APO Summicron 50/2 ASPH: Central veiling flare / fogging

[furcafe]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

My apologies for misunderstanding your reference to 35 'lux problems, but I certainly don't recall the complaints about the ASPH back in 2006, as I'm not a heavy participant in this forum. My M8 was 1 of the 1st batch sold in the US, & had plenty of problems from day one, but none that could be blamed on my 35 'lux ASPH (it has continued to be an excellent lens on my old M9 & current 240, as it has on my film bodies since I acquired it in 2001).

 

I am wholly familiar with the difference between the rare “Aspherical” and commoner ASPH 35mm f1.4 Summiluxes. As you have been a member of this forum since 2006, I am sure you must remember the bitter complaints from 35 ASPH Summilux owners when trying to use them on the M8, with lenses aperture shifting totally outside of the DOF. My first one (a black/alloy one) was terrible. It had a small amount of static back focus wide open and had very soft corners. Its aperture shift made it unusable on digital. I sent it back to the dealer within the refund period and let it become someone else’s problem. A few weeks later, I bought a chrome one, again on a sale or return basis, not expecting much. I was amazed to find it was an excellent performer. I left it at Solms to be coded (it was a September 2006 lens, just prior to coding and from the final batch of chrome lenses), with strict instructions that other than changing the mount to a coded one, not to touch anything.

 

BTW although the ASPH element on this lens is made from a moulded blank (like all Leica’s other lens elements) and I believe came from Schott Glass, it is ground on the same computer controlled aspherical band grinders that Leica would have used for the two elements of the Aspherical lens. This machine only finish grinds and therefore must be used on moulded blanks. If you go round Leica, you will see polystyrene trays of the lens element blanks waiting to be ground on either the spherical or aspherical grinding machines.

 

Wilson

[Advertisement]

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

[platypus]

Slightly OT but I would like to send a personal note of thanks to Dee (platypus) for the classy correspondence and professional manner in the previous posts. We may disagree, and be at opposite ends of the spectrum with regards to this issue, but it's nice to be able to discuss the question without resorting to unsavory tactics and personal attacks.

 

Thanks Stephen, that's nice....and may I say the same to you.

As my use of the lens (and my photography in general) is more instinctive

than technical, I am quite prepared to accept that I could be incorrect!

Also, the behaviour of my copy is probably not the best example to cite as being

typical, as I've noted previously.

I use it only on the MM and so it wears a red filter 100% of the time, I have come to

be fairly convinced that this may have some effect with regard to muting CVF, but no proof of course.

[algrove]

Al - if you had to choose one lens between the APO 50 and 50 Lux 1.4 asph as an all rounder, which one would you choose?

 

I do not know what/how you shoot so…….

 

For a one lens kit I would get the 50/1.4 so you have a fast lens for those light needs and/or artistic expression.

 

That said, if you already have other 1.4 lens(es) then I would get the APO50 which I find mostly satisfying mostly for landscape, but also for occasional portraiture. But then the 501/4 pre ASPH #11868 might be better suited to portraits due to its softer approach to rendering.

[algrove]

Waiting...

 

Well, this lens must be new since there was a small white card inside mentioning they have now moved to Wetzlar, giving new address and phone numbers. Leica NJ gave this one a check over before sending it on to me. Cursory look inside shows nearly identical silver rings down deep, but this one has one more silver ring than my lens #2 which has but one silver ring way down deep. We will see what it yields in due time.

[ronnjay]

Lou,

Regarding your #1 lens replacement, is it a completely different serial number than the one you sent in?

 

Ron

[JHellow]

Well, this lens must be new since there was a small white card inside mentioning they have now moved to Wetzlar, giving new address and phone numbers. Leica NJ gave this one a check over before sending it on to me. Cursory look inside shows nearly identical silver rings down deep, but this one has one more silver ring than my lens #2 which has but one silver ring way down deep. We will see what it yields in due time.

 

Mine had 2 silver rings going to Solms and two when it came back.

[algrove]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Lou,

Regarding your #1 lens replacement, is it a completely different serial number than the one you sent in?

 

Ron

 

Yes, because it was mostly due to Leica NJ complaining to CS Solms (at the time) and me too about shoddy repair service.

 

My only problem is that the plastic bag over the lens inside the black box has no serial number on it like every new lens I have ever purchased from Leica.

