Guest Posted May 27, 2015 Share #161 Posted May 27, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) I can't imagine that's the main reason why Leica doesn't make brass lenses any longer. All the external metal bits on Leica cameras and lenses are now CNC machined and it's not much trouble for a machine to switch over from working on aluminum cylinders to working on brass cylinders. Simple tooling and coolant change. My guess is that in the digital age lenses are getting bigger and bigger so brass lenses would get heavier as well. Also in the past two decades there have been big advancements in the knowledge of aluminum and magnesium alloys, it doesn't make sense to make cameras out of heavy brass any longer. What other camera brand but Leica still clings on to this material? Purely out of nostalgia's sake. (yes, Pentax made a brass digital camera... big deal, it was a crop sensor anyway ) Don't get me wrong, I love brass and I wish Leica would make more lenses of the stuff. But from an engineering and production point of view, it makes no sense to continue to do so in the year 2015. Back on topic: The 28mm Summilux was a wet dream I've had for ages. But just a few weeks ago I took the plunge and bought the black chrome 35mm Summicron, as I'm going for a one-lens one-camera setup for the next few years. After that I'll rethink the 28mm Summilux! Looking forward to what people think when they can ahold of the 28mm lens! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 Hi Guest, Take a look here Summilux 28 now out!. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
MarkP Posted May 27, 2015 Share #162 Posted May 27, 2015 It was sold only due to its size and my wanting to reduce my kit and selling the 30 odd R lenses seemed to be what I did first. Only have the APO 180/2.8 and 28-90 of which the last I find it hard parting with (I had two) since it is such a versatile lens on the M240 platform. The lens had wonderful corner to corner sharpness and a quality to its shots I have not seen even with other Leica wides. I remember being out in over 1 meter of water with it for a sunrise shot and after looking at the shots on computer I could not believe how it captured the rocks below me with such good detail. Its rendering of detail was stupendous. The rocks were so close that I had to crop out my tripod legs left and right on the shot. Keep in mind I only used it on the original M240 and in the end decided the 18 prime was fine for my landscape purposes and besides I have the WATE too. That said the quality of shots from that lens still linger in my mind and thanks for refreshing those thoughts once again. I believe this is the shot. Thanks for posting this amazing photo again Algrove . I remember seeing and commenting on this, or similar from this series, that you posted early in an R-lens on M240 thread. Sone of these R lenses have an extraordinary 'transparency' to its rendering (in that I mean it's like looking through a window rather than at a photo) that is especially well demonstrated in photographs including water. I agree with your comments on the extraordinary 28-90 Vario-Elmarit-R which renders very similarly on the M240, and although expensive when I bought it for the M240 (prohibitively priced now) I have no regrets. I had considered a 2.8/180 APO but don't use the focal length enough to justify the cost so settled on an 80-200. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted May 28, 2015 Share #163 Posted May 28, 2015 Thanks for posting this amazing photo again Algrove . I remember seeing and commenting on this, or similar from this series, that you posted early in an R-lens on M240 thread. Sone of these R lenses have an extraordinary 'transparency' to its rendering (in that I mean it's like looking through a window rather than at a photo) that is especially well demonstrated in photographs including water. I agree with your comments on the extraordinary 28-90 Vario-Elmarit-R which renders very similarly on the M240, and although expensive when I bought it for the M240 (prohibitively priced now) I have no regrets. I had considered a 2.8/180 APO but don't use the focal length enough to justify the cost so settled on an 80-200. 180mm was my favourite focal length back when I used SLRs - compact, and about at the limits for useful handheld photography. The Leica 180/2.8 is HUGE compared to the Nikkor 180/2.8 IFED I had. I did look at one, but quickly gave it away as an idea. The 28-90 is stupid expensive, but arguably the perfect standard lens for an M(240) - as I don't have live view, doesn't work for me and it would be wasted on a Leica T (and look ridiculous). