I love my 28mm summilux

[mmradman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I think the mass production version will have the standard focus scale and also the newer Summilux hood.

 

As a matter of interest does anyone can guess what filter size new Summilux 28mm?

 

Hopefully there will be screw in metric filter thread under the scre-in lens hood, like SEM 21mm and Summilux 35mm FLE.

[Advertisement]

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

[algrove]

Well the 21/1.4 takes a series VIII and the 24/1.4 take a series VII so the 28/1.4 should be smaller, but who knows. I would be happy with a 55mm or 60mm, but nothing in between.

[wattsy]

I'm also guessing the new 28 Summilux will likely be similar to the current 35 Summilux FLE; i.e., much more about super high resolution and the 'modern clinical' look which seems to be the new direction for Leica lenses. What I like about the 28 Summicron is that while it still has very high sharpness, it also retains the 'classic' and less modern look to the images.

 

I think you are probably right but I think the direction Leica is taking is more than simply pandering to pixel peepers or about bragging rights but about matching lenses to ever 'improving' sensor capability. The 28 Summicron is a good case in point because I feel ambivalent about this lens on full frame digital bodies and think it shines more when used with film. It's not just the natural vignetting (which I find more intrusive on digital) but there is something about the sharpness of the lens that I increasingly find to be an unsatisfactory match for sensors like the one in the Monochrom.

[CalArts 99]

I think you are probably right but I think the direction Leica is taking is more than simply pandering to pixel peepers or about bragging rights but about matching lenses to ever 'improving' sensor capability. The 28 Summicron is a good case in point because I feel ambivalent about this lens on full frame digital bodies and think it shines more when used with film. It's not just the natural vignetting (which I find more intrusive on digital) but there is something about the sharpness of the lens that I increasingly find to be an unsatisfactory match for sensors like the one in the Monochrom.

 

You're correct in what you're saying. And I think it's also what other lens manufacturers are now doing (e.g., Zeiss and their Otus, Sigma and their Art series, etc..) These are lenses for the digital age of high resolving power which everyone is desiring (and expecting) and measuring value. I didn't mean to imply at all that it was "pandering to pixel peepers" but just that the newer lenses are indeed different (and expensive!) As you say, with sensor advancement the optics do need to be able to take advantage of the higher recording capabilities.

 

I also have the 35mm Summilux FLE and it is more 'clinical/modern' (however one wants to describe it.) But then again, I also come from a different position since I sold my M9 long ago and decided to stay with Leica only for film. As you mentioned the 28mm Summicron seems to vignette quite a bit on digital; it did much more so on the M9 then it does on any film M.

[desu]

I'm also guessing the new 28 Summilux will likely be similar to the current 35 Summilux FLE; i.e., much more about super high resolution and the 'modern clinical' look which seems to be the new direction for Leica lenses. What I like about the 28 Summicron is that while it still has very high sharpness, it also retains the 'classic' and less modern look to the images.

 

I see people mentioning this often but what exactly is meant by clinical look? Lack of aberrations? Sharpness? High contrast? Smooth bokeh?

[349A]

I see people mentioning this often but what exactly is meant by clinical look? Lack of aberrations? Sharpness? High contrast? Smooth bokeh?

 

When you see it, you know it. Following many of the Facebook image posts for instance- I know, low res- you can immediately identify the 35 Lux FLE pics. They look oddly sharpened in a somewhat unnatural way- a hyper sharp and crisp feeling. Very digitized, none of that smooth flow I see from the less clinical lenses. If you turn up structure too much, this is the look I see in most FLE images.

 

I see this from a variety of shooters, its a common look I see among the images shot with this lens so I can't blame the processing. The 35 FLE is the "worst" in this regard to my eyes of the newer Leica designs. Don't get me wrong, its a fabulous lens and I'm sure its quite possible to get awesome images from it. Its tendencies are just at the other end of the spectrum from what I personally enjoy and what I find appealing. I don't like mush either. The 50APO is an exception to this- super hi-res yet natural. It doesn't look like a manipulated and sharpened image.

 

I'm sure others can explain it better.

[CalArts 99]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

I see this from a variety of shooters, its a common look I see among the images shot with this lens so I can't blame the processing.

