Leica 28mm Summicron ASPH 2016 #11672-- Owners Thread

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Can any of these be used with the NEW 28mm F2 Summicron? [...] 

 

12589:

01.jpg

 

12588:

02.jpg

 

12466:

3.jpg

 

The lens barrel looks larger at first glance so i suspect they won't. I have not yet received my copy of the new 28/2 though.

 

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!

[rscheffler]

Even if the other hoods clipped onto the new 28 Cron, there's no guarantee they would fit over the CPL. For example, the old Cron's stock hood will not fit over a 46mm Breakthrough CPL (it's the only 46mm CPL I have tried). And since these hoods will fit the older Cron, it would be assumed they share very similar mounting dimensions with the stock hood.

 

Charlie - one other thought about Karbe's statement that modern Leica lenses should be shot wide open... From a couple Summilux ASPHs in my collection, I agree with this to some extent. Both lenses (21 and 50) seem to be 'calmest' wide open with agreeable rendering and reasonable flatness of field. As they're stopped down, wavy field curvature becomes more pronounced and the lenses develop a certain nervous kind of sharpness quality in the mid zone area where the field curvature is most pronounced. It's not until stopping well down that this peculiar behavior is either sufficiently masked or eliminated. I've long maintained a habit when using these these two lenses, to either shoot them wide open (or maybe f/2 for better central sharpness and contrast), or stopped down around f/8-11 for across-frame consistency and depth of field.

 

Change in field curvature behavior was a characteristic of my new 28 Cron as it was stopped down. IMO it appeared to become stronger.  Conversely, while the old version has its share of field curvature, it seems to behave more traditionally with increased depth of field from stopping down eliminating or entirely masking the curvature. 

Edited June 13, 2016 by rscheffler

[Advertisement]

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

[Rick]

Hello!

 

Can any of these be used with the NEW 28mm F2 Summicron?   I'm asking because I'm interested in using a clip on hood if I get the new f2 28mm to assist in using circular polarizers on it.; I already have a 46mm cir pol for my 50mm.  The current new hood would require me to rotate the hood along with the filter.  Thanks for the help!  

 

 

None of the hoods you show will work with the new lens.  Clip-on hoods will not work with the new lens.  But, the screw in hood that comes with the new lens is of excellent design and I have tested it against the old clip on hood and found them to be equivalent in efficacy.  Just use the new hood with your filters.

 

Rick

Edited June 14, 2016 by Rick

[Rick]

The lens barrel looks larger at first glance so i suspect they won't. I have not yet received my copy of the new 28/2 though.

 

LeicaM_2820_v1-v2_04.jpg

 

 

lct - Hi.  The photo you show is not to scale.  The lenses are identical in dimension except for the screw vs clip on portion of the barrel.  The differences are inside the lens!

 

Rick

[Rick]

Even if the other hoods clipped onto the new 28 Cron, there's no guarantee they would fit over the CPL. For example, the old Cron's stock hood will not fit over a 46mm Breakthrough CPL (it's the only 46mm CPL I have tried). And since these hoods will fit the older Cron, it would be assumed they share very similar mounting dimensions with the stock hood.

 

Charlie - one other thought about Karbe's statement that modern Leica lenses should be shot wide open... From a couple Summilux ASPHs in my collection, I agree with this to some extent. Both lenses (21 and 50) seem to be 'calmest' wide open with agreeable rendering and reasonable flatness of field. As they're stopped down, wavy field curvature becomes more pronounced and the lenses develop a certain nervous kind of sharpness quality in the mid zone area where the field curvature is most pronounced. It's not until stopping well down that this peculiar behavior is either sufficiently masked or eliminated. I've long maintained a habit when using these these two lenses, to either shoot them wide open (or maybe f/2 for better central sharpness and contrast), or stopped down around f/8-11 for across-frame consistency and depth of field.

 

Change in field curvature behavior was a characteristic of my new 28 Cron as it was stopped down. IMO it appeared to become stronger.  Conversely, while the old version has its share of field curvature, it seems to behave more traditionally with increased depth of field from stopping down eliminating or entirely masking the curvature. 

 

Once again, the new lens has better sharpness in the mid-field and seems therefore to have less field curvature.  

 

Next, the old hood does fit over both a CPF and the end of the barrel of the new lens.  The old clip on hood just doesn't hold tight on the new lens - because, the old hood isn't designed for the new lens.  There seems to me no reason to use any other hood on the new lens.

 

But, I'll test the new and old lens and look closely for your noted differences on the right and left side of the frame.  And, I'll try and look again for field differences between the lenses, although I haven't seen this in the my photos so far.

