35mm Summicron Versions

[microview]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

See also: Antique and Classic Cameras

[Advertisement]

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

[gyoung]

This might be tantamount to heresy on this forum, but I was checking out the photozone review of the 35 ASPH, and the resolution charts seem significantly lower than contemporary DSLR lenses - specifically the Sigma 35/1.4. Is there something I am just not reading properly, or is the Sigma lens just that good? Just to be clear - I'm not a terrible pixel peeper, but I am trying to understand how a $900 sigma lens seemingly out-resolves a $3300 Leica lens. Is this trend just characteristic for rangefinder lenses in the sense that they are optically more complex than SLR lenses as a result of the close registration?

 

I've been wondering about that photozone test too, I haven't done any 'testing' but I would be surprised if my 35/2 asph was as soft as that at the edges on film. In view of it not performing very well on the A7 is it perhaps that its older design is not too suitable fir digital even on the Leica cameras? Is it significantly worse on M or M9 than on film? Do we need the newer designs to use on digital?

Maybe the older lenses would be best used on crop format cameras.

 

Gerry

 

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[krooj]

I've been wondering about that photozone test too, I haven't done any 'testing' but I would be surprised if my 35/2 asph was as soft as that at the edges on film. In view of it not performing very well on the A7 is it perhaps that its older design is not too suitable fir digital even on the Leica cameras? Is it significantly worse on M or M9 than on film? Do we need the newer designs to use on digital?

Maybe the older lenses would be best used on crop format cameras.

 

Gerry

 

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

 

I also happened to read the 35mm bulk review that Reid did a few years ago. That review's test shots seem to show focus shifting with the ASPH lens. It was sharp at f2, then degrades in the centre until around f8. He does mention that the softness isn't noticeable in practice, and those test shots do amount to pixel peeping. I wonder if he has plans to re-test any of this stuff on the 240?

 

In any case, the Ultron I picked up is surprisingly good and I'm not going to complain for the $350 I paid... Would be nice to see Cosina re-issue it as a native M mount lens that could go down to 0.7m.

[gyoung]

I had an Ultron once, used with an R2 and then with the M6ttl, but I liked my Summicron 35 for the M3 better. So I saved up my pocket money and swopped the Ultron for a Summicron asph. which is really good on the film cameras.

I do have a 35/2.5 Voigtlander too, which is great, used mainly on my III

 

Gerry

 

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[Guest Ansel_Adams]

I like Cameraquest's take on "lens tests" myself:

 

Lens Tester

[quadraticadder]

I've been wondering about that photozone test too, I haven't done any 'testing' but I would be surprised if my 35/2 asph was as soft as that at the edges on film. In view of it not performing very well on the A7 is it perhaps that its older design is not too suitable fir digital even on the Leica cameras? Is it significantly worse on M or M9 than on film? Do we need the newer designs to use on digital?

Maybe the older lenses would be best used on crop format cameras.

 

Gerry

 

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

 

I often wonder if Leica lenses are so costly because they are very well built (likely the best), and it takes a good deal of optical design, grind, polish, and specialty glass to get them to work as well as they do with the short lens to sensor distance in a rangefinder. Not to mention that Leica isn't the biggest optical/camera company and that Leica lens sales do not have the high volume that other company's do. Of course, MTF isn't everything when evaluating a lens, but perhaps some of the Leica lens designs that came out before the M9 do need an update for high resolution, full-frame sensors. I have seen several posts (there's a recent one with a camera shootout in a Leica forum on a popular digital preview website) that show that Leica glass works better on Leica cameras than those of other manufacturers. Perhaps the sensors in the other manufacturer's cameras don't have the same optimized micro lenses that Leica does covering the sensor sites at the edges?

 

Best,

Steve

[ph.]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Looking at MTF curves, make certain to compare like with like.

 

Some curves tend to be from computer models, some are measured. Some do not state which part of the spectrum, some explicitly state white light. The usual Leica curves are also drawn for fine details, not all curves use the same numbers.

 

And of course there are other qualities than resolution and sharpness in the primary focus plane that also do vary. Even the MTFs may be way out after some years of use if the mounts are not stable enough.

 

p.

[Printmaker]

I had an Ultron once, used with an R2 and then with the M6ttl, but I liked my Summicron 35 for the M3 better. So I saved up my pocket money and swopped the Ultron for a Summicron asph. which is really good on the film cameras.

I do have a 35/2.5 Voigtlander too, which is great, used mainly on my III

 

Gerry

 

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

 

The 35/2.5 CV is a great lens for the money. The M mount version is probably one of the best CV lenses made.