 

I use mine on film only and it also has that 'clean' look straight off the film. I like the lens but find that it works best (for me, and on film) in specific situations, e.g., under softer diffuse light. It's technically a great lens but it clearly has a different look (to me, subjectively.) I only use the word "clinical" because that has been used before by others. I can't quite describe it other than it's very sharp and 'clean.' I find that it's just a lot different than what I am used to.

 

Anyway, it's all going to be subjective depending on each person's wants and desires, etc.. Again, I do like the lens overall but find that I need to be sometimes cautious with it in many environments. I'm actually thinking of selling it. For me, it's an expensive lens just to own if I'm not 100% happy using it.

[Paul J]

I think you are all correct. This is the High Definition generation. Look in magazines, the movies, the advertising, the television, it's all pixel perfect, HD, UHD, 4K, 8K. Sharpness and maximum detail, clinical delivery is what people relate to these days.

[algrove]

And sadly most only look at images on the internet and/or post in jpeg and never get to the final step of printing.

[IWC Doppel]

Some interesting points. I suspect the reality of 'in chip' for want of a more accurate term processing, noise reduction, sharpening and other algorithms have an impact to the look. I did read a while ago that the CMOS technology gained ground over the CCD because of the flexibility here. (The ability to do a little more in chip processing ?)

 

For me the other notable point is the 'naturalness' of how a lens transitions from in focus to out of focus, plus how the out of focus then looks. There is a natural softness to what happens with my actual impression by eye with no camera in the process and I have no doubt we 'like' something that is closer to what we experience in real life.

 

I do find the 35FLE can on certain images have a look that jars a little with what looks like a very sharp 2D image on a less natural out of focus background. For me the ability to show image depth and naturalness is in part getting these natural cues right and some earlier lens designs seem perhaps better in some areas here, albeit with less actual resolution. The other thing I am sure plays a part is the way all of this complexity actually works together and mathematical things like moire that don't happen in the more natural world (film)

 

I like Impressionism and am quite happy with softness for certain images, perhaps others are too, this can possibly be persuade the viewer towards older designs. I do also think that the higher the resolution the less forgiving to these less natural subtleties everything becomes. As it happens I like the 28 Summicron on my M9 and liked it on my M8 too, it is very sharp but does to my eyes have a more naturalness to the out of focus rendering than some modern designs.

 

A final point I'll make is that distance reduces sharpness for me, by eye, and any sharpening and processing will apply this to distant and close objects, this has an impact on image depth IMO.

 

Sorry for my ramble I'm struggling to sleep

[349A]

And sadly most only look at images on the internet and/or post in jpeg and never get to the final step of printing.

 

Probably true. I enjoy making 16x20's myself. Doesn't prevent me from seeing character via a online jpeg.

[rramesh]

I think the mass production version will have the standard focus scale and also the newer Summilux hood.

 

There may never be a 'mass produced' version. Just look at the 50 APO Summicron.

[Guest JonathanP]

you can immediately identify the 35 Lux FLE pics. They look oddly sharpened in a somewhat unnatural way- a hyper sharp and crisp feeling. Very digitized, none of that smooth flow I see from the less clinical lenses. If you turn up structure too much, this is the look I see in most FLE images.

 

And I think thats the nub of the problem - badly processed FLE images. I've found with mine that it the default sharpening in Lightroom is way too much with the M240. Up to f/8 I set the sharpening to zero for the FLE. I think it benefits from a small amount (5-10) as you go above f/8 to counteract diffraction, but thats all. Turning the sharpening off doesn't result in any less detail - it just removes the digital artifacts from the over-sharpening and produces sublime images.

 

Jonathan

[Paul J]

There may never be a 'mass produced' version. Just look at the 50 APO Summicron.

 

Mass production v Ltd Edition. Maybe I should have said standard production.

 

There has only been one red Ltd Edition APO-Summicron. I would say the standard edition is the mass production model albeit in smaller numbers.

[349A]

Some interesting points. I suspect the reality of 'in chip' for want of a more accurate term processing, noise reduction, sharpening and other algorithms have an impact to the look. I did read a while ago that the CMOS technology gained ground over the CCD because of the flexibility here. (The ability to do a little more in chip processing ?)