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mornnb Posted May 28, 2015 Share #164 Posted May 28, 2015 I can't imagine that's the main reason why Leica doesn't make brass lenses any longer. All the external metal bits on Leica cameras and lenses are now CNC machined and it's not much trouble for a machine to switch over from working on aluminum cylinders to working on brass cylinders. Simple tooling and coolant change. My guess is that in the digital age lenses are getting bigger and bigger so brass lenses would get heavier as well. Also in the past two decades there have been big advancements in the knowledge of aluminum and magnesium alloys, it doesn't make sense to make cameras out of heavy brass any longer. What other camera brand but Leica still clings on to this material? Purely out of nostalgia's sake. It does not make any sense to make lenses from brass, as it adds weight for little gain. These days cameras are typically made from black painted magnesium alloys rather than brass. The disadvantage however is that magnesium alloy looks ugly with wear, brass wear is actually attractive. Take a look at this beat up and well used Canon 1D for example. http://gadgetfort.com/media/cameras/Canon%20EOS%201D%20Mark%20IV%203.jpg http://www.karlgrobl.com/EquipmentReviews/ThrashedCanonPhotos/ThrashedCanon_02.jpg verses: http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/.a/6a00df351e888f8834010536bd4070970b-800wi Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 28, 2015 Share #165 Posted May 28, 2015 It does not make any sense to make lenses from brass, as it adds weight for little gain. These days cameras are typically made from black painted magnesium alloys rather than brass. The disadvantage however is that magnesium alloy looks ugly with wear, brass wear is actually attractive. Take a look at this beat up and well used Canon 1D for example. http://gadgetfort.com/media/cameras/Canon%20EOS%201D%20Mark%20IV%203.jpg http://www.karlgrobl.com/EquipmentReviews/ThrashedCanonPhotos/ThrashedCanon_02.jpg verses: http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/.a/6a00df351e888f8834010536bd4070970b-800wi I know all this. Leica stays with brass for the perceived value (heavier things signifies value) and for the cosmetics, especially with wear. I don't disagree with you at all and personally I like this. Keep in mind that the main body of the digital M-cameras are also magnesium alloys*, but this is hidden under the leatherette. Back on topic: If Leica sells a lot of 28mm Summilux lenses, and if Leica's overall supply chain catches up with demand, then maybe they might release a silver aluminum anodised version of the 28mm Summilux. Apart from the one-off limited editions, this is likely the closest scenario we will get to see a silver 28mm Summilux lens for the masses. *this is a bit misleading. In most (if not all) cases when a camera manufacturer states that their cameras are made of magnesium alloy, it is actually mostly composed of aluminum, with a mix of magnesium for strength and durability. Just from a PR perspective it sounds sexier to say it's made of magnesium and not stating it's the same material that your beer can is made of. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiepphotog Posted May 28, 2015 Share #166 Posted May 28, 2015 I thought brass lens would tend to have smoother focus action due to the self-lubricating property of the alloy. And it seems brass lens tends to hold up better than the regular aluminum lens from users' reports I have read here. If it's purely cosmetics, I would definitely go with the lighter lens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted May 28, 2015 Share #167 Posted May 28, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) I have the silver chrome Summilux-M 50 ASPH. Originally, the focusing was a little stiff (most will recall early complaints about the action being a bit tough as the FLE kicked in). After a few years of use, it is buttery smooth - not as fast as the 28 Summicron, but still very smooth. I have no idea if this has anything to do with the lens barrel being brass. It is heavy, but I quite like that. I did ask if a 28 Summilux would be available in silver chrome - I was told they were focusing on getting the black version right first! Not sure what that means. If there's premium for silver chrome, I might pass on that, but I do like the look of silver chrome lenses, I'd have to say. The one downside of the anodised aluminium is that it is softer - I have had to return my 21 Summilux after I dented the barrel - not sure how I managed that, but I did. Leica replaced the lens barrel at a reasonable cost. Cheers John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 28, 2015 Share #168 Posted May 28, 2015 Well yes and no. I was mainly referring to the previous poster's comments about cameras today made of brass or another alloy, not so much about whether a lens was made of brass or not. Sorry about the confusion. In the case of Leica M-lenses, the focus helicoid seems to be made of brass even when we're talking about black aluminum anodised lenses. Let me explain, take a look at this: It is a plain Jane Leica 35mm Summicron ASPH, in black anodised aluminum. But if you look at the bottom bit, there's something golden sticking out. This is the focus helicoid and traditionally for Leica this was made of brass. One of the reasons for this is the self-lubrication properties of the alloy that you mentioned. So when most people mention if a lens is made of