Photozone

[Carduelis]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Photozone have now finally got around to reviewing Leica M lenses on an M9. They have recently reviewed the 35 mm Summicron ASPH and the 50 Summicron M. Very favourable reviews, particularly for the latter.

 

Leica M Lens Tests

[lct]

Nothing about flare?

[jaapv]

I don't think they found much to be honest. Especially the Summicron 35 asph is quite flare-resistant.

[Erik Gunst Lund]

Nothing about flare?

I noted that also, and this confirm my personal findings, no flare issues with either lens.

 

My take at this is that there is a difference between the two latest 50mm Summicron versions besides the lens barrel, my guess is different coatings on lens elements and/or on the rear surface of the aperture blades.

 

I have owned/tested a lot of the Nikon lenses tested on Photozone.de and their tests are almost spot on with those lenses as well.

 

Highly recommended site.

 

Looking forward to more of the Leica M lenses through their hands.

[lct]

...there is a difference between the two latest 50mm Summicron versions besides the lens barrel, my guess is different coatings on lens elements and/or on the rear surface of the aperture blades...

I see a difference as well now both lenses do flare when we want them to do so don't they. I would have liked that Photozone do the job i have no time to do i.e. elaborate on circumstances where lenses are prone to flare actually.

[skuromis]

I see a difference as well now both lenses do flare when we want them to do so don't they. I would have liked that Photozone do the job i have no time to do i.e. elaborate on circumstances where lenses are prone to flare actually.

Didn't know it was the duty of photozone to do the(?) job

Anyways, one problem is, that photozone will probably write about flares, if they occur during the test. But then, it is a standard test and I think they won't have the time either to shoot around and test every angle, setting, condition to reproduce some flare, which somebody complained about in the internet.

That doesn't mean there is no flare, but at least the lens passes the standard tests without.

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Not sure what a standard test is exactly but no conclusion can be drawn flare wise from a review where the word flare is absent.

[Freedolin]

no conclusion can be drawn flare wise from a review where the word flare is absent.

 

It's hard to argue against that one

 

I hope you don't mind if I chime in here, but I'd like to add that I indeed did not run into any noticeable flare issues both in the lab as well as in the field. However, as skuromis correctly states, this does of course not mean there is no flare at all. I'm very sure there is. But I simply did not shoot in the "right" conditions to notice.

 

I usually try to check for flare with every test lens, but that's a rather simple task with a DSLR, since you can look for flare in the viewfinder. On the M, one would have to take hundreds of shots instead.

 

Apart from that: any lens flares under certain conditions. And it's my impression that on the M9 (or other digital M cameras) the flare potential on average is higher than on a DSLR. This might be a side effect of the very compact optics and also the short flange distance with the reflecting sensor rather close to the lens.

 

-- Markus

-- photozone.de

[skuromis]

Not sure what a standard test is exactly but no conclusion can be drawn flare wise from a review where the word flare is absent.

 

Standard in terms of the normal test on photozone, which follows usually the same procedure . If I'm not wrong it is somewhere described on the webpage.

[lct]

...On the M, one would have to take hundreds of shots instead...

Would just need a dozen of snaps with an EVF but you don't use an M240 yet i guess. Anyway, aside from generalizations, there are circumstances where one particular lens will flare more than others. When strong light sources are inside our outside the edges of the frame for instance (a mere halogen lamp here). Would be useful to know what happens in circumstances like that.

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!

[gyoung]

Two things stood out for me :

1 How much light all off there is with the 35/2 asph on the M9, I haven't done any 'tests' but have not noticed problems on film (M6ttl and M3), is that specific to the M9?

2 How insignificant this little jewel of a lens looks on the M9, doesn't match it (IMHO) in scale, the body looks almost bloated. The lens looks great on my M6ttl! Seems you need to budget for a 35/1.4 if you buy an M9 and care about the look of the outfit

 

Gerry

[Freedolin]

Would just need a dozen of snaps with an EVF but you don't use an M240 yet i guess.

 

No, and I most likely never will. Except for the better display, the M240 does not offer anything to me that makes it more attractive than the M9. In addition, lots of review work is already done with the M9 (not just the 2 reviews published so far) and I don't really want to start from scratch again.

 

Anyway, aside from generalizations, there are circumstances where one particular lens will flare more than others.

 

Sure. But that circumstances can be very specific, for example with the light source only at a certain distance just outside of the frame, and/or only at a certain angle. Sorry, but I won't hunt for these special conditions.

