35 'cron ASPH...focus shift

[james.liam]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Looking to start with a film M6 to learn RFs and have heard conflicting things about this lens. Lloyd Chambers bashes it for focus shift (from f/2.8-5.6, or so he says on the M9) but the much older version IV is about the same price yet little mention re: its character when it comes such issues. It would be a general use 35 and don't have the $$€€££¥¥ for the FLE (which negates the notion of a compact camera/lens combo). All the 35s, even v.2 and 3 are hovering at about the same cost range these days. Although I did see the output from an 8-element on an MM shot by a pro I know. Stunning but these old timers often have haze and such given their age.

 

Any thoughts from the experienced hands here?

 

Thanks in advance.

[wattsy]

The 35 Summicron ASPH doesn't suffer from focus shift to the same degree as does typically the previous version Summilux ASPH. I don't think it is a problem with this lens at all in real world use. The Summicron is a great single lens to have and IMO is especially fine on a film M.

[Jeff S]

My sample exhibits the same focus shift at f4-f5.6 that Sean Reid reported in his review. But I find it a non-issue in practical use when making prints, film or digital.

 

The 35 Summarit performs better in this regard, and only a half stop slower, but either lens performs at a high enough level to be of little concern IMO.

 

Jeff

[james.liam]

My sample exhibits the same focus shift at f4-f5.6 that Sean Reid reported in his review. But I find it a non-issue in practical use when making prints, film or digital.

 

The 35 Summarit performs better in this regard, and only a half stop slower, but either lens performs at a high enough level to be of little concern IMO.

 

Jeff

 

Given the lofty price of the Summicron ASPH, I would have wished this not to be the case, Oh well.

 

Can anyone comment whether v.IV is any less affected by this unruly phenomenon?

[Jeff S]

Given the lofty price of the Summicron ASPH, I would have wished this not to be the case, Oh well.

 

Can anyone comment whether v.IV is any less affected by this unruly phenomenon?

 

It's less about price than the optical design facts of life with wide, fast(ish) lenses. And as I said, it's really not a problem at all for me; I ran a one-time test for curiosity reasons, but I take pics to make prints, not make tests. I'd hardly consider it an "unruly phenomenon" as you call it.

 

Jeff

[tobey bilek]

When I got my M9, I compared my 35 IV against a brand new ASPH and found little if any practical difference.

[james.liam]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It's less about price than the optical design facts of life with wide, fast(ish) lenses. And as I said, it's really not a problem at all for me; I ran a one-time test for curiosity reasons, but I take pics to make prints, not make tests. I'd hardly consider it an "unruly phenomenon" as you call it.

 

Jeff

 

That's good to hear. I'm simply basing this on what Sean Read and Lloyd Chambers have written about. Lloyd is generally more disposed toward Zeiss and raves of the larger Biogon, was highly critical of the Summicron.. This is why I posed the question. His reviews of it are scathing and all because of e focus shift. Perhaps it is more apparent on digital. I don't know.

[Jeff S]

Rent one, or get a dealer to lend you one, and see for yourself. The only review that matters is yours, based on your own pics and preferences.

 

Jeff

[james.liam]

Rent one, or get a dealer to lend you one, and see for yourself. The only review that matters is yours, based on your own pics and preferences.

 

Jeff

 

Actually have one coming in from them on Friday but the IV intrigues me because of its size.

[BrianUK]

James,

 

You've been given good advice here re the Summicron 35mm Asph, and I concur with what has been written, especially renting a lens - any lens, actually - to assess whether it suits your needs.

 

For almost the last twelve years the Summicron 35mm Asph has been my prime lens with my M6 TTL and black and white film. Early on I 'tested' it and ofund that it does indeed focus shift, though to be honest it's so far back I can't remember how and to what extent.

 

In everyday use for urban and pictorial use this makes not a ha'porth of difference to my work. Like Jeff S I make images and prints not test charts!

 

If you're interested there's a post about the Summicron 35mm Asph on my website.

 

Good luck with your decision, I wish you well.

[Jeff S]

Actually have one coming in from them on Friday but the IV intrigues me because of its size.

 

Another reason to ignore reviews and advice from strangers, and try for yourself. If an already tiny lens like the 35 Summicron asph (the smallest I own) needs to lose another 2oz (and has same filter size) to please, than we have far different needs and priorities. A non-issue to some is a big deal to someone else. So far, the two concerns you raise aren't on my radar. YMMV, as they say.

 

Jeff

[james.liam]

Another reason to ignore reviews and advice from strangers, and try for yourself. If an already tiny lens like the 35 Summicron asph (the smallest I own) needs to lose another 2oz (and has same filter size) to please, than we have far different needs and priorities. A non-issue to some is a big deal to someone else. So far, the two concerns you raise aren't on my radar. YMMV, as they say.

 

Jeff

 

Having not owned either but briefly handled both, the IV seemed quite tiny though as you say, pretty marginal difference. I contrast it all to my nearly-1 kg Zeiss 1,4/35 ZF.2. All relative. I was simply trying to see what real-life long-term users thought of the focus shift issue. Since I'm trying to just acclimatize to a RF and my focus will invariably be inaccurate, for some time so subtle focus shift won't be something I can pick up for now.

