New summicron asph 35mm. How and why did they improve the current one?

[earleygallery]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Apparently Mr. Puts is not impressed with the recently announced M lenses (and many other things)....  http://www.imx.nl/photo/blog/files/440df43fe8c00b8df660bd93e87f4209-25.html

 

Jeff

 

I did like this line;

 

"It seems that Leica has a good prototype at the end of the two-year product cycle and have the public do the final testing"

 

One of his better articles I thought, especially the argument for not chasing higher megapickles for each new M.

[iaeaix]

The only need is to fix the lousy construction with using glue.

[Advertisement]

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

[Ciaren]

Personally but maybe I'm wrong I think it's down to marketing and to boost the sales again.

Well I hope I'm wrong

[james.liam]

Personally but maybe I'm wrong I think it's down to marketing and to boost the sales again.

Well I hope I'm wrong

 

1+

If they can defeat most of the focus shift with minor changes in the shape of individual elements or movement thereof, they've done something. It may not require a radical re-working to achieve this.

Edited March 8, 2016 by james.liam

[lct]

I don't know how many times i'll have to repeat this, probably as long as contrary rumours will be spread on the LUF, but the Summicron 35/2 asph (at least mine) has no focus shift, zero, nada... 

[james.liam]

I don't know how many times i'll have to repeat this, probably as long as contrary rumours will be spread on the LUF, but the Summicron 35/2 asph (at least mine) has no focus shift, zero, nada... 

 

Mine does, at f/4. I can repeat it and it's still there.

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It's perhaps that your lens needs some calibration. You may wish to use a tripod and nail focus with 10x focus magnification to be sure. At f/2.8 or f/5.6 or even f/2 preferably. Then choose f/4 w/o touching the focus ring. Is your focus point still sharp then? It should be, otherwise i would send my lens in if i were you. FWIW.

[james.liam]

It's perhaps that your lens needs some calibration. You may wish to use a tripod and nail focus with 10x focus magnification to be sure. At f/2.8 or f/5.6 or even f/2 preferably. Then choose f/4 w/o touching the focus ring. Is your focus point still sharp then? It should be, otherwise i would send my lens in if i were you. FWIW.

 

 

It probably can use a calibration.

it was my impression rather than a controlled study;  I'd notice that when I shot at ƒ/2 or 2.8, focus appears spot on with few misses and it resolves impressively; on the occasion this wasn't practicable, and ƒ/4 or 5.6 were needed for an event, the majority of the shots were off--and I'm pretty good at the rangefinder. I don't use a tripod because it defeats the point of sporting the small body.

[Exodies]

Biting my tongue.

[james.liam]

Biting my tongue.

 

 

Try not to bite too hard.

 

When I noticed that the 35 tended to shift (whereas a ZM 2,8/35 I had access to at the time dd not, nor did a CV 2,5/35 I borrowed on several occasions), I still supposed it was my technique or the calibration with my camera body. Went to read Sean Reid and Lloyd Chambers' data only to discover that they too reported this issue. Both did extensive & controlled analysis with the lens and tended to confirm my suspicion.

 

Or you can continue to believe your n=1 experience is representative of the whole and gnaw on your poor tongue 

Edited March 8, 2016 by james.liam

[lct]

[...]  Went to read Sean Reid and Lloyd Chambers' data only to discover that they too reported this issue. Both did extensive & controlled analysis with the lens and tended to confirm my suspicion [...]

 

I don't read reviews on lenses i own personally but did those reviewers display the serial number of lenses they tested by chance? It's a thing that serious reviewers used to do in the past. Mine is 40917** and here are the crops i got at f/2, f/2.8, f/4 and f/5.6 (focus on "21"). FWIW.

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

   

[james.liam]

From the images you provide, clearly a great copy. Mine is an older, non-6 bit encoded sample. Bought it second hand when i was shooting film-only--it was my first Leica M lens. As for reviews, one must take them with a grain of salt and recognize the biases but given the cost of these things, buying sight unseen can be a costly a leap of faith.

 

On film, it was and is my favorite 35; the issues seemed to arise on the MM.

Edited March 8, 2016 by james.liam

[lct]

[...] Mine is an older, non-6 bit encoded sample. Bought it second hand when i was shooting film-only--it was my first Leica M lens.

 

Great lens indeed. I was using a 35/2v4 with film and i had never heard of focus shift then but when i put the latter on my R-D1 & M8.2, it did show focus shift at... f/4 funnily enough... Was one of the reasons (the main one being sharpness at f/2) why i ordered my 35/2 asph.

[wattsy]

 

here are the crops i got at f/2, f/2.8, f/4 and f/5.6 (focus on "21"). FWIW.

 

f20.jpg f28.jpg f40.jpg f56.jpg

 

 

 

These crops only really show performance in the close range. I suggest repeating the test on a subject at least five yards away and see what happens. My experience of this lens on digital is closer to James's than your's but accept that it is probably more a calibration thing than an intrinsic problem.

[Exodies]

Sorry to go off topic, but why such variations in the colour of the red dot in lct's pictures?

[NB23]

Sorry to go off topic, but why such variations in the colour of the red dot in lct's pictures?

This can be due to light source. A neon, for example, exudes many colors and is a pain to post process. The color depends on the shutter spees as the sensor catches the light's spectrum partially or fully.

 

Or in this case, it can purely be a case of post processing.

[lct]

These crops only really show performance in the close range. I suggest repeating the test on a subject at least five yards away and see what happens. My experience of this lens on digital is closer to James's than your's but accept that it is probably more a calibration thing than an intrinsic problem.

 

The shorter the focus distance the shallower the DoF normally but anyway here are a couple of crops out of my Sony A7s mod (no M available sorry) with 35/2 asph at f/2, f/2.8, f/4 and f/5.6 at about 7 metres.

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

[lct]

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

[james.liam]

Not certain what you're trying to demonstrate using an a7s and focusing with its EVF.  

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[lct]

I just nailed focus with the EVF at f/2 and changed apertures w/o touching the focus ring as i suggested above.