't mind.

Best,

Mark

[tashley]

Tim,

Thanks for your work on this. Can you please provide us the serial number (first 4#'s) of the 35mmFLE if you don't mind.

Best,

Mark

 

Of course: 4099...

[k-hawinkler]

Hi Tim,

 

Thanks again for your productive article.

My definition of productive is: It opens up more question/issues than it solves.

 

As your image, focused at f/1.4, shot at f/4 shows,

that lens seems to be able to produce an acceptable image quality,

shot at f/4, provided it is focused well.

 

The other image is certainly substandard.

 

That leads me to conclude that it seems worth investigating best strategies for focusing with the M240.

There are basically three methods, namely using the rangefinder, focus peaking, and magnification.

Of course, one can use these at a chosen aperture or focusing wide open and than stopping down.

 

Rangefinder focusing should be independent of whether the lens is wide open or stopped down

unless there is something wrong with the rangefinder or lens. So, let's ignore that case for now.

 

For focus peaking and magnification, open or stopped down matters as that is TTL.

 

So on my NEXs and OMD on a tripod I always prefer magnification over focus peaking.

It seems to work more predictably.

It also helps that one can move the focus point within a frame where it's needed.

 

For studying focus issues on the M it might be easier to start with a less complex lens initially.

[IkarusJohn]

The unfortunate conclusion seems to be that the expectation that live view would deal with focus shift with problematic lenses does not hold up.

 

On the positive side, a well calibrated RF continues to provide the best results, even for mild focus shift.

 

Cheers

John

[k-hawinkler]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi John,

 

Thanks.

How about using R lenses?

Magnification?

[01af]

Well ... my sample (serial number 4101xxx, delivered in July 2011) doesn't show any problems or anomalies. It just has some mild positive field curvature ... which in a fast and compact wide-angle lens isn't surprising. After all, it's no flat-field repro lens. 'Positive' here means, the sharpness at the frame's edges is a little closer to the camera than at the frame's center—so the field's curvature, from the photographer's point of view, is concave. At the frame's center, it's where the range meter supposes it would be.

 

When I ordered my lens in April 2010, I was told it may take two or three months to arrive. I actually took delivery 15 months () later, in July 2011! My dealer said the huge delay was due to some optimisation in design, calibration, and/or manufacturing, as the first samples delivered had some issues with focussing and field curvature. My sample allegedly was one of the first delivered after the optimisation. I don't know for sure if my dealer was right or if he just made up this story to keep me from switching to another dealer—I really got impatient after several months of waiting. If this story is true (big IF) then it might be a problem affecting early samples of this lens more than later ones. I fact, when comparing Tim's test shots to my own, it seems that in Tim's lens (which has a lower serial number than mine), the field curvature is significantly more pronounced than in mine.

[IkarusJohn]

Hi John,

 

Thanks.

How about using R lenses?

Magnification?

 

Good point, K-H. The R lenses have a great reputation. I wonder if that reputation will survive what looks like variable results using live view ,,,

 

I'm sure the M remains a step forward, as Tim & Ming Thein say. If you look at the core CRF function, consensus seems very positive. Video sounds underwhelming. But Tim has identified a weird shifting plane of best focus on one of Leica's best lenses using live view at f/4 that hadn't been picked up before. That's not so good ... As I recall Erwin Puts says f/4 is pretty much universally the sweet spot for Leica lenses.

 

I suspect those people with R lenses will be blown away when the R adapter becomes available (assuming the firmware and camera profiles are also sorted by then), provided they get their focussing technique right.

 

Cheers

John

[k-hawinkler]

Thanks John.

 

I am a little dumfounded by the apparent focusing problems with the EVF on the M.

Using that type of EVF on an OMD, albeit at 120 Hz, doesn't give me any focus problems.

One can even use the APO 280/4 on an M9 by first focusing with an NEX camera.

Of course, that requires extremely precise adapters, such as made by Novoflex.

 

Too bad I still have to wait for my M.

[jaapv]

 

I suspect those people with R lenses will be blown away when the R adapter becomes available (assuming the firmware and camera profiles are also sorted by then), provided they get their focussing technique right.

 

Cheers

John

Not if they have been using a DMR... I will shoot comparisons to join the apple and orange brigade when (ever) I get my M.

[IkarusJohn]

Thanks John.

 

I am a little dumfounded by the apparent focusing problems with the EVF on the M.

Using that type of EVF on an OMD, albeit at 120 Hz, doesn't give me any focus problems.

One can even use the APO 280/4 on an M9 by first focusing with an NEX camera.

Of course, that requires extremely precise adapters, such as made by Novoflex.

 

Too bad I still have to wait for my M.

 

It was not what I was expecting either.

 

I look forward to hearing what you and Jaap discover when you get your cameras.

[tashley]

Hi Tim,

 

Thanks again for your productive article.

My definition of productive is: It opens up more question/issues than it solves.

 

As your image, focused at f/1.4, shot at f/4 shows,

that lens seems to be able to produce an acceptable image quality,

shot at f/4, provided it is focused well.