[lct]

Take what i say with a pinch of salt as i never use anything else than my eyes to check focus accuracy but i've never been bothered by focus shift with the 35/2 asph, contrary to the 35/2 v4 which tends to be sharper on edges and corners around f/4-5.6. DoF begins to be wide there though so i would not call it a serious issue, on my M8.2 at all.

[Jeff S]

Look for pictures, not for problems.

 

I owned my 35 Summicron asph for years before looking for something to do inside one rainy day and decided to compare focus results to Sean Reid's review. Didn't think about the issue before that, and haven't worried about it since. Much ado about nothing.

 

Jeff

[jaapv]

The same here - I never noticed it. I make more focus errors than that lens does.

[UliWer]

...

Can anyone comment whether v.IV is any less affected by this unruly phenomenon?

 

Just tried with my version IV - though only at short distance of about 1.2 m: At 200% you might percieve a very slight move backwards of the focus between f/2 and f/4 - a non-issue for practical use.

 

And the "unruly" phenomenon, which is justified by some odd laws of optics, is correctly placed where it belongs to by jaapv.

 

If you are very happy you might find a 15 years old version IV for a price which differs considerably from a new asph. The 35mm Summarit will be cheaper.

 

BTW: Since you want to use the lens with film: did you ever notice the word "focus shift" during the times, when there were no digital sensors, and no screens to look at a file at 200% in a few seconds after your shot? If you have heard of the word during this time, you must have a lot of experience in scientific optics. Outside this region the "unruly phenomenon" did not exist.

[james.liam]

Just tried with my version IV - though only at short distance of about 1.2 m: At 200% you might percieve a very slight move backwards of the focus between f/2 and f/4 - a non-issue for practical use.

 

And the "unruly" phenomenon, which is justified by some odd laws of optics, is correctly placed where it belongs to by jaapv.

 

If you are very happy you might find a 15 years old version IV for a price which differs considerably from a new asph. The 35mm Summarit will be cheaper.

 

BTW: Since you want to use the lens with film: did you ever notice the word "focus shift" during the times, when there were no digital sensors, and no screens to look at a file at 200% in a few seconds after your shot? If you have heard of the word during this time, you must have a lot of experience in scientific optics. Outside this region the "unruly phenomenon" did not exist.

 

No real need for the snark, is there?

 

The very point of my question was BECAUSE the IV and a used ASPH sell for roughly the same price in North America, was there a reason to favor one over the other.

 

And yes, such behavior by a lens isn't desirable and can be avoided by design, especially at the elevated going prices, new or used (consider the pre-FLE and FLE 35 Summilux). Even if less apparent on film, it does limit its use to that medium alone. Being able to use it for digital as well makes it all the more desirable. Because reliable reviewers like Sean Reid and Lloyd Chambers raised this, I thought it merited asking.

[lct]

Another reliable reviewer did not find any focus shift at all (J.M. Sepulchre) so if you count unreliable posters as well, the score is 8 or 9 vs 2 so far.

[Jeff S]

Because reliable reviewers like Sean Reid and Lloyd Chambers raised this, I thought it merited asking.

 

And even Sean Reid says that when actually used in the field, as opposed to his tests, it's really a non-issue for him, even using a digital M.

 

One can spend another $2k on the 35 Summilux asph with FLE, and then there are still other issues reviewers cite on that lens.

 

There are tests, and there are photos.

 

You may find that you don't even like the M RF experience; some do, some don't. If you're in the latter group, focus shift will be the least of your concerns. But if that issue is burnt into your head based on reviews, then rent a 35 Summarit, another fine lens which I believe has no reported focus shift, and compare. On film, especially, I doubt you'll have an issue with any of these superb lenses.

 

Jeff

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[250swb]

 

And yes, such behavior by a lens isn't desirable and can be avoided by design, especially at the elevated going prices, new or used (consider the pre-FLE and FLE 35 Summilux). Even if less apparent on film, it does limit its use to that medium alone. Being able to use it for digital as well makes it all the more desirable. Because reliable reviewers like Sean Reid and Lloyd Chambers raised this, I thought it merited asking.

 

The 35mm Summicron ASPH can be used with film and digital. The 'problem' about focus shift is a simple story started by people photographing walls, or vegetables in Sean's case, then misinterpreted by a whole bunch of people who took an insignificant characteristic to be a fundamental flaw. So the story turned into a myth.

 

Focus shift can be avoided by design, but then other things go wrong in other areas of the design. So the Leica designers will have known about the tiny amount of focus shift before they even made the lens, but will have weighed up the pro's and con's and found it acceptable given the lens is designed to photograph a whole range of things other than walls and vegetables. And let's not forget there are an awful lot of lenses with focus shift, not just other Leica lenses, but Zeiss, Canon, Nikon etc. With any one lens there will be a myriad of factors that are compromised to balance the optical performance, otherwise lens designers would already know how to make the perfect lens and you'd be able to go out and buy it.

 

If you were in a position to discover the focus shift it is true that it will probably only show up on a digital camera, but not any digital camera, only a digital rangefinder camera. Put it on any other digital camera with an adapter and you won't get focus shift unless you focus with the lens opened fully up, then stop down to take the picture. But most camera's can automatically increase the gain of the display enough so this isn't necessary.

 

So there is nothing wrong with the 35mm Summicron ASPH, it is a technically 'better' lens than the IV, which in itself is flattered by another myth all of it's own, and which accounts for it's inflated second hand price.

 

Steve