Antonio Russell Posted January 15, 2016 Share #101 Posted January 15, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) I don't think so. http://www.chassimages.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=247172.0;attach=893051;image yes, the image is cropped. Exactly the same optical forumla with bit sticking out the back. See the datasheet on the leica site. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 Hi Antonio Russell, Take a look here Rumor - Three new Leica M lenses tomorrow?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
a911s Posted January 16, 2016 Share #102 Posted January 16, 2016 Number of elements, groups, blades, filter size, and minimum focusing distance for the new 28mm Summicron f2 is identical to the current model. What exactly changed? I can buy a screw on hood for the current lens that is small and works perfectly for $18. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeicaPassion Posted January 16, 2016 Share #103 Posted January 16, 2016 I fully agree with Rick. At the end of the day, image quality is uppermost. If a deeper, more bulky lens shade will best achieve it, that's the one I want. When people view images, how many ask about the size/appearance of a lens shade? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted January 16, 2016 Share #104 Posted January 16, 2016 I fully agree with Rick. At the end of the day, image quality is uppermost. If a deeper, more bulky lens shade will best achieve it, that's the one I want. When people view images, how many ask about the size/appearance of a lens shade? It comes back to usability. To give you an example, I have both a 35 ASPH Summicron and a Chrome/Brass 35 ASPH Summilux. Photographically, my excellent Summilux can be used in a wider range of conditions than the Summicron, due to having one more stop of speed. However it is significantly larger and about double the weight of the Summicron. As a result, which lens gets used far more - the Summicron. I also have a 28 Summicron on which the original hood doubles the size of the lens, so instead I use a far neater Contax GG1 hood. I am sure there are times when the larger hood would provide better flare resistance but I am prepared to trade that for usability. I think the very large hoods for the new 35 and 28 Summicrons and 28 Elmarit, are sufficiently large to impact upon the lenses' utility. Unlike the original lenses, it will be more difficult to fit an alternative hood that does not vignette, due to the external hood thread. I understand the thinking behind the the external thread to avoid vignetting and applaud its introduction but could Leica not have made the hood about the same size as that for the 18mm SEM, which is very neat. Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRIago Posted January 16, 2016 Share #105 Posted January 16, 2016 I fully agree with Rick. At the end of the day, image quality is uppermost. If a deeper, more bulky lens shade will best achieve it, that's the one I want. When people view images, how many ask about the size/appearance of a lens shade?Why shoot Leica, then?With your thinking, go Medium or Large Format. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 16, 2016 Share #106 Posted January 16, 2016 Maybe start by calling them Summicrons. Jeff +1 These weird abbreviations always produce a nails-on-blackboard feeling with me. I guess the users want to sound like cool old Leica hands... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Branch Posted January 16, 2016 Share #107 Posted January 16, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) ........ 6 bit coding is binary, from 1 to 63. So max of 63 lenses coded. John The lenses are 7.5 bit coded as the camera takes account of the three different types of bayonet mount used to change the viewfinder settings. So it can, in theory, be used for 189 lenses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted January 16, 2016 Share #108 Posted January 16, 2016 The lenses are 7.5 bit coded as the camera takes account of the three different types of bayonet mount used to change the viewfinder settings. So it can, in theory, be used for 189 lenses. But for cameras that have a mechanical link for the frame lines the code has also work with the required frame line. In other words for 35mm lenses, you are limited to using one frame line and the same applies for many other lenses. So the actual number of possible variations will be more than 63 but less than 189. It would take a better mathematician than me to work out the actual number of allowable combinations. PS Sorry - having thought about this more, this is wrong. Allowing for the MATE, I think the permitted combinations are 187. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cbretteville Posted January 16, 2016 Share #109 Posted January 16, 2016 But for cameras that have a mechanical link for the frame lines the code has also work with the required frame line. In other words for 35mm lenses, you are limited to using one frame line and the same applies for many other lenses. So the actual number of possible variations will be more than 63 but less than 189. It would take a better mathematician than me to work out the actual number of allowable combinations. PS Sorry - having thought about this more, this is wrong. Allowing for the MATE, I think the permitted combinations are 187. Actually you can add to that number. When the camera is in "Auto" and it likes the combination of frame line engaged and code in records the frame line as 1, 2 or 3 depending on the bayonet. If you on the other hand