MATE discontinued

[sdai]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Look, I'm a serious M shooter, folks ... but some of the previous posts in the thread really got me thinking. What else can Leica do for the M?

 

Now Mark was suggesting a 35/2.8 ... how underwhelming is that? anything better and provoking? a 6 (or maybe 7 'cause I can't recall it from the Puts article ) element Summicron 50? ok, nothing on earth beats it in terms of optical excellence. Sheeeeeesh ...

 

I'll come back ... after Friday night.

[ho_co]

Mark--

Maybe not worth reading, but here's my take on the 35/1.4, based on Puts, Reid, Ashley, Whimster etc. I'm certain Tim would not agree, but I think this is it:

 

1) The focus shift is designed into the lens. All the above and I have written on that. It's intentional.

 

2) Because of that, Leica simply announced that the focus shift in Tim's Summiluxes was to be expected and sent him the message with which he started the long and productive thread. Leica did not recognize the problem and did not attack the matter deeply.

 

No particular temporal order implied here:

 

3) Tim had more problem than he expected with his 35/2. He worked hard on Leica to get them to find the problem, which thing at first they could not do. Turns out that the lens had a combination of (designed-in) focus shift and backfocus, which Leica fixed by re-shimming the lens (i.e. eliminating the backfocus).

 

4) Carsten visited Leica Camera Berlin and demonstrated to the employees there that a 35/1.4 they had in stock exhibited an intolerable amount of focus shift (same as Tim's lens in point 2).

 

4) On a later occasion, Carsten visited Leica Camera Berlin and spoke with a Leica technician who felt that the 'old ways' of testing lenses were not adequate to the M8 and that Leica is becoming aware of that fact and trying to improve procedures.

 

5) (Here's where Tim will disagree, I think.) I think the problem Tim had with the 35/1.4's is likely exactly the same as he had with the 35/2. The lenses left the factory with a slight amount of backfocus. That plus its inherent focus shift caused the problem. If we had known as much then as we do now about the problem, Tim would have been able to get the lenses adjusted simply by having Leica re-shim them.

 

6) Summary: There's nothing wrong with the 35/1.4 that better care in assembly and testing will not fix. There's no reason to discontinue the lens unless a lens as good or arguably as good can be produced for less, or an arguably better lens for not that much more.

 

7) Disclaimer: I'm not trying to start an argument.

 

8) You may be right that the lens is due for redesign. But Puts' and Reid's samples have been excellent; yours is excellent; Jamie's and Bill's are excellent. We've heard of others that didn't measure up (Sergio's for example, though that may have been the 35/2), but overall the lens is good. I believe that once Leica can get over the NIH syndrome and recognize that some of the lenses did get through with quality control inadequate to the M8, all of them can be brought up to the standard set by lenses like yours. It's a good thing that Tim's problems sensitized us to the issue. Now we need to be sure Leica is also sensitized to the issue.

 

9) Just my opinion.

 

--HC

[Advertisement]

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

[marknorton]

Well, yes, it's tough to know where Leica will take the M lens range with two additions and two deletions in the past year.

 

I can see holes in their lower cost range of lenses - like a 35/2.8 and a 18/4 - and I had hoped that Leica would extend the Tri-Elmar concept but apparently not. Much as I would like a 24/2 or 28/1.4, it seems unlikely.

 

Other than new lenses, Leica might devote their energies to updating existing lenses (hardly a new idea - how many 35/2, 50/2 and 90/2.8 lens versions have there been?) and I mentioned the 35/1.4 as the oldest of the ASPH lenses.

 

All the while, the M8 is proving quite a learning experience for Leica...

[tashley]

Mark--

Maybe not worth reading, but here's my take on the 35/1.4, based on Puts, Reid, Ashley, Whimster etc. I'm certain Tim would not agree, but I think this is it:

 

 

--HC

 

Howard, I agree absolutely with everything you say! My problem lenses (35 luxes excluded because I simply handed them back) were the 35 Cron and 28 Cron and after all the long threads and the way we explored the issues as a group, I came to exactly the same conclusion as you - especially since the 35 was fixed and the 28 was replaced. I now have two lenses that suffer minor focus shift but since their initial focus is well-adjusted, the results are always at least acceptable to me. What I was previously suffering was exactly as you say: mild and endemic focus shift exacerbated to unacceptable proportions by bad initial alignment.

 

In more detail, my 35 cron went back to Solms with my newer M8 body, which I felt to have a correctly aligned RF and indeed when they returned the lens had been adjusted and the body had not. So I now trust that body 100%, which is what my previous instinct was. Just in case, though, my first body has gone back for a check too.

