Leica to rework older M lenses?

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

A 'big step' that is getting more irrelevent by the day. As the ISO capabilities of cameras are going up, and up, the need for faster and faster lenses is redundant unless you mean for dreamy bokeh alone?

I would disagree. Using a lens wide open isn't just about 'dreamy bokeh' (and even if it is for some I don't see a problem with it either). The ability to shoot and create images on a fast lens is about an individual photographer's way of working - otherwise we fall into the trap of convergent evolution and all images simply look the same, because they are all taken in the same way (as for example are many, if not the very vast majority, of landscapes - perfectly sharp throughout, utilising graduated filters to sort out contrast and indistinguishable with regard to who has shot them). The more tools a photographer has at his/her disposal, the greater variety of techniques that are available. Photography is a broad church and long may it remain so. All that said, I'm not sure I'd go for a 35mm Noctilux myself, but for those who would like one, well why not.

[Jeff S]

Hmm … it's interesting that no one's mentioned a Tri-Elmar up to this point.

 

 

Post #31

 

Jeff

[Advertisement]

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

[jdlaing]

Tri-Elmar.

[jaapv]

Anyway, to come back to the original post, it is nothing new for Leica to rework older designs, for instance the Elmar-M 50/2.8 collapsible was as reworked Elmar 50/2.8 with slightly improved coatings, and more importantly a different location of the aperture.

[pico]

Anyway, to come back to the original post, it is nothing new for Leica to rework older designs, for instance the Elmar-M 50/2.8 collapsible was as reworked Elmar 50/2.8 with slightly improved coatings, and more importantly a different location of the aperture.

So true, but I wonder if Leica would feel compelled to coat lenses that were not previously coated. Is it good or bad?

[jaapv]

It depends whether it would be an improvement, I guess.

[pico]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It depends whether it would be an improvement, I guess.

 

Who would claim that coating is not an improvement? IMHO coating is hugely important. I use some lenses for MF from the thirties which HAD coatings wiped away with cleaning. Leica's pre-war coatings were no better. Who in the world wants to go through that?

Edited November 3, 2015 by pico

[jdlaing]

So true, but I wonder if Leica would feel compelled to coat lenses that were not previously coated. Is it good or bad?

Yes.

[pop]

Who would claim that coating is not an improvement? IMHO coating is hugely important. I use some lenses for MF from the thirties which HAD coatings wiped away with cleaning. Leica's pre-war coatings were no better. Who in the world wants to go through that?

Just have a look at all those threads here demonstrating the use of older lenses on recent bodies. It seems to me that quite a few members actually prefer for some pictures the result of using uncoated lenses. The artifacts can be part of the charm.

[pgk]

Who would claim that coating is not an improvement? IMHO coating is hugely important. I use some lenses for MF from the thirties which HAD coatings wiped away with cleaning. Leica's pre-war coatings were no better. Who in the world wants to go through that?

In any case, lack of coating usually results in veiling flare and loss of contrary - I'm sure that this look can be achieved easily in post processing so I see little logic in not coating lenses. And I doubt that coatings will significantly effect flare artefacts as opposed to veiling flare, as these are inherent within the designs and are exhibited by many modern, fully coated lenses too.

[james.liam]

Anyway, to come back to the original post, it is nothing new for Leica to rework older designs, for instance the Elmar-M 50/2.8 collapsible was as reworked Elmar 50/2.8 with slightly improved coatings, and more importantly a different location of the aperture.

Evolutionary changes have been part of the way Leica moves from one iteration to the next and lenses like the present pre-APO 50 Summicron is a good example. My impression from that interview was an implied recognition that the trend toward [?over]corrected optics doesn't speak to all of Leica's consumers and that there's room for other styles. By this, it's fair to postulate a rendering profile that would necessitate resurrecting an old design.

 

BTW, No coatings at all seems to me like driving an antique car. Entertaining at first but tiresome and limiting after a short while. You quickly learn that progress is indeed a wondrous thing. 

[pico]

Coatings also add scratch resistance, something most of us appreciate.

[Michael Geschlecht]

Hello Everybody,

 

A reworking of lenses for "M" cameras could also mean a recomputation of certain multi focal length or/& certain older, longer lenses. Including some of those which were used on the Visoflex.

 

Leica is not that likely to enter into competition with makers of Second Tier Lenses when they have built their Company on the basis of making the best lenses possible.

 

If they were to do what I wrote above, this would provide them with optical units usable in both "M" & 601 Mounts where the only differences would be with the mechanical portions. This is something that Leitz did years ago with lenses such as the 135mm Elmarit & the 400mm & 560mm F5.6's & F6.8's & the 800mm F6.3.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

Edited November 3, 2015 by Michael Geschlecht

[pico]

If Leica were to introduce retro lenses their selection would imply which were most desirable. Talk among yourselves. Leica is listening.

[semi-ambivalent]

...making the best lenses possible.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

Can this be considered in any other manner than technical? If not we end up with the selection of current Leica lenses. If you can then is there any criterion besides emotion and personal preference? And can one expect a company in a tough business to build to any goal other than technical excellence? Perhaps one fringe example is Leica rolling back the feature set with the M-A; a very bold move. (I only wish they would have priced it such that it ends up in the hands of more than those who already own Leicas. I don't think that would have soiled the History a bit.)

 

Regards,

s-a

[DMJ]

Not many (only 28mm) Elmarit's available in the current lens range.  Scope there for some more especially as the ISO capability of the M240/246 has improved over the M9.

[mustafasoleiman]

I personally would like to see smaller and lighter lenses in the Summicron range like the old 35/2 v.4, the 40/2 (which I don't particularly care for but some do) and the 50/2 v.4, preferably with a built in shade, to keep it simple (even if not very efficient as a shade).

They have to be at least a Summicron for depth of field and low light.

I love the new lenses but they tend to be to big and heavy... Maybe a little trade off in optical quality for size and weight (always with f:2 as a minimum) might be the ticket for a new line of lenses.

 

AdiM

[Mornnb]

Not many (only 28mm) Elmarit's available in the current lens range. Scope there for some more especially as the ISO capability of the M240/246 has improved over the M9.

They would be a downgrade on the already available Summarits. Which are excellent lenses.

[pico]

Exactly what does it mean to 'rework previous or old lenses'? We do not know.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Michael Geschlecht]

Hello Pico,

 

You might consider reading Post #74, just above.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael