Martin B Posted January 17, 2016 Share #21 Posted January 17, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) One reason for an updated version might actually not be directly related to Leica. Quite a few people now use Leica lens gear on newer mirrorless camera models from other brands - e.g. Sony A7 series. This includes me, too. I bought the 35/2 ASPH one year ago before I had a Leica M camera. I sold this lens quickly again - because it did not work at all with the Sony FF sensor (always blurry corners even at f/11, uneven focus plane). There are several reasons for it, one is the pupil entrance of the lens the other one is a thicker glass cover on Sony A7 series based sensors compared to Leica's digital sensors. Interestingly, the version 4 non-ASPH and older Leica 35/2 lenses work well here. I suspect that the latest 35/2 ASPH version might correct for those issues very visible on non Leica based FF sensors. I am sure we will hear more about its performance later. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 17, 2016 Posted January 17, 2016 Hi Martin B, Take a look here New summicron asph 35mm. How and why did they improve the current one?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
wattsy Posted January 17, 2016 Share #22 Posted January 17, 2016 The screw-in hoods of my latest wides (35/1.4 FLE, 24/3.8 asph, 21/3.4 asph) are so small that they are almost useless IMHO. I much prefer the clip-on square hoods of current 28/2.8 asph and 35/2 asph lenses personally. Mine do not tend to fall off at all BTW. Same for the hood of my 35/2 v4 which never fell off since the eighties. I quite like the engineering quality of the threaded hoods vis-à-vis the clip-on plastic hoods (though the hood that came with the 24/F2.8 Elmarit was very solid) but I agree that they do not seem very effective in their primary role as shades. The one for the 35 FLE seems particularly pointless as a means of mitigating lens flare. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted January 18, 2016 Share #23 Posted January 18, 2016 They usually release more info about a lens design than they have this time. Maybe they just tweaked it to negate focus shift, add better coating and small changes to improve corners @ infinity. These were the weaknesses that I perceived with the old ASPH. Perhaps changes along the lines of the 35 FLE vs pre FLE. We will know soon enough. What was wrong with the coatings on the lens? What do you think they did to make the coatings 'better' ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
graphlex Posted January 18, 2016 Share #24 Posted January 18, 2016 The 24 Elmarit hood is effective but grotesquely big, and fragile to boot. (Leica replaced mine under the warranty.) I'd prefer a less effective hood of manageable size. The Elmarit, for example, is not terrribly flare-prone. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
james.liam Posted January 18, 2016 Share #25 Posted January 18, 2016 What was wrong with the coatings on the lens? What do you think they did to make the coatings 'better' ? Because.....they always do. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted January 18, 2016 Share #26 Posted January 18, 2016 (edited) New coatings may improve flare certainly but they can hardly prevent corner smearings Martin B was referring to. Sony is the only culprit so to speak there, suffice it to use an A7 with thinner sensor stack to see that. Now the uneven focus plane of the 35/2 asph is sometimes a problem, at least for brick walls shooters , and a "better" entrance pupil would do no harm i guess but the 35/2 asph is significantly heavier and bulkier than the 35/2 v4 yet. An even taller lens would not be a good idea, other excellent brands can do that. Edited January 18, 2016 by lct 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 18, 2016 Share #27 Posted January 18, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) One reason for an updated version might actually not be directly related to Leica. Quite a few people now use Leica lens gear on newer mirrorless camera models from other brands - e.g. Sony A7 series. This includes me, too. I bought the 35/2 ASPH one year ago before I had a Leica M camera. I sold this lens quickly again - because it did not work at all with the Sony FF sensor (always blurry corners even at f/11, uneven focus plane). There are several reasons for it, one is the pupil entrance of the lens the other one is a thicker glass cover on Sony A7 series based sensors compared to Leica's digital sensors. Interestingly, the version 4 non-ASPH and older Leica 35/2 lenses work well here. I suspect that the latest 35/2 ASPH version might correct for those issues very visible on non Leica based FF sensors. I am sure we will hear more about its performance later.I rather doubt that this is a consideration for Leica. The number of people that primarily buy a cheaper mirrorless and buy a new Leica lens to go with it must be very small. It is rather the other way around, people that own Leica lenses may well buy another body to use them on. It is in Leica's interest to have their lenses perform best on their own bodies. 