hiepphotog Posted May 28, 2015 Share #181 Posted May 28, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Looking back at several other data sheets, I think Leica has been mis-labeling the sagittal and tangential lines. Not that it matters much. As of right now, Leica German confirmed the accuracy of the revised data sheet ; that is, without hood, the lens is 67mm and with hood it would be 81mm. I'm not sure what's going on over there. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted May 28, 2015 Posted May 28, 2015 Hi hiepphotog, Take a look here Summilux 28 now out!. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
ananda Posted May 28, 2015 Share #182 Posted May 28, 2015 Each to his own, but I am pefectly happy with my 28 Elmarit ASPH. One would be hard pressed to justify the added cost for the Summicron or Lux, except in cases where one shoots at widest aperture. The Elmarit and the silver 50 Summilux ASPH suit my needs well, but if someone want to direct trade the 50 Lux for the 50 APO Summi, I would be okay with that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted May 28, 2015 Share #183 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? Yes, but he is busy taking pictures Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hannes Lummes Posted May 29, 2015 Share #184 Posted May 29, 2015 I hope someone stored the wrong MTF curves. Vignetting chart still seems to be wrong, clearly belonging to a wider than 28mm lens. I still suspect that the original data was for about 18mm/f2.0 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted May 29, 2015 Share #185 Posted May 29, 2015 I wonder if they got a new optical bench to do their MTF's when they moved back to Wetzlar. The last one I saw there must have been one Oscar put to one side because it was getting a bit out of date Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted May 29, 2015 Share #186 Posted May 29, 2015 Looking back at several other data sheets, I think Leica has been mis-labeling the sagittal and tangential lines. Not that it matters much. As of right now, Leica German confirmed the accuracy of the revised data sheet ; that is, without hood, the lens is 67mm and with hood it would be 81mm. I'm not sure what's going on over there. I'm not sure what's going on either. If I recall, Leica spec sheets usually measure from front of lens to bayonet flange (as opposed to Zeiss who measure the total length of the lens). Looking at the comparison photos of the lens posted in this thread, and Jono's measurements (surely he can measure the length of a lens ), something seems to be lost in translation. There is no way I would consider buying an 81mm long (measured to bayonet flange) 28 Summilux. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
matlep Posted May 29, 2015 Author Share #187 Posted May 29, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) I'm not sure what's going on either. If I recall, Leica spec sheets usually measure from front of lens to bayonet flange (as opposed to Zeiss who measure the total length of the lens). Looking at the comparison photos of the lens posted in this thread, and Jono's measurements (surely he can measure the length of a lens ), something seems to be lost in translation. There is no way I would consider buying an 81mm long (measured to bayonet flange) 28 Summilux. The biggest mistake still, is that it is marked as 81mm without the hood, and 67mm with the hood. They need a new proof reader in Wetzlar. I think we have established a few pages ago that it is not 81mm nor with or nor without the hood. So lets just drop that figure all together. Even though Leica seems to have a hard time doing it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted May 29, 2015 Share #188 Posted May 29, 2015 They need a new proof reader in Wetzlar. I sometimes wonder if Leica literature is translated from German to Mongolian (or maybe Linear B )and thence to English. I quite often read something and wonder what on earth they are trying to say and sometimes it is just plain wrong. As you say a good native English-speaking proof reader would be a good idea. Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted May 29, 2015 Share #189 Posted May 29, 2015 They need a new proof reader in Wetzlar. ... and not only Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
matlep Posted May 29, 2015 Author Share #190 Posted May 29, 2015 Ma I sometimes wonder if Leica literature is translated from German to Mongolian (or maybe Linear B )and thence to English. I quite often read something and wonder what on earth they are trying to say and sometimes it is just plain wrong. As you say a good native English-speaking proof reader would be a good idea. Wilson I think they might translate to pig latin first "eThay engthlay isyay 81 illimetersmay" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted May 29, 2015 Share #191 Posted May 29, 2015 The biggest mistake still, is that it is marked as 81mm without the hood, and 67mm with the hood. Same typo as in 21/3.4 asph, 28/2.8 asph and 35/1.4 FLE technical data. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
matlep Posted May 29, 2015 Author Share #192 Posted May 29, 2015 Same typo as in 21/3.4 asph, 28/2.8 asph and 35/1.4 FLE technical data. So there is little hope for correct data then.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted May 29, 2015 Share #193 Posted May 29, 2015 Could be worst but it's the first time i see such errors in physical length and MTF graphs in the same document. Leica know that they've made the best 28/1.4 i suspect and they are content like that. Arrogance or sloppiness i don't know but a swift kick in the ass would be a good start. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted May 29, 2015 Share #194 Posted May 29, 2015 Rearrange these words into a well known phrase or saying "run couldn't a up p**s brewery in" Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrp Posted May 29, 2015 Share #195 Posted May 29, 2015 Well, I've been loving it for some time http://www.slack.co.uk/2015/28_Summilux.html Thanks for these; There are quite a few here taken at f/8, f/11 etc. You say that the Summicron bored you. What, to you, is distinctive about the Summilux images (a) at f/4+ ( at f/2.8- Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted May 29, 2015 Share #196 Posted May 29, 2015 Looking back at several other data sheets, I think Leica has been mis-labeling the sagittal and tangential lines. Not that it matters much. As of right now, Leica German confirmed the accuracy of the revised data sheet ; that is, without hood, the lens is 67mm and with hood it would be 81mm. I'm not sure what's going on over there. Yes - but that's measuring the whole length of the lens - not from the face of the bayonet mount which attaches to the camera . .. from the face of the bayonet (where it meets the body) Hood On = 68mm hood off = 55mm Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted May 29, 2015 Share #197 Posted May 29, 2015 Thanks for these; There are quite a few here taken at f/8, f/11 etc. You say that the Summicron bored you. What, to you, is distinctive about the Summilux images (a) at f/4+ ( at f/2.8- I just never found the images from mine exciting - I love the 28 Elmarit Asph - tiny and zingy - as I said before, it might easily be because I had a dodgy copy (gone now) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted May 29, 2015 Share #198 Posted May 29, 2015 The english instructions say "Length to bayonet mount approx. 81/67mm (without/with lens hood)" so there are two mistakes there, and only one in the french version of same ("Longueur jusqu‘à l‘appui de la baïonnette env. 81/67mm (avec/sans parasoleil)"). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted May 29, 2015 Share #199 Posted May 29, 2015 I sometimes wonder if Leica literature is translated from German to Mongolian (or maybe Linear B )and thence to English. I quite often read something and wonder what on earth they are trying to say and sometimes it is just plain wrong. As you say a good native English-speaking proof reader would be a good idea. Wilson Last time I wrote something for LFI magazine (several years ago) they translated it into German for the German edition . . . . and then back to English for the English edition. It was pretty wierd! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted May 29, 2015 Share #200 Posted May 29, 2015 The laws of false advertising. The term "magnesium alloy" means that magnesium is the primary metal, and must be present in the highest percentage. Well, I'm not certain - for instance - Chrome Alloy is a frequently used term in the oil industry, but chrome is never the primary metal. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.