 

Rick

Edited June 14, 2016 by Rick

[Rick]

Wow Raid has really done very well with communications! Would have loved to have been there too, but maybe they would have shown me out LOL

 

"He mentioned several times that for modern Leica lenses, they should be shot wide open and that there was no need to stop down to achieve better quality, only improved depth of field."

 

This totally cracks me up. You see Puts say something like this too, from time to time. He found the ASPH 50 Lux WO beating the pre-asph at 5.6! But Ron and many others show the mid-zone wobbles of that area lens WO. I will say this: my 90 and 75 summarits really do shoot infinity impressively at F/2.5. Not the 28 cron, which is an utterly different lens at f/2, than at f/8. The whole look and feel of the image, beyond just sharpness, is different (on M9). Which is totally normal. I use F/2 rarely in practice. Lower light mostly.

 

Westface by unoh7, 5.6

 

I was surprised to hear a single person assembles one lens. Perhaps this explains some of the copy variations users here are seeing. For the money, I would like to see the lenses tested before they go out. In this modern day with digital sensors and computers, you would think they could have a high tech bench which would verify calibration and centering quickly. But not with one person. The assembler could just mount the finished lens on the bench and let the automated tests be evaluated by a specialist.

 

Ron, really appreciate your experience with the new version. After years of discussion with you, I trust your eye as much as Reid and Lloyd.

 

IMHO the 28 cron v1 is the best 28mm for 35mm format ever made by anyone. It's my favorite lens no matter how much I try the others. It sounds to me as if the 5.6 and f/8 and maybe even f/11 performance of the v1 is as good or better than the v2. Frankly f/11 is more useful to me than f/2, because you can get such UWA type DOF, which a 35 or 50 can never equal. The 28 cron has exceptional performance at f/11. There is no "generic" look to the stopped down images (on M9). They are full of character and color with nothing else I own can make to such a degree.

 

past f/11:

Knee Deep by unoh7, on Flickr

 

Drinking the subtle colors at f/8+:

AirBnB by unoh7, on Flickr

 

maybe 9.5?

Kickstand by unoh7, on Flickr

 

TYG it's so nice to my eye, since it's worth much less than I paid a few years ago The v1 is a steal at the moment.

 

 

Hi uhh7,

 

I first of have to say I always look at your Sun Valley area photos.  I love that area and have been going there a couple times a year to ski, fly fish, hike, or mountain bike for the last 25 years.  A very special place.  I'll be in the Stanley-SV area twice in the next 3 months fly fishing and hiking.

 

Anyway, I have both lenses right now and the newer lens is better from f2.0 to f16.  The corner and mid-field sharpness gets close as the lenses are stopped down.  But, the edges and the mid-field is still slightly sharper in the new version at all apertures .  

 

The contrast and color is better in the new lens even as it is stopped down.

 

I'm going to shoot both lenses on my M4 soon and I'll be curious to see if there is any difference (besides the color and contrast differences) on film.  

 

Rick

[rscheffler]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

 

Anyway, I have both lenses right now and the newer lens is better from f2.0 to f16.  The corner and mid-field sharpness gets close as the lenses are stopped down.  But, the edges and the mid-field is still slightly sharper in the new version at all apertures .  

 

As I mentioned before, it would be great to see your comparison images for reference because as you saw in my images, it was not the case with my new 28 Cron.... The old Cron was clearly better at the edges. I would assume the new lens should be better across the frame. Unfortunately the copy I had wasn't. Was it a fluke? 

[rscheffler]

Once again, the new lens has better sharpness in the mid-field and seems therefore to have less field curvature.  

 

Next, the old hood does fit over both a CPF and the end of the barrel of the new lens.  The old clip on hood just doesn't hold tight on the new lens - because, the old hood isn't designed for the new lens.  There seems to me no reason to use any other hood on the new lens.

 

But, I'll test the new and old lens and look closely for your noted differences on the right and left side of the frame.  And, I'll try and look again for field differences between the lenses, although I haven't seen this in the my photos so far.

 

Rick

 

Errr, the old hood does NOT fit over MY Breakthrough CPL. It will clip onto the CPL, but the hold is insecure, the hood will rotate with the filter and pop off easily. Maybe it will fit over other CPLs, but I only have one CPL in 46mm...

[pechelman]

might i make a simple suggestion to the discussion?

 

Please stop using the blanket description "better". It has different meanings to some people and in most cases has no meaning at all.

If you perceive the lens to produce a higher contrast more saturated image, please just say so. Not just it has "better color". To some folks, a "better" lens would have the more moderate contrast of the version 1 asph summicron. Similarly, to say the new 'cron is the better lens in a generic sense, while it may be true for you, has absolutely no meaning since those of us on the other side of the screen have no idea what youre basis is for that statement. 

 

I think this could help have a "better" discussion.