 

I am mildly surprised that Leica took so long to realise they had a problem. Strike 'mildly' and make that 'pretty'. How much money have they cost themselves and time have they cost us by not spotting something so obvious that a total Leica beginner (me) managed to see it so soon and with the help of you guys, work out what was going on?

 

The final part of the puzzle, often not referred to, is amply demonstrated by a badly behaved nocti I have on loan at the moment. It needs adjusting so as to get wide open focus as optimal as possible so that focus shift is minimised but in its current state, as you stop down, you totally lose focus in the centre but the edges are sharp as a pin.

 

In other words, the lens design might be aspherical but there is a strong spherical component to the focus shift: it only affects the centre one third of the image.

 

FWIW the lens I would most like to see is a non-shifting, well made and properly tested, compact 24mm F2. I would also like to see pigs fly, peace break out in the world, and a garden centre in the Namibian Desert.

 

Best to all and Thank You for the combined brain power that got us to the current level of understanding!

 

Tim

[stunsworth]

The final part of the puzzle, often not referred to, is amply demonstrated by a badly behaved nocti I have on loan at the moment. It needs adjusting so as to get wide open focus as optimal as possible so that focus shift is minimised but in its current state, as you stop down, you totally lose focus in the centre but the edges are sharp as a pin.

 

In other words, the lens design might be aspherical but there is a strong spherical component to the focus shift: it only affects the centre one third of the image.

 

Hi Tim, the Nocti isn't an aspherical lens.

[ho_co]

Leica's forte has always been surprising us.

 

There had never been anything like the M3, for example. And who wasn't surprised by the 75/1.4? Any time you look at the system, it looks as if they've got all bases covered--and then they turn out a 90/4 Macro on a camera that hasn't had a "close-focusing" lens since the Dual-Range Summicron.

 

We can always name faster lenses that we want, but Leica seems always to do something unexpected, like discontinuing the 28/2.8 for a new one which is both optically superior and less expensive.

 

The first good thing about speculation is that some of it is right.

 

And the second good thing about speculation is that Leica usually does something entirely different.

 

Hate to see the Tri-Elmar go. It's the lens most often on my camera. But I'm looking forward to seeing what's next.

 

But my guess is that right now with emphasis on the R10 there aren't major new products coming for the M. (Or at least not many...)

 

--HC

[carstenw]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Tim, I absolutely disagree with you. I do not wish for a garden centre in the Namibian desert.

 

I have picked up (well, I do need to send some money) Eoin's 35 Lux Asph, a chrome copy, and it doesn't have the focus shift problem I so easily reproduced with the copy at Leica Camera Berlin; they have two now; I am not sure if they both have the problem. Tim, I am not sure if you are still looking for a good 35 Lux Asph, but if you would like, I can go down and test both to see if they have focus shift. If they have one which doesn't, I could reserve it in your name. Let me know.

 

The Noctilux you have does sound like it needs fixing. The one I have been borrowing was recently CLAed by Leica, and it is much better than what you describe, so apparently they are able to improve it.

 

I finally did test it more thoroughly, and at about 1.5m wide open it is probably biased towards the front of the focus field, however narrow it is, ie. it is sharp in front of where I focused, but not behind, and as you stop down, it stays sharp where I focused. It is really hard to focus that exactly though, and if you have very high expectations of sharpness (apart from the fact that wide open the Noctilux isn't sharp; it has a halo of glow), then you will absolutely need the 1.25x loupe as well as a steady subject, a steady hand, and patience. The first two times I tried to test this, I messed it up, unknowingly, and only saw it in the pictures. Then I got more serious

[ho_co]

... I am mildly surprised that Leica took so long to realise they had a problem. Strike 'mildly' and make that 'pretty'. How much money have they cost themselves and time have they cost us by not spotting something so obvious that a total Leica beginner (me) managed to see it so soon and with the help of you guys, work out what was going on?

That part really bothers me as well. It gradually became obvious to all of us, I think, that the answer you got regarding the 35 Summiluxes ("Yup, it has focus shift. Supposed to. Way it's designed.") simply grew from their attitude that they've been doing it this way forever and haven't changed, so there's nothing they can learn.

 

That's the hope I see in your finally getting your lenses fixed, and in Carsten's technician saying that they are waking up to the problem. Sometimes you just have to get through to the right person, and things begin to fall into place. (Though it sounds as if your Noctilux is showing the same symptoms...)