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted January 18, 2016 Share #28 Posted January 18, 2016 Because.....they always do. You mentioned you have found a 'weakness' with the last ASPH Summicron coatings, I just wondered what that was exactly? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BjarniM Posted January 18, 2016 Share #29 Posted January 18, 2016 Does anyone know if the "old" 35 mm ASPH could easily be modified so the hood from the new could be fitted? For example to just change the accessory carrier on the lens? Anyone? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted January 18, 2016 Share #30 Posted January 18, 2016 You mentioned you have found a 'weakness' with the last ASPH Summicron coatings, I just wondered what that was exactly? As much as I like this lens there is plenty of room for improvement in terms of flare resistance. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted January 18, 2016 Share #31 Posted January 18, 2016 Yes I've heard a few comments about flare - maybe the new version will indeed address this with different coatings or other 'adjustments'. It will be interesting to see how it performs in the wild! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted January 18, 2016 Share #32 Posted January 18, 2016 Anyone? The new lens has a thread on the outer rim of the lens for the hood - I can't see how that could easily be added to the 'old' lens. Gaffer tape would be an option though! 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted January 18, 2016 Share #33 Posted January 18, 2016 Anyone? No. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin B Posted January 18, 2016 Share #34 Posted January 18, 2016 I rather doubt that this is a consideration for Leica. The number of people that primarily buy a cheaper mirrorless and buy a new Leica lens to go with it must be very small. It is rather the other way around, people that own Leica lenses may well buy another body to use them on. It is in Leica's interest to have their lenses perform best on their own bodies. Possible that the new Leica M lenses take into account for some issue their predecessors have now on the new Leica SL camera since the SL uses a thicker sensor glass cover (1.1 mm thick) than other M series cameras. In this case of course the question is how those new lenses perform on older M series film cameras for example. I am sorry to disagree, but I know several people who use Leica M lenses on mirrorless cameras from other brands - some like me have an additional M series camera (film or digital) others don't. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
maralatho Posted January 19, 2016 Share #35 Posted January 19, 2016 As much as I like this lens there is plenty of room for improvement in terms of flare resistance. Hence the new hoods. I don’t think new lens coatings would have made any difference with this shot. And for what it’s worth, I don’t think the flares matter here anyway. It’s still a cute picture. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
maralatho Posted January 19, 2016 Share #36 Posted January 19, 2016 I know several people who use Leica M lenses on mirrorless cameras from other brands - some like me have an additional M series camera (film or digital) others don't. You know “several people” who do this. I think you just affirmed what jaapv said. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted January 19, 2016 Share #37 Posted January 19, 2016 Flare resistance in the 35 Summarit was improved by a simple bit of blackening to the rear mount (E. Puts)....I'd be surprised if all new M lenses don't get similar treatment. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin B Posted January 19, 2016 Share #38 Posted January 19, 2016 You know “several people” who do this. I think you just affirmed what jaapv said. Hmmm....sorry, but here is the poll (not started by me!) which exactly focuses on this. The poll started today, check out the results.....clearly says that many use Leica and M lenses on alternative mirrorless cameras. Good for Leica I believe - a new market which they might have already recognized. http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1408846 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
maralatho Posted January 19, 2016 Share #39 Posted January 19, 2016 Hmmm....sorry, but here is the poll (not started by me!) which exactly focuses on this. The poll started today, check out the results.....clearly says that many use Leica and M lenses on alternative mirrorless cameras. Good for Leica I believe - a new market which they might have already recognized. http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1408846 Okay, but we’re talking about a niche of a niche. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin B Posted January 19, 2016 Share #40 Posted January 19, 2016 Yes, I agree. Hard to tell the impact of this when not seeing the numbers of potential profit by increased lens sales. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now