 

-- Markus

-- photozone.de

[Freedolin]

1 How much light all off there is with the 35/2 asph on the M9, I haven't done any 'tests' but have not noticed problems on film (M6ttl and M3), is that specific to the M9?

 

It's more pronounced on digital, yes.

 

-- Markus

-- photozone.de

[jaapv]

Indeed it is but easily corrected in digital too. With the drawback of a risk of noise increase in the corners as Photozone notes.

Which will only be a (minor) drawback on the M9/ME. The M8 cuts the corners off and the MM and M have the dynamic range to reduce the noise increase to virtually zero.

Unless you are shooting at the ISO limits of course.

[Freedolin]

the MM and M have the dynamic range to reduce the noise increase to virtually zero.

Unless you are shooting at the ISO limits of course.

 

That's the problem. And remember, that the 35/2 is a moderately fast lens. Vignetting is far more pronounced with really fast lenses (think of the Noctilux, a wide Summilux like the 24 Lux or the fast Voigtländer lenses). Some of those lenses never get below 2 stops uncorrected. Even with a modern sensor, noise will be more pronounced then.

 

On the other hand: that's the purely technical debate. For many subjects, especially with fast glass, vignetting usually really adds something to the image...

 

-- Markus

-- photozone.de

[jaapv]

The last is very true, I add vignetting more often that I remove it.

It is the price we pay for the small size of the M lenses, even the Summiluxes 21 and 24 and the Noctilux, big lumps as they are by Leica M standards, are actually amazingly compact for their specifications. If it comes to compromises I will take a bit of vignetting over any optical aberration any day.

 

Coming back to the Summicron 35 asph, I feel Photozone underrates it a bit, it should have a highly recommended for the following reason imo. It is simply the best general use 35 Leica has.(And corner resolution is a bourgeois concept anyway ) I copy/pasted from another thread, sorry

 

 

I would say the Summicron 35 asph is preferable to the Summilux 35 asph (fle) for both landscape and street. For a couple of reasons. The faster lens is slightly softer up to f 2.8, by which time they draw even. So the extra price and bulk do not add anything for landscape. For street in the daytime the same argument applies, and the small size of the Summicron makes the camera even a smidget less intimidating. But as the Summicron has less flare and higher contrast (both general and micro) at 2.0 it works better for night photography in the street with more precision the image, as street photography often has bright highlights and deep shadows. I really love the clarity it produces outdoor at night. The Summilux however excels in more even lighting indoors. And will give you that extra stop and separation.

Having said that I could live with either.

[lct]

...Coming back to the Summicron 35 asph, I feel Photozone underrates it a bit, it should have a highly recommended for the following reason imo. It is simply the best general use 35 Leica has.(And corner resolution is a bourgeois concept anyway ) ...

I don't see any softness in the corners with mine at f/4 and on. Aside from a contrasty bokeh, the only weakness of the 35/2 asph is a bit of CA to me but Photozone doesn't find any problem there interestingly. Vignetting is well corrected in lens detection mode on the M240 and doesn't cause significant digital noise issues up to 3200 iso on the latter. Flare is generally well controlled except when a strong light source is just at the outside of the frame. Strong light sources in the inside of the frame can cause coloured reflections as well. All in all, the 35/2 asph flares significantly less than its predecessor 35/2 v4 though. FWIW.

[gyoung]

Well whether corner sharpness and evenness of illumination are significant depends on the photos you are taking, Its my most used angle of view, and I value the 35/2 asph particularly for landscape and architecture for its sharpness into the corners and even illumination, on film.

I have plenty of 35s (8 in all ) and have used a good few others (and the equivalent angle of view on other formats) and for those purposes above its the best I have or have ever used, again on film. The others have various characteristics which make them useful enough for me to have kept them, the only one of them I am equally fond of is the 8 element Summicron I bought with my M3 a l o n g while ago.

 

Gerry

[jaapv]

I do fully agree, and your findings echo mine. Resolution does not determine sharpness, it determines the minimum size of the details that can be rendered. A lower resolution lens can still render a very sharp image if it has good contrast. It will, however lose out in detail..

 

That is exactly where the resolution testing used by many lens reviews breaks down and is quite misleading.

 

Unfortunately MTF curves, much more informative are not used often, for ta few reasons:

 

More difficult to interpret.

Because of the difficulty to interpret less interesting to the average reader

Above all more difficult/expensive to have measured.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[lct]

Curves from Sepulchre look better on edges and corners (http://tinyurl.com/l98dc27).