Jump to content

Rumor - Three new Leica M lenses tomorrow?


Rick

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

 

It is important to note that there are many different ways to "optimize for digital".

For example, "more telecentric" lenses will improve performance on digital without any side effect on film.

 

 

 

More telecentric lenses work better with digital, no doubt, but they still work better without cover glass or with a very thin one. Many R lenses for instance work better on the M240 than on the SL.

 

The best way to fully utilize the lens/sensor potential and achieve best results is to include the cover glass in the optical formula.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 244
  • Created
  • Last Reply

 

The best way to fully utilize the lens/sensor potential and achieve best results is to include the cover glass in the optical formula.

 

 

This is what Fuji does. The X-system has come a very long way in a very short time. My big dissapointment with it was that the M-lenses I had shorter than 50s don't really work, this is due to the thickness of the cover glass. The other one was how poorly manual focus worked on the XPro. But when you put their own glass on the XPro it delivers stunning results. There was no joy in using the system so I bit the bullet and came back.

 

Cheers, Carl 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you comment from your experience with both lenses on an SL that explains why you find the SEM "is a big step ahead from other film-era 21mm lenses"?

 

 

Sorry, I never personally tested the 21/2.8 asph.

I have tried a used copy of the 21/2.8 pre-asph on the M240 and was not impressed at all.

I own the 21 SEM and apart from being sharp corner to corner, it has great color rendering. I am quite picky, as I also have a Zeiss 21/2.8 in ZE mount, which is amazing.

 

Erwin has some interesting info on the SEM21 and a brief comment on the difference between the SEM and the 21/2.8-asph:

http://www.imx.nl/photo/leica/lenses/styled-37/

 

I will test today the SEM21 on M240 against the Loxia 21 on A7R2, to see if we have a new winner. Will let you guys know ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the end, we will just have to wait and see what sort of sensor design the new M will have.  My guess is that it will go to a more standard thickness like the SL's somewhat "just right" thickness design.  Going forward it would be a good compromise with the past.  And, maybe we could put the UV color issues behind us.

 

Rick

Link to post
Share on other sites

The ELMARIT-M 21 mm f/2.8 ASPH. was designed before 1997, more than 9 years before the release of the M8.

 

Yes, that is my point. Yet, it is excellent into the corners on an SL.

 

I mentioned the production series for my particular lens, just in case there was a notion that the original ASPH design might have been changed in some way when the factory six-bit edition was released.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

More telecentric lenses work better with digital, no doubt, but they still work better without cover glass or with a very thin one. Many R lenses for instance work better on the M240 than on the SL.

 

The best way to fully utilize the lens/sensor potential and achieve best results is to include the cover glass in the optical formula.

 

Interesting...  can you share with us which R lenses have you made that comparison and evaluation for? Thx.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the three M lenses you speak of are of such slipshod quality and are so frustrating to use, I am willing to be of assistance in freeing you from these abominations. I am willing to offer you as much as $500 USD for the three, and I will cover shipping costs. This way, you will be shed of these infuriating pieces of junk and will be able to make the transition to the Fuji system unfettered by Leica's inferior M lenses.

 

I will of course then be forced to bear the cost of shipping all three lenses to Wetzlar to have them made right; this will be an inconvenience on my part as well as a significant sacrifice financially, but it is a cross I am willing to bear in order to be of service to a fellow photographer. :)

The Ironic part is that you're offering peanuts for the lenses, which reinforces the fact that they are not that good.

Link to post
Share on other sites

New Leica owner, living a new technology challenged part of the world. I picked up a 240M-P at the Bangkok Leica store on my winter vacation. But they didn't have the 35mm summilux 1.4 in stock. I picked up a 50 (summicron) and a 28 (wish I waited on that one now). But knew I still wanted a 35mm. Obviously I'm not the most patient person, anyone have thoughts on sticking with the newest 35 summilux vs this new (11 apature blades sounds nice) f2? I have a friend coming into my country next week and literally have been one click away from sending the summilux to his house.

Link to post
Share on other sites

New Leica owner, living a new technology challenged part of the world. I picked up a 240M-P at the Bangkok Leica store on my winter vacation. But they didn't have the 35mm summilux 1.4 in stock. I picked up a 50 (summicron) and a 28 (wish I waited on that one now). But knew I still wanted a 35mm. Obviously I'm not the most patient person, anyone have thoughts on sticking with the newest 35 summilux vs this new (11 apature blades sounds nice) f2? I have a friend coming into my country next week and literally have been one click away from sending the summilux to his house.

Have a look at the Zeiss offering. That would be the fast 35 I would go for.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have a look at the Zeiss offering. That would be the fast 35 I would go for.

 

Some of the ZM 35/2 Biogons are better than others at f2. The first one I had was excellent but sadly I dropped it and it was irretrievably damaged. The second one supplied direct by my insurer, was not quite as good at f2 but about the same from f2,8 upwards. I sold it and bought an excellent, if very heavy 35/1.4 ASPH Chrome Summilux in its place. I also now have a 35 Summicron as well which is an excellent all round performer and very small and light. However if the new one is cheaper than the original, if you can live with the large hood, it would seem a more sensible buy. 

 

Wilson

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of the ZM 35/2 Biogons are better than others at f2. The first one I had was excellent but sadly I dropped it and it was irretrievably damaged. The second one supplied direct by my insurer, was not quite as good at f2 but about the same from f2,8 upwards. I sold it and bought an excellent, if very heavy 35/1.4 ASPH Chrome Summilux in its place. I also now have a 35 Summicron as well which is an excellent all round performer and very small and light. However if the new one is cheaper than the original, if you can live with the large hood, it would seem a more sensible buy. 

 

WILSON

Actually I was referring to the Distagon 35/1.4 ZM, a marvellous lens imo. I'm still dithering about getting one. However the C-Biogon 35/2.8 ZM has earned itself a permanent spot in my monochrom bag.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually I was referring to the Distagon 35/1.4 ZM, a marvellous lens imo. I'm still dithering about getting one. However the C-Biogon 35/2.8 ZM has earned itself a permanent spot in my monochrom bag.

 

A number of reviewers commented on the f2 35 Biogon, that stretching it to f2 may have been a step too far. I always wondered why they did this lens as a Biogon, when Zeiss already had an excellent modern design f2 35mm lens in the 35mm Planar G, unless the design rights of this lens were still licensed to Kyocera. The minor issues with the Planar lens were slightly harsh bokeh and a somewhat sharp drop off from the very sharp point of focus. The f2.8 35 Biogon C is probably more in that design of lens' zone of comfort, with advantage of weight and size. 

 

Wilson

Link to post
Share on other sites

A number of reviewers commented on the f2 35 Biogon, that stretching it to f2 may have been a step too far. I always wondered why they did this lens as a Biogon, when Zeiss already had an excellent modern design f2 35mm lens in the 35mm Planar G, unless the design rights of this lens were still licensed to Kyocera. The minor issues with the Planar lens were slightly harsh bokeh and a somewhat sharp drop off from the very sharp point of focus. The f2.8 35 Biogon C is probably more in that design of lens' zone of comfort, with advantage of weight and size.

 

Wilson

The ZM 35/2 suffers from focus shift and is normally calibrated for f/2.8. This causes front focus at f/2 which leads reviewers to believe it is soft wide open. In fact this is one of the ZM's sharpest lenses, and stopped down even beats the ZM 35/1.4 especially in zone B. When I owned this lens my biggest problem was how to avoid moiré :)

 

PS. The 35 cron asph clearly beats it at f/2, even when well focused but the Biogon will be miles ahead at other apertures.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...