[rscheffler]

As I mentioned before, it would be great to see your comparison images for reference because as you saw in my images, it was not the case with my new 28 Cron.... The old Cron was clearly better at the edges. I would assume the new lens should be better across the frame. Unfortunately the copy I had wasn't. Was it a fluke? 

 

In my case above, better refers to sharper.

[Rick]

As I mentioned before, it would be great to see your comparison images for reference because as you saw in my images, it was not the case with my new 28 Cron.... The old Cron was clearly better at the edges. I would assume the new lens should be better across the frame. Unfortunately the copy I had wasn't. Was it a fluke? 

 

 

Again, the new cron is much sharper at edges and mid-field.  These seem to be the findings by everyone but you.  I've looked at your pictures you posted and the building shots are much clearer at the edges with your new cron.  So, I'm not sure what you are seeing.  

 

Also, both the new and the old cron in your pictures are sharper on the right side.  Until you get your camera back to Leica service, I don't believe any conclusions can be made about sharpness and field curvature.

 

Overall, your new cron seems to be about as sharp, at its best side of your camera (right side) as my new cron.  I believe at least part of your issue is the camera.  Send it in and retest.

 

Rick

[Rick]

might i make a simple suggestion to the discussion?

 

Please stop using the blanket description "better". It has different meanings to some people and in most cases has no meaning at all.

If you perceive the lens to produce a higher contrast more saturated image, please just say so. Not just it has "better color". To some folks, a "better" lens would have the more moderate contrast of the version 1 asph summicron. Similarly, to say the new 'cron is the better lens in a generic sense, while it may be true for you, has absolutely no meaning since those of us on the other side of the screen have no idea what youre basis is for that statement. 

 

I think this could help have a "better" discussion.

 

 

I'm not sure what you don't understand about the word "better."  It seems like a straight forward descriptor.  I didn't think that it needed clarification, but here goes:

 

Better contrast = greater contrast

Better color = more vivid color (probably due to contrast)

Better flare resistance = less tendency to flare

Better coatings = less flare and better color correction

Better corners and mid field = less smearing with more resolution

Better lens hood = smaller, more compact, less VF blockage and more secure - without decreased function

Better aperture ring = Smother and quieter 

 

If, you prefer less "better" then, stick with the older version.

 

Rick

 

Rick

[rscheffler]

This feels like an endless circular discussion.

 

I would be happy to be wrong about the weak edges and field curvature. Unfortunately that is what I found with my copy of the new Cron vs. my copy of the old one. I posted the images to support my statements, which so far no one else has done in full, uncropped, high resolution. However, I received samples from a couple others offline and my conclusion from those was inconclusive because I saw minor improvements in some areas, yet also similar field curvature characteristics to that of my copy. It wasn't enough to make me think my copy was clearly suboptimal and therefore potentially an easy defect to point out to Leica (or the dealer) to fix. IMO, the few full-rez center vs. corner crops that can be found online are somewhat informative yet don't necessarily tell the entire story about how the lens performs over the full image field.

 

In respect to the weaker left sides of my sample images... the baffling thing here is that I tested a third lens alongside these two - the Voigtlander 35/1.7 M-mount version - and images from it through all apertures are equally sharp on both sides. I also have not noticed softer left sides in images with the 21 Lux or 21 SEM, which would both be a lot more sensitive to such a problem than longer lenses.

 

In any case, due to Leica's horrible service turnaround times and because I require use of my M240 several times per week, there's little chance I will send it in for a prolonged absence until it is demoted to backup duty at some point in the future.

 

Conversely, I'm not sure what you're seeing in the images I provided. Please note that for the second set of building photos, the order in which the lenses were shot was reversed from the other comparison sets. The new Cron is sharper at the edges until f/2.8... Unfortunately I rarely shoot 'landscapes' at f/2-2.8. I also don't believe the weaker left side performance is to blame for the new Cron's results on my camera since the old Cron behaves similarly yet sharpens up very well upon stopping down.

 

My intention is not to make a blanket statement that every new Cron is terrible and not an improvement over the old one. Rather, if someone is going to buy one to replace an old Cron, they should test it to determine if it indeed is an improvement for their specific requirements before selling the old Cron. There would have been situations in which I could have used my 'as is' copy of the new Cron without concern about edge performance, field curvature, etc. But unfortunately that doesn't cover all of the scenarios in which I use the lens...

[Rick]

Last post.  I'm trying to help you.  You need to send your camera in for repair and return your lens if you believe it is not better than your old cron at all apertures.  

 

I've seen Jono's test photo's (at high resolution) that he can not publish and they are very well done and show a better lens at all apertures.  I've read Sean Reid's site and his review shows the same results, except Sean shot at near on his board of junk.

 

I've tested and posted one corner comparison in this thread and the result is striking.  This is a wonderful update for the digital M.