brass or not, they are referring to the outer barrel construction of the lens, not the focus mechanism itself. Now-a-days (meaning the past 15-20 years) advances have been made in both material selections and lubrications. Hence, it's not really necessary to make the focus helicoid of brass for it's self-lubricating properties. Other alloys and lubrications can work better and lighter (and cheaper!). Cosina (makers of Voigtländer and Zeiss ZM lenses) have figured this out for a number of years and Leica is on the same bandwagon. Their lenses of the past 4-5 years have featured a focus helicoid that's not made of brass, but another alloy I'm not familiar with. It's black in color, but this could very well be an aluminum alloy that's been colored black through an anodising process: But all this is starting to get too technical. The short summary: Pick the lens you think is most purrty and be happy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted May 28, 2015 Share #169 Posted May 28, 2015 Quite. I was actually responding to Hiepphotog. Of my 9 Leica lenses, made between 1948 and 2014, there is no rhyme or reason for brass coloured helicoids or black. I'm not really sure there is a lot in it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted May 28, 2015 Share #170 Posted May 28, 2015 In most (if not all) cases when a camera manufacturer states that their cameras are made of magnesium alloy, it is actually mostly composed of aluminum, with a mix of magnesium for strength and durability. Just from a PR perspective it sounds sexier to say it's made of magnesium and not stating it's the same material that your beer can is made of. So you say that what Canon calls "magnesium alloy" is actually "aluminum alloy". That would be cheating the consumer. Any reference ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
semi-ambivalent Posted May 28, 2015 Share #171 Posted May 28, 2015 *this is a bit misleading. In most (if not all) cases when a camera manufacturer states that their cameras are made of magnesium alloy, it is actually mostly composed of aluminum, with a mix of magnesium for strength and durability. Just from a PR perspective it sounds sexier to say it's made of magnesium and not stating it's the same material that your beer can is made of. I get what you're saying but what laws of commerce control how one describes an alloy of aluminum mixed with magnesium verses an alloy of magnesium mixed with aluminum? A beer can is no less remarkable; it's just that there's billions of them compared to the mere millions of Leicas. Perhaps I should think less of brass lenses because brass is what is used in cheap, rickety coffee tables and squeaky headboards often imported from India or China. Is that any more sensible? s-a Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmradman Posted May 28, 2015 Share #172 Posted May 28, 2015 I get what you're saying but what laws of commerce control how one describes an alloy of aluminum mixed with magnesium verses an alloy of magnesium mixed with aluminum? A beer can is no less remarkable; it's just that there's billions of them compared to the mere millions of Leicas. Perhaps I should think less of brass lenses because brass is what is used in cheap, rickety coffee tables and squeaky headboards often imported from India or China. Is that any more sensible? s-a Drinks metal can is indeed remarkable industrial object but my preference is old fashioned glass bottled beer or draft - it tastes better. Back on the subject, lens barrels of modern M lenses are anodised aluminium which can be any colour, I think Dr Kaufmann was seen sporting red APO Summicron 50mm on one of Leica promotion bashes. For the size of the lens and new production methodlology it will likely remain so, can't comment on the future special editions. On the other hand helicoids, which have moving and fixed part, where we see external moving helicoid in black, if you examine closely past external bit, internal fixed helicoids appears to be bare metal and brass like. I suspect external is also brass but colour treated to reduce internal reflections. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted May 28, 2015 Share #173 Posted May 28, 2015 I suspect external is also brass but colour treated to reduce internal reflections. = paint Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 28, 2015 Share #174 Posted May 28, 2015 So you say that what Canon calls "magnesium alloy" is actually "aluminum alloy". That would be cheating the consumer. Any reference ? Hm, not necessarily cheating. This is a bit of a grey area. It's not wrong to say that an alloy is a magnesium alloy, even though the majority of the composition is made up of aluminum. From an engineering point of view it's just an odd thing to say. Steel is made up of iron and carbon, usually with 5% or less of the composition made up of carbon. So describing steel as a carbon alloy would be plain silly... but technically not wrong either. Reference: Background in metallurgy and engineering. I don't know the exact composition of the alloy used in