[jdlaing]

Yes, because it was mostly due to Leica NJ complaining to CS Solms (at the time) and me too about shoddy repair service.

 

My only problem is that the plastic bag over the lens inside the black box has no serial number on it like every new lens I have ever purchased from Leica.

 

I bought three new lenses and only one had a serial number on the bag.

[algrove]

I bought three new lenses and only one had a serial number on the bag.

 

I have bought 22 new lenses and only one, this one, did not have the serial number on the clear plastic bag. I even but used M lenses and R lenses which have the serial number on the plastic bag.

 

Agree, that does make the lens any better, but someday a collector might wish the plastic bag had the serial number. The one it replaced had a plastic bag with the serial number on it come to think of it.

[dewilde]

My apologies for misunderstanding your reference to 35 'lux problems, but I certainly don't recall the complaints about the ASPH back in 2006, as I'm not a heavy participant in this forum. My M8 was 1 of the 1st batch sold in the US, & had plenty of problems from day one, but none that could be blamed on my 35 'lux ASPH (it has continued to be an excellent lens on my old M9 & current 240, as it has on my film bodies since I acquired it in 2001).

 

You and I were one of the lucky ones then. I didn't realize that the 35Summilux-ASPH had problems. As I bought mine and loved it, no issues whatsoever. Sold it off, and have regretted ever since.

[Dougg]

You and I were one of the lucky ones then. I didn't realize that the 35Summilux-ASPH had problems. As I bought mine and loved it, no issues whatsoever. Sold it off, and have regretted ever since.

I have been lucky with mine as well. I never noticed any focus shift problems but sent it off with half a dozen others to DAG for coding, focus check etc, and he commented: “Basically, all your Leitz lenses were out of focus & by adjusting the focus, I was able to improve all of them.”

 

I bought mine through Robert White in January 2009, at a time of rebates and discounts and fortunate Euro - Pound - Dollar exchange rates. I didn't know then the FLE was on its way, and I suppose the distribution system was being "flushed" of the old to make way for the new. They didn't actually have one at hand, and there was a short wait for a shipment to arrive. So, a fortunate beginning, and it has remained fortunate since. I really like this lens!

 

I could be motivated to like the 50AA as well, once assured matters have been resolved.

 

Doug

[dewilde]

Mine had 2 silver rings going to Solms and two when it came back.

 

As I've mentioned, originally had silver rings, came back the first time with one silver ring deep in, then came back a second time with tons of silver rings. I'm really unconvinced the blackening of the elements has anything to do with anything Pretty sure that was a smoke screen (sorry blackening of the rings slipped through our QC), and the real issue is grounding the glass, polishing, coating. and probably to some extent assembly. Which sounds a lot worse then "oops we just forgot to blacken your lens, don't fear, we can fix it easily".

 

Just my thoughts based on performance to ring ratio

[wlaidlaw]

You and I were one of the lucky ones then. I didn't realize that the 35Summilux-ASPH had problems. As I bought mine and loved it, no issues whatsoever. Sold it off, and have regretted ever since.

 

There was even a weasely article in an LFI edition in 2007, explaining why Leica could not make the 35 ASPH Summiluxes properly and we all had to put up with excessive aperture shift on this lens. When I went to Solms that year and left mine for coding, I showed Leica the focus chart test shots, which demonstrated clearly that although there was a tiny amount of aperture shift, it was nothing you would notice in real life. Mine is set up with a very small amount of front focus wide open, so that the focus fields are split 50/50. As you close down the aperture, the focus shifts to a more traditional one third nearer the camera than the point of maximum focus and two thirds further away.

 

I asked Leica, so if aperture shift, according to you, is inherent in the design, how come mine doesn’t do it? The answer apparently, is that the placement of the aspherical element is critical to a micron, which is a finer tolerance than Leica can assemble to, so an element of luck on the lens’ performance exists. I am not sure whether I believe it or not. There was also a view that there were a higher proportion of good chrome lenses than black ones. The only possible explanation for this is that brass is easier to machine to very fine tolerances than aluminium alloy. However, I am not sure that the lens element carriers on both types of lens are not brass, in which case that theory breaks down.