 

I really am off for the summer.  So long for now,

 

Rick

[pechelman]

I'm not sure what you don't understand about the word "better."  It seems like a straight forward descriptor.  I didn't think that it needed clarification, but here goes:

 

Better contrast = greater contrast

Better color = more vivid color (probably due to contrast)

Better flare resistance = less tendency to flare

Better coatings = less flare and better color correction

Better corners and mid field = less smearing with more resolution

Better lens hood = smaller, more compact, less VF blockage and more secure - without decreased function

Better aperture ring = Smother and quieter 

 

If, you prefer less "better" then, stick with the older version.

 

Rick

 

Rick

 

Rick, there really is no reason to be rude with me on Ron. Pardon me if I am inferring some tone you did not intend in this or your other replies. It is sometimes hard to have discussions like this over the internet, which is simply why I thought it might help if we all chose words a little more carefully. Furthermore, since this is truly an international forum, I thought it might be beneficial to those who dont speak English as their native tongue.

 

Many times in your responses you simply say "the new version is better" with nothing else. And as I noted, sometimes, especially for those of us shooting monochrom or b&w, the better lens is the lens that has LESS contrast. Keep in mind that the old 'cron isn't a "low contrast" lens like an old classic lens, so put into perspective of the new 'cron, I think this idea of the lens with the lower contrast is the "better one". 

Edited June 14, 2016 by pechelman

[rscheffler]

Rick, have a good summer!

 

Yes, your comparison crop, one of the few I saw, was extremely encouraging. Taken with Jono's review and Reid's crops, it indicated to me the new Cron would be better. Therefore I ordered one. My copy did not perform to the level I expected. It has since been returned. I will sit out of the 28 Cron version 11672 market for a while to let things settle.

 

Thanks for trying to help me with my camera. However, it seems to be working fine with my other M lenses. When I can afford to be without it for 3, 4, 6 or 8 weeks... however long Leica NJ takes now, I will send it in. In the meantime, I'll make do.

 

pechelman: this seems to be an occasional and unfortunate part of the LUF experience. But I agree, Rick's slightly arrogant and condescending tone is unwelcome. When I checked messages this morning, I noted one of Rick's replies to a post of mine literally stated I "keep posting misinformation." However, when I came to this thread the comment had been changed to more moderate wording... 

[lct]

This feels like an endless circular discussion. [...]

 

What you've shown above is not normal at all sorry. I would follow Rick's advice if i were you but YMMV . 

[don daniel]

Mine is back from service. Looks, feels and performs very nice on my Monochrom:

Falknerstrasse by Daniel Nussbaumer, auf Flickr

 

Full resolution:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/124891608@N03/27132962854/sizes/o/

 

Kohlenberg by Daniel Nussbaumer, auf Flickr

[rscheffler]

Hi Daniel, I had a look at the full resolution files for both and they look great. Do you remember what aperture was used for both?

 

An update about my 28mm path... I found a used 28 Lux in excellent condition for not much more than the new 28 Cron. I've only had it a few days but my preliminary tests, along the same lines of the tests I did with the two Crons, indicate it's a very good all-round performer. Stopped down to f/5.6-8 it's as good (if not slightly better in some respects) as my first gen Cron. Naturally it also allows for a stop more in low light conditions, etc. Biggest compromise is size, weight and greater viewfinder blockage, along with stronger CA that cleans up in post. Purple fringing is also rather strong and persistent in very high contrast sharp transition areas, but also generally cleans up in post. 

 

FWIW, the Lux shows even, consistent corner and border performance on my M240 without the weaker left side seen in my Cron samples. This is consistent with my results from the new Voigtlander 35/1.7, which I retested at infinity with the Lux and also a copy of the ZM 35/1.4 Distagon. BTW, my copy of the Voigtlander outperforms that copy of the ZM for across-frame infinity sharpness consistency. However, the 35/1.4 and a ZM85/4 I also tested, both focus slightly short of infinity. I have seen this before with some of my other ZM lenses and wonder if it's a consistent 'problem' with the ZM line?

 

My loose longer term 28mm plans are to eventually acquire a 28 Elmarit ASPH (still have to decide on new vs. old) to pair with a few lenses for a more compact travel kit, such as the 90 Macro Elmar, 21 SEM and maybe a 50/2.5 Summarit or current version Cron...

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[don daniel]

Hi Daniel, I had a look at the full resolution files for both and they look great. Do you remember what aperture was used for both?

 

 

 

 

I do not remember if it was 5.6 or 8 in the second picture. It must have been 5.6 in the first. For a flat scenery in bright light I normally use 5.6, for a scenery with more depth I use aperture 8 or 11. These were only a few test shots on the way back from the dealer.