 

Gotta cut Leica some slack, though. With all the difficulties they were discovering with the M8, they certainly didn't want to hear that there was something wrong with their lens testing procedure.

 

"Total Leica beginner"? You? Looking at your Venice work, I would put you into the 'guru' class. On the other hand, I guess with the M8 we're all beginners, including Leica.

Best to all and Thank You for the combined brain power that got us to the current level of understanding!

Agreed. It took some arguing and some effort, but it seems to have paid off. We just can't allow ourselves or Leica to get complacent in the digital marketplace.

 

--HC

[wlaidlaw]

The final part of the puzzle, often not referred to, is amply demonstrated by a badly behaved nocti I have on loan at the moment. It needs adjusting so as to get wide open focus as optimal as possible so that focus shift is minimised but in its current state, as you stop down, you totally lose focus in the centre but the edges are sharp as a pin.

 

In other words, the lens design might be aspherical but there is a strong spherical component to the focus shift: it only affects the centre one third of the image.

 

Tim

 

Tim,

 

If you set out in detail exactly where the problems lie plus make it abundantly clear how unacceptable the previous totally rubbish service job was, surprisingly, they can even get a Noctilux right now - mine. I assume things must have improved at bit over the last couple of months. I am amazed by Carsten's description of the lens testing procedure - sounded dark ages to me. Have they not seen a modern optical test bench? I assume they must since they quote MTF figures with the lenses, so why don't they use it for post service testing?

 

Here is another Nocti one from last night.

 

Wilson

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!

[tashley]

Hi Tim, the Nocti isn't an aspherical lens.

 

Hmmm, I did look at it to see if it said ASPH but when it didn't, I just assumed it must be because the focus shift it exhibits is so classic of the breed. The implications of what you say are fascinating because Solms told me that the focus shift in the 35 luxes was caused by asph design... so maybe there are other aspects of lens design to blame?

 

t

[tashley]

Tim, I absolutely disagree with you. I do not wish for a garden centre in the Namibian desert.

 

I have picked up (well, I do need to send some money) Eoin's 35 Lux Asph, a chrome copy, and it doesn't have the focus shift problem I so easily reproduced with the copy at Leica Camera Berlin; they have two now; I am not sure if they both have the problem. Tim, I am not sure if you are still looking for a good 35 Lux Asph, but if you would like, I can go down and test both to see if they have focus shift. If they have one which doesn't, I could reserve it in your name. Let me know.

 

The Noctilux you have does sound like it needs fixing. The one I have been borrowing was recently CLAed by Leica, and it is much better than what you describe, so apparently they are able to improve it.

 

I finally did test it more thoroughly, and at about 1.5m wide open it is probably biased towards the front of the focus field, however narrow it is, ie. it is sharp in front of where I focused, but not behind, and as you stop down, it stays sharp where I focused. It is really hard to focus that exactly though, and if you have very high expectations of sharpness (apart from the fact that wide open the Noctilux isn't sharp; it has a halo of glow), then you will absolutely need the 1.25x loupe as well as a steady subject, a steady hand, and patience. The first two times I tried to test this, I messed it up, unknowingly, and only saw it in the pictures. Then I got more serious

 

Thanks for the offer Carsten, but I have two 35's already (a cron and a CV2.5) and am trying to work out what to get rid of rather than what to buy! Glad to hear that you have seen both sides of the coin, though. Instructive, isn't it?!

 

t

[tashley]

Tim,

 

 

 

Here is another Nocti one from last night.

 

Wilson

 

Yum, that is lovely and silky. Where did you intend to focus? Not that it matters cos the result is so good, just curious... Maybe I should buy it and try to get it fixed after all - I just don't like the new routine of 'spend a grand or two and then have nothing to play with for the next six to eight weeks.' I mean, it's not like I'm buying it through a Christmas Club!

 

:-)

 

t

[tashley]

Agreed. It took some arguing and some effort, but it seems to have paid off. We just can't allow ourselves or Leica to get complacent in the digital marketplace.

 

--HC

 

So true; but perversely, I suspect that it is exactly that trait of tunnel vision that makes them so focussed (unlike some of their glass!) on getting innovative and amazing stuff made. Infuriating but in the end, we do get to own stuff that does stuff that other stuff can't do!

 

t

[carstenw]

Aspherical lens elements do not cause focus shift. I don't know what they were thinking when they said that. It is yet another tool in the box, to help cope with various optical design problems. Leica appears to have used it mainly to push the sharp regions into the corners and to improve sharpness up close (floating elements help here too). I know too little to say much, but that is what I understand from what I have read so far. Designing a lens is like a minmax problem with a huge matrix. You choose how you weight the different characteristics and then you optimise the hell out of the design. You can never cancel out effects, just reduce them below where they can be perceived or where they bother you.