 

Many years ago when I was a Zeiss/Contax beta tester, I went to a presentation in 2003 on the ZM lenses, just before they were released. We were told that a large part of the design philosophy was to design a lens, where the assembly tolerances were greater than the optical requirements (avoidance of ashperical elements, high flare resistance and resolution of at least 200 lp/mm in the centre, were the other aims). This should result in a very consistent product, which is certainly borne out by my experience with the 5 ZM lenses I have owned at various times, which have all done exactly what it says on the tin. The only downside is that pretty much every Zeiss lens has more elements than the equivalent Leica lens and is physically larger.

 

Wilson

[jaapv]

It has the ring of truth, Wilson.

[wlaidlaw]

It has the ring of truth, Wilson.

 

You mean it’s a plausible bit of PR :)

 

Wilson

[dewilde]

There was even a weasely article in an LFI edition in 2007, explaining why Leica could not make the 35 ASPH Summiluxes properly and we all had to put up with excessive aperture shift on this lens. When I went to Solms that year and left mine for coding, I showed Leica the focus chart test shots, which demonstrated clearly that although there was a tiny amount of aperture shift, it was nothing you would notice in real life. Mine is set up with a very small amount of front focus wide open, so that the focus fields are split 50/50. As you close down the aperture, the focus shifts to a more traditional one third nearer the camera than the point of maximum focus and two thirds further away.

 

I asked Leica, so if aperture shift, according to you, is inherent in the design, how come mine doesn’t do it? The answer apparently, is that the placement of the aspherical element is critical to a micron, which is a finer tolerance than Leica can assemble to, so an element of luck on the lens’ performance exists. I am not sure whether I believe it or not. There was also a view that there were a higher proportion of good chrome lenses than black ones. The only possible explanation for this is that brass is easier to machine to very fine tolerances than aluminium alloy. However, I am not sure that the lens element carriers on both types of lens are not brass, in which case that theory breaks down.

 

Many years ago when I was a Zeiss/Contax beta tester, I went to a presentation in 2003 on the ZM lenses, just before they were released. We were told that a large part of the design philosophy was to design a lens, where the assembly tolerances were greater than the optical requirements (avoidance of ashperical elements, high flare resistance and resolution of at least 200 lp/mm in the centre, were the other aims). This should result in a very consistent product, which is certainly borne out by my experience with the 5 ZM lenses I have owned at various times, which have all done exactly what it says on the tin. The only downside is that pretty much every Zeiss lens has more elements than the equivalent Leica lens and is physically larger.

 

Wilson

 

I've also heard a spin on what you've mentioned from Zeiss about the ZM lenses. And I do like quite a few of them, Zeiss has done a very solid job with the ZM line, clearly achieved their objectives. Unfortunately when I asked about the promised ZM lenses, Zeiss told me that they've put the new ZM lenses on hold as they're focusing on the Sony E mount system.

 

My 35lux was black, and I must have just got lucky, as when I got it, the first thing I did was test for focus shift, and I honestly felt as if I was reading false reports, I tried to induce the issue, and just couldn't.. Unlike with the 50APO!

[jaapv]

You mean it’s a plausible bit of PR :)

 

Wilson

Not quite, the relationship between modern lens design on the edge and the ability to produce to nearly impossible tolerances is close and has kept the Apo-Summicron, for instance, on the shelf for quite a while. I am sure Leica has a number of designs on hold for just this reason.

[wlaidlaw]

I've also heard a spin on what you've mentioned from Zeiss about the ZM lenses.

 

The presentation I went to in the big fancy building in Oberkochen, was by some of the large foreheaded guys in white coats, from Carl Zeiss optics lab. I would tend to believe what they said, a lot more than some shiny suited policy wonk from the PR department. I have to admit however, that after two hours of looking at MTF graphs in an overheated darkened room, one had difficulty hearing the continuing presentation over the sound of snoring. There is a well known UK personality in the rangefinder world, who fell off his chair, to much muted sniggering.

 

Wilson

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[algrove]

My 35 FLE has been stellar. I was not aware of problems until RickLeica mentioned he had enormous problems with his 35FLE.

[wlaidlaw]

A friend is on his second 35 FLE. The first one went back I believe twice to Solms for horrible purple CA edge fringing (the same problem my 2006 50 ASPH Summilux had). He has now had it replaced and I gather it is quite a bit better if not 100% but this may be an inevitable corollary of very high resolution and contrast lenses on digital sensors.

 

Wilson