select a manual lens code, it does not care what the engaged lines are and stores what ever code you have selected. The engaged frame lines value will in this case be set to Zero (at least it was on the M9 when I had a look back in the day). Some are already used for older lenses that can be coded, but it does increase the available number of codes somewhat. Cheers, Carl Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted January 16, 2016 Share #110 Posted January 16, 2016 But for cameras that have a mechanical link for the frame lines the code has also work with the required frame line. In other words for 35mm lenses, you are limited to using one frame line and the same applies for many other lenses. So the actual number of possible variations will be more than 63 but less than 189. It would take a better mathematician than me to work out the actual number of allowable combinations. PS Sorry - having thought about this more, this is wrong. Allowing for the MATE, I think the permitted combinations are 187. I think it is a maximum of 187 but the actual number available presumably depends upon the distribution of focal lengths amongst the range of lenses that end up being coded. Leica would have a problem if, for example, they ended up with 70 different lenses of 35mm focal length. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
otto.f Posted January 16, 2016 Share #111 Posted January 16, 2016 +1 These weird abbreviations always produce a nails-on-blackboard feeling with me. I guess the users want to sound like cool old Leica hands... Ok, ok... It's just that I hate typing Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted January 16, 2016 Share #112 Posted January 16, 2016 Ok, ok... It's just that I hate typing Okay, okay... Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gyoung Posted January 16, 2016 Share #113 Posted January 16, 2016 Ok, ok... It's just that I hate typing Use a phone and predictive text is your friend. I only have to type Sum and it gives me a choice of Summicron or Summilux... Gerry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevesurf Posted January 16, 2016 Share #114 Posted January 16, 2016 According to Leica's press release it seems that: - 35/2: More blades. - 28/2: Improved optical design for a flatter field. - 28/2.8: Improved optical design for a flatter field. The lens code just tells the camera which kind of vignetting correction it should apply. There is no need to change the lens code if these characteristics are the same. No new lens code, no need for a firmware update (unless for unrelated reasons). Thanks for that summary; I would just add what was stated in other parts of this thread that the updated silver anodized aluminum version is much lighter than the previous version's brass components. New SUMMICRON-M 35 mm f/2 ASPH: Weight: approx. 252g/287g (without/with lens hood and covers) Previous SUMMICRON-M 35 mm f/2 ASPH Weight: approx. 255 g / 340 g (black anodized- / silver chrome finish) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrozenInTime Posted January 16, 2016 Share #115 Posted January 16, 2016 Does 'optimized for digital' correspond to : on film, not as good as the old lens ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NB23 Posted January 16, 2016 Share #116 Posted January 16, 2016 Does 'optimized for digital' correspond to : on film, not as good as the old lens ? I think it simply corresponds to marketing bs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
maralatho Posted January 17, 2016 Share #117 Posted January 17, 2016 Why shoot Leica, then? With your thinking, go Medium or Large Format. You’re mischaracterizing his thinking. He’s not saying bigger is better. He’s saying that, within the Leica system, more effective shades are preferable to less effective ones. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevesurf Posted January 17, 2016 Share #118 Posted January 17, 2016 Perhaps we need to be a little careful about the position of the Entrance Pupil. Previously, as I understand it, it was quoted measured from the Front Element in the direction of the light. Now, it seems, it is being quoted from the bayonet mount. Interesting and well put; I believe this might be a consideration it is impacted by light and aperture. If you want an interesting theoretical read with nice images, check the link below out: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/geoopt/stop.html Does 'optimized for digital' correspond to : on film, not as good as the old lens ? Also interesting; that was actually my first thought. I'm sure that given the choice of producing a lens at less cost, that Leica could claim has in some way improved performance with a CMOS sensor than legacy film, as in more aperture blades (35) and less distortion (28), then "oprimized for digital" might mean more units sold. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exodies Posted January 17, 2016 Share #119 Posted January 17, 2016 Some time in the last two years I asked in this forum if a lens design could relax an optical constraint which was satisfactorily fixable in software and thereby make a better lens. Obviously this would only work with a digital sensor. The answer I received was yes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
semi-ambivalent Posted January 17, 2016 Share #120 Posted January 17, 2016 At the end of the day, image quality is uppermost. Photographer is uppermost. Technical constraints (or lack of them) is a very, very close second, but second nonetheless. s-a Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.