digital cameras, but it just wouldn't make sense to have an magnesium-aluminum alloy where magnesium is the dominating element. I get what you're saying but what laws of commerce control how one describes an alloy of aluminum mixed with magnesium verses an alloy of magnesium mixed with aluminum? I know of metals and plastics, but when it comes to law I can't comment much. I'm sure there are laws in place that dictate what a producer can claim their products are made of, but take Leica as an example: They released an X2 (or was it a D-something compact?) in a titanium edition. But there wasn't a trace of titanium to be found on the camera, it was just titanium colored. Is that misleading the customer? Maybe. Perhaps consumer law differentiates between what a product is called and what the producer actually claims it's made of? As mentioned further up, it isn't exactly wrong to say an alloy is a magnesium alloy, even if the largest percentage of the alloy is composed of aluminum. Another marketing example from Leica, in which they released a special edition MP camera describing the metal parts as "features a copper and zinc-alloy body". Sounds new and fancy, right? Except when you mix copper and zinc you get... brass. Which to my knowledge Leica have always used on their M-cameras, except for a handful of M4's and all M6's. They're not lying, they're describing the products in a different way. Same with the magnesium-aluminum alloy. Marketing people use lots of tricks to make a product sound exciting. People who write and describe consumer products usually aren't the engineers who designed them, so occasionally some technical slip-ups happen. Look at when the 28mm Summilux was announced and the confusion about MTF charts and the physical length of the lens. (yay, I finally wrote something topic related!) ...but my preference is old fashioned glass bottled beer or draft - it tastes better. No arguments there! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted May 28, 2015 Share #175 Posted May 28, 2015 I get what you're saying but what laws of commerce control how one describes an alloy of aluminum mixed with magnesium verses an alloy of magnesium mixed with aluminum? The laws of false advertising. The term "magnesium alloy" means that magnesium is the primary metal, and must be present in the highest percentage. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 28, 2015 Share #176 Posted May 28, 2015 Back on the subject, lens barrels of modern M lenses are anodised aluminium which can be any colour, I think Dr Kaufmann was seen sporting red APO Summicron 50mm on one of Leica promotion bashes. Yup, Leica lenses can theoretically be anodised in any color of the rainbow... except white. As of today white aluminum is not yet possible. Not that I would want a white lens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiepphotog Posted May 28, 2015 Share #177 Posted May 28, 2015 I'm not sure Leica would go through the trouble of painting the brass helicoid; that would negate its self-lubricating properties. Checking product pictures, I see that Leica is shifting toward the black helicoid with all the recent, more modern lenses. FWIW, I found my chromed brass Lux 50 ASPH focus feel is a tiny bit better than my Elmar 24. I totally hate the focus feel of the CV 35/1.2 (both versions and I tried 4 copies) and 35/1.4: a bit gritty with random binding at time. Now back to the Lux 28, I informed Leica about their mistake with the published technical data: MTF discrepancy, wrong length info and lens diagram. So they got back to me yesterday that they already fixed it. Downloaded the new technical data sheet. I still think that the physical length and the vignette profile are still wrong. Now the distortion is right at 1.1%, more in line with the written literature. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted May 28, 2015 Share #178 Posted May 28, 2015 Brass is a difficult material to hard coat. As far as I am aware there is no black hard coating (DLC coating is not possible for most brass alloys). The usual hard coating for brass and it is very hard, is Zirconium Nitride but this is pale gold coloured. Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmradman Posted May 28, 2015 Share #179 Posted May 28, 2015 Leica revised Technical Data Sheet now http://us.leica-camera.com/Photography/Leica-M/M-Lenses/Summilux-M-28mm-f-1,4-ASPH/Downloads By the errors and missing data job was probably done by the office junior while checker must be busy working on something new & exciting. Being busy could be good providing he or she was not staring through the window or tweaking the CV. Errors in TDS:- text and legend for tangential and sagittal curves are in discrepancy, DOF table for f1.4 is missing. Hey Leica, i'll buy this lens with some discount Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted May 28, 2015 Share #180 Posted May 28, 2015 Still the wrong length and MTF graphs are still different in technical data and instructions... Is there a pilot in the plane? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.