 

For me the other notable point is the 'naturalness' of how a lens transitions from in focus to out of focus, plus how the out of focus then looks. There is a natural softness to what happens with my actual impression by eye with no camera in the process and I have no doubt we 'like' something that is closer to what we experience in real life.

 

I do find the 35FLE can on certain images have a look that jars a little with what looks like a very sharp 2D image on a less natural out of focus background. For me the ability to show image depth and naturalness is in part getting these natural cues right and some earlier lens designs seem perhaps better in some areas here, albeit with less actual resolution. The other thing I am sure plays a part is the way all of this complexity actually works together and mathematical things like moire that don't happen in the more natural world (film)

 

I like Impressionism and am quite happy with softness for certain images, perhaps others are too, this can possibly be persuade the viewer towards older designs. I do also think that the higher the resolution the less forgiving to these less natural subtleties everything becomes. As it happens I like the 28 Summicron on my M9 and liked it on my M8 too, it is very sharp but does to my eyes have a more naturalness to the out of focus rendering than some modern designs.

 

A final point I'll make is that distance reduces sharpness for me, by eye, and any sharpening and processing will apply this to distant and close objects, this has an impact on image depth IMO.

 

Sorry for my ramble I'm struggling to sleep

 

Beautifully explained. I just looked at a few FLE images and yes, this is exactly what I see. The out of focus areas and transition to OOF are very harsh and very different than what I see in life and from other lenses like the 28/2, 50APO and 75/1.4 among others.

[batmobile]

If you want a beautifully rendering fast 35mm lens for a Leica M, there is one stand out option: the CV 35mm f1.2 II. High resolution, but gentle. Lovely bokeh and with astonishing edge performance right from wide open. Aside from being heavy, this lens has absolutely no drawbacks. Oh, and it has the added bonus of being tremendous on the A7R IMHO the 35mm FLE is not in the same galaxy when it comes to rendering. I pair it with the 24 lux, which also beautifully combines the sharp yet soft look, with bags of microcontrast. They make a beautiful pair. If the 28 Lux asph is anything like the 24 it will be a treat.

[NB23]

Is this where we are these days as far as superlative phrases go?

 

"Sharp yet soft look with bags of microcontrast"?? What does that even mean, and what's next in this never-ending race of justifying one's own equipment?

[lct]

Is this where we are these days as far as superlative phrases go?

"Sharp yet soft look with bags of microcontrast"?? ....

I don't know but the Magic of Leica APO-Summicron thread seems hard to beat from this standpoint .

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Erik Gunst Lund]

Just a little detail update

Regarding the 'very few' aperture value engravings on the lens barrel for the DOF scale, I have noticed that on all three 'silver' lenses in the Leica M 100 year set has just the value engravings for 1.4 5.6 and 11 and very short engraved lines for the rest of the aperture values.

That is 28mm 35mm and 50mm Summilux lenses.

 

I have come to like this less cluttered and more aesthetic look

[semi-ambivalent]

Is this where we are these days as far as superlative phrases go?

 

"Sharp yet soft look with bags of microcontrast"?? What does that even mean, and what's next in this never-ending race of justifying one's own equipment?

 

NB23,

 

I think the "never-ending race" might be better placed in the laps of the manufacturers, and their advertising campaigns to rationalize it. Many years ago you could save up a couple months of wages, buy a Leica and really have a camera for a lifetime. How was film ever going to change?* Digital is a different game entirely; the manufacturers are like rats on a wheel, selling ever-smaller changes for ever-more obtuse reasons. They're trapped too, you know. Joe User buys into the more pixels argument at one end and Jill Pro might buy into the clean super-high ISO performance at the other. It takes a pretty big company to drive R&D for all of this. And then they have to sell it to millions of people who don't run their equipment into the ground and are forced to buy new.

 

Sure, there's a psychological aspect to owning expensive, beautiful gear (an MF 35mm f/1.4 AiS Nikkor fresh out of the box sure is purty), but that's a small, small segment of the clientele. The companies have a bigger view, by necessity. Leica is rather good at this engineering thing, maybe they'll produce a lens like Nikon's 105 DC only instead of dialing in varying amount of de-focus it will be varying amounts of spherical aberration. Then sell it to both camps.

 

thanks,

Reed

 

* (Trick question. It wasn't, except to get better. )