 

The other image is certainly substandard.

 

That leads me to conclude that it seems worth investigating best strategies for focusing with the M240.

There are basically three methods, namely using the rangefinder, focus peaking, and magnification.

Of course, one can use these at a chosen aperture or focusing wide open and than stopping down.

 

Rangefinder focusing should be independent of whether the lens is wide open or stopped down

unless there is something wrong with the rangefinder or lens. So, let's ignore that case for now.

 

For focus peaking and magnification, open or stopped down matters as that is TTL.

 

So on my NEXs and OMD on a tripod I always prefer magnification over focus peaking.

It seems to work more predictably.

It also helps that one can move the focus point within a frame where it's needed.

 

For studying focus issues on the M it might be easier to start with a less complex lens initially.

 

I agree - and I am sorry not to have replied earlier to your comprehensive breakdown of the focus in those none zones - I wasn't and am still not near my larger monitors and the Retina screen can be useful and not useful! But I do think that there are some more 'acceptably good' areas, especially nearer the corners.

 

I chose the FLE first partly because it is such a signature lens, such a core lens in the arsenal, and a lens that so strongly relates to the heritage and to the intention to keep that heritage updated. But also because I knew it to be a bit tricky, so it would quickly reveal any issues.

 

What i have learned is that, assuming the new RF doesn't drift over time and that other people's RFs are as well aligned as mine, the RF is best, though wide open magnified live view is also great. The best thing, and I have now decided that this is where the 'clverness'I referred to in the review lies, is that with this lens at least, its developing shape of field of focus as you stop down means that you want a touch of back-focus and that is what the RF finds, because the point of focus does move backwards a bit as the lens stops down and this really suites the focussing need of the field shape. Stopped down EVF when magnified will find the exact best point of focus for the centre of the lens, but won't get close to the RF result across the frame as a whole. The 'shimmer' has too broad a range to be very reliable for this type of shot but if you 'come to it from far' then it does pretty well.

 

But what is good, for me at least, is that I now know how to get a really good result with the FLE/240 and that was worth all the work!

[tashley]

Not if they have been using a DMR... I will shoot comparisons to join the apple and orange brigade when (ever) I get my M.

 

C'mon, that's a pineapple at least

[k-hawinkler]

Hi Tim,

 

Thanks.

Also, wide open the near and far boundaries of the DOF are closer together.

That certainly should help.

 

Question: Have you tried magnification on a tripod?

[tashley]

Hi Tim,

 

Thanks.

Also, wide open the near and far boundaries of the DOF are closer together.

That certainly should help.

 

Question: Have you tried magnification on a tripod?

 

Yes, all the 'noticeboard' shots were on a tripod and I used every different focus method but when I use LV or EVF I pretty much always use magnification, even when I am also using peaking.

[jaapv]

C'mon, that's a pineapple at least

 

Still a pretty nice pineapple though...

[mirekti]

Well ... my sample (serial number 4101xxx, delivered in July 2011)...

 

When I ordered my lens in April 2010, I was told it may take two or three months to arrive. I actually took delivery 15 months () later, in July 2011! My dealer said the huge delay was due to some optimisation in design, calibration, and/or manufacturing, as the first samples delivered had some issues with focussing and field curvature.

 

My starts with 4179 (not that I can decode what this means), but I'm really happy with it. The bokeh can be a bit disturbing, but this doesn't happen often at all.

 

A great lens!!!

[indergaard]

The best thing, and I have now decided that this is where the 'clverness'I referred to in the review lies, is that with this lens at least, its developing shape of field of focus as you stop down means that you want a touch of back-focus and that is what the RF finds, because the point of focus does move backwards a bit as the lens stops down and this really suites the focussing need of the field shape.

 

Thank you!

 

This basically confirms what I've seen recently on my 35 FLE as well. It seems to focus perfectly wide open at f/1.4 with the rangefinder. When I stop it down however it seems to back focus ever so slightly. This is noticeable even at f/2, and becomes more noticeable at f/2.8. It's noticeable up until f/8 where I can't detect it any more.

 

This happens at all distances. If I compensate for back focus (just like if the rangefinder was back focusing) by slightly focusing past the subject my subject (in the center) is in proper focus again.

 

Quite tricky. I've had the FLE for some time now, but I've usually always used it either wide open at f/1.4 or at 5.6 or 8 so I haven't really noticed this issue until lately when I've been using it at 2, 2.8 and 4.

 

I do a lot of shots of planar subjects nowadays, so I'm considering selling the FLE and getting a used Summicron 35 ASPH instead.

 

The thread I started about the issue: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m-lenses/362339-summilux-35-fle-focusing-issues.html

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Jeff S]

...so I'm considering selling the FLE and getting a used Summicron 35 ASPH instead.

 

Beware that the 35 Summicron ASPH may exhibit some focus shift…mine, like the one Sean Reid reviewed, shifts focus at f4 and f5.6. However, this is easily addressed when shooting, and doesn't really bother in print in any event. This is typical focus shift (when stopping down) for fast-ish wides, not a curvature issue.

 

Jeff