 

I suspect that Leica has a tendency to study things to incredible depths, design a procedure which handles it all, and then leave it well alone in the future. This has gotten them far in the past, but makes it harder to see that the basic assumptions have changed with the M8, and to realise that they need to redo the whole procedure.

[kidigital]

Carsten, have you received the 35lux yet? What are your thoughts. I spent some time with the lux asph and the cron asph and after much deliberation kept the lux. Despite the size, weight and sharpness across the frame advantages of the cron, there is something about the out of focus transitions of the lux that make it a favorite for me.

 

Kurt

[carstenw]

Yes, the 35 Lux Asph is here. I love it so far. It doesn't have the focus shift problems. I am arranging with Holger to borrow his 35/2 IV, and will do some testing to see which I prefer of all three. I presume they will all have their strengths, since they all have their fans. I expect the following: 35 Lux Ashp: beautiful pictures wide open, sharp almost everywhere, but not too much so wide open, good for portraits. 35 Cron Asph: similar to Lux, simply without the f/1.4, and hence no aperture with that slight softness that I enjoy for portraits. Very robust, stable results, nice bokeh, possibly lower distortion than the other two, more predictable than the IV. 35 Cron IV: great older lens, not as sharp as the newer ones, a bit wild with the wrong background, beautiful bokeh when everything comes together right. A nice second 35 for the bag.

 

I still have to confirm all this though The 35 Lux Asph Chrome is a beast though. 35/2A: 250g, 35/1.4A: 450g, 75 Lux I: 520g, Noctilux II: 620g, on my inaccurate scale, within 10g or so. All without lens caps but with IR filters. To give a less scientific idea of its size, the 35/2A on my M8 hangs vertically at my side, but with the 35/1.4A it hangs lens down. It does look very stylish though Sorry for the crap cellphone picture. I knew that there was a reason for a second M8: to take nice pictures of the first one!

 

.

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!

[wlaidlaw]

Yum, that is lovely and silky. Where did you intend to focus? Not that it matters cos the result is so good, just curious... Maybe I should buy it and try to get it fixed after all - I just don't like the new routine of 'spend a grand or two and then have nothing to play with for the next six to eight weeks.' I mean, it's not like I'm buying it through a Christmas Club!

 

:-)

 

t

 

Tim,

 

I think I focused on my friend Heather's nose/chin. It was actually rather darker that the photo might appear, so focusing was not very easy. I am not totally convinced by the Noctilux Bokeh. Heather's husband who is a professional photographer (Blair Ketcheson) asked me to print this one in black and white, as that is his preferred medium. The lady's hair, who is directly above the right hand lantern looks very weird - like a painted plastic doll. I had hoped to have my 35/1.2 Voigtlander to compare but Deutsche Post have lost it. I am however delighted with the creamy look of the in focus area of the Nocti.

 

Wilson

[charlesphoto99]

Hmmm, I did look at it to see if it said ASPH but when it didn't, I just assumed it must be because the focus shift it exhibits is so classic of the breed. The implications of what you say are fascinating because Solms told me that the focus shift in the 35 luxes was caused by asph design... so maybe there are other aspects of lens design to blame?

 

t

 

I contributed to the 35 ASPH post as having one that exhibits the same focus shift as Tim's. At this point I've kind of given up on it, though may send it in or ask DAG what he thinks. But my pre-asph 50 summilux also backfocus, even after having it shimmed by DAG for all aoround bad focus. So it's not confined to asph, and may have nothing to do with being asph as my 24, 28, and 90 asph don't exhibit the problem.

[gravastar]

I've just read an interesting comment on Uwe Steinmueller's site from Leica regarding the MATE, Leica M8 Experience

 

"The LEICA TRI-ELMAR-M 28-35-50mm f/4 ASPH. is one of the most complex Leica M lenses. It is extremely demanding in terms of assembling the individual mechanical and optical parts. Sadly, one of the key parts cannot be acquired in the quality necessary for the lens performance any longer. Every attempt to replace this part with an alternative only resulted in a lens with a rendition quality well below the Leica standard. Therefore, we were forced to discontinue the lens".

 

That's more information than I've seen anywhere else.

 

Bob.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[marknorton]

Bob, thanks for the comment. Does make you wonder what the reasons are behind the "cannot".