Any thoughts on the behavior of this Super Elmarit 24mm / asph

[bert c]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Dear friends at the Leica forum.

 

I wonder, does someone have any thoughts on this one ...

 

The other day I bought an 'new in the box' SEM 24mm 2.8 asph, according to the dealer right off an 'insolvency' problem of the former owner/store. The lens number exceeded 407XXXX, so probably one of the last lenses of the production.

 

Since my M240 is at Wetzlar, I started taking some photo's with my M9. All literature, including Leica's own and others, state this lens would be one of Leica's bests. The renowed Mr. Puts says: [...] No Leica M user should be without this lens. The M style of photography demands intimate close range photography and the 24 is one of the best lenses to explore this area. It delivers unsurpassable quality in the 24 focal length. I would say that at f4.0 this lens is at its best. [...]

 

 

Much to my surprise I noticed some unsharpness in the corners of the landscapes I took at f5.6-f8 ... So I took some other shots at several apertures and again noticed some fuzziness at the corners. All images were taken with sufficient shutter speed of 125 so there was no unsharpness by movement of the camera.

 

I decided to do the old 'test with the newspaper'. I know some people will say, what the f**k is he doing, Leica has equipment of millions of dollars to check their cameras and lenses. But that is besides the point. Take my word for it that the camera was aligned properly towards the wall with newspapers. No newspaper is totally flat unless glued. So, some of the paper does 'wave' a little but that would not have interfered with the sharpness in the corners.

 

So. I taped several sheets of newspapers, flat on the wall. There is diffuse light coming from left to right that, of course, would not influence the sharpness of the letters of the newspaper. Camera on tripod, 24mm lens chosen in as well AUTO as Manual. That did not make a difference in the quality of sharpness.

 

As we can see  - it is a pity I can not upload bigger files - at f4 (remember what Mr. Puts concluded?) it is extremely unsharp in the corners. Also at f 5.6. At f8 it starts to get better but at f11 the corners are crisp and sharp. 

 

I could not believe what I saw. Therefore I consulted my friend Paulus. He borrowed me his M240 and his older SEM 24mm. His lens was absolutely better, sharp and crisp at f 5.6. All apertures below that ... rubbish. (remember what Mr. Puts concluded? By the way, I do think highly of his studies and of his knowledge!) 

 

There was no difference between the images of my M9 and Paulus' M240 in respect to the quality of my SEM 24.

 

Sofar for my conducted test.

 

Any thoughts on this one?

 

 

Thanks and greetings from the Netherlands,

 

 

Bert

 

1st image: full frame wall with newspaper

 

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!

Edited October 30, 2017 by bert c

[bert c]

Right upper corner at f4

 

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!

Edited October 30, 2017 by bert c

[Advertisement]

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

[bert c]

Right upper corner at f 5.6

 

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!

Edited October 30, 2017 by bert c

[bert c]

Right upper corner at f11

 

 

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!

Edited October 30, 2017 by bert c

[a.noctilux]

Hello Bert,

 

What do you expect from us ?

 

If this lens is not up to your standard, just return it to seller.

Lenses may vary in quality.

Maybe you could find one more suitable.

 

In my practice, sometimes (not always...) I had to buy/sell same "type Leitz/Leica lens" 3-4 times to find out what I wanted to keep.

Sometimes, it's mechanical (focus/aperture too stiff or loose), another time optical performance not as expected (like this "SEM 24" * ), then I returned to seller or sent to Leica if "new buy".

 

*

SEM 24mm = not exist

http://www.summilux.net/m_system/objectifs/ElmarM24Asph-fiche.pdf

as seen in MTF graphs, this is very flat field lens from wide open (f/3.8)

 

you wanted to say

24mm f/3.8 ASPH Elmar-M

https://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/index.php/24mm_f/3.8_ASPH_Elmar-M

Edited October 30, 2017 by a.noctilux

[bert c]

Obviously lenses vary in quality but it is not me who set the standard ... is it? I would like to live and photograph by the standard but I am not setting it.

 

In my opinion it is a shame to pay top of the bill prices for lenses and than come to the conclusion to have to shop around and buy/sell a couple of times before to decide what lens to keep. Isn't that the world upside down? What's the use of all those reports and MTF charts? Should we therefore have to go into a trial & error mode?

 

I am still on a learning curve ... therefore all input on this matter is greatly appreciated! 

Edited October 30, 2017 by bert c

[a.noctilux]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If new, I would try to obtain another copy from Leica.

If second hand, just return to the seller.

 

Leica adventures (second hand buy) is something to live to understand that "on paper" and "real life", there are some margins.

My almost 40 years Leica user told me .

 

Someone had done this kind of swap: https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/277932-21-sem-quality-control-issues/

Edited October 30, 2017 by a.noctilux

[Ecar]

I'm a bit confused now: is this about the Elmarit 24/2.8 ASPH or the Elmar 24/3.8 ASPH?

[a.noctilux]

From Wiki:

24mm f/3.8 ASPH Elmar-M Serial Numbers Serial numbers compiled from known lenses SN Start SN End Product ...

Year Total -4077785 4082943- 24mm f/3.8 ASPH Elmar-M 2008 

I'm a bit confused now: is this about the Elmarit 24/2.8 ASPH or the Elmar 24/3.8 ASPH?

From serial # of the original poster "407xxxx", obviously 3.8/24 Elmar-M Asph.

Edited October 30, 2017 by a.noctilux

[bert c]

The lens tested was a LEICA M Elmarit 2,8/24 mm Asph, 6-bit / nr. 407XXXX

 

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I should not have called it SEM ... for your information: I've returned the lens to the dealer in Germany. 

Edited October 30, 2017 by bert c

[Ecar]

From serial # of the original poster "407xxxx", obviously 3.8/24 Elmar-M Asph.

 

I wouldn't be so assertive... He mentioned "one of the last of the production" implying it could be the 24/2.8. That's why I was asking.

Edit: btw, there's no certain database of serials, particularly for recent lenses.

Edited October 30, 2017 by Ecar

[bert c]

I'm a bit confused now: is this about the Elmarit 24/2.8 ASPH or the Elmar 24/3.8 ASPH?

 

LEICA M Elmarit 2,8/24 mm Asph, 6-bit / nr. 407XXXX

[a.noctilux]

Apologize for my confusion by serial number ( from Wiki !).

 

Bert, you may NOT find better (another that I suggested) IQ  Elmarit-M 24mm than this one.

 

Only "better flat field" possible with the newer Elmar-M 3.8/24 Asph.

 

This is old design lens, Elmarit-M 2.8/24 asph.

 

It's not as flat field as the newer Elmar-M 3.8/24 Asph. : http://www.summilux.net/m_system/objectifs/ElmarM24Asph-fiche.pdf

 

Look at the MTF only "flat field" at f/8 !

I think that the tests showed the "old flaw, not-flat-field" of Elmarit-M 24mm "corrected" in newer Elmar-M.

 

Elmarit-M 2.8/24 asph. : http://www.summilux.net/m_system/images/Elmarit24Asph.pdf

Edited October 30, 2017 by a.noctilux

[Paulus]

The lens tested was a LEICA M Elmarit 2,8/24 mm Asph, 6-bit / nr. 407XXXX

 

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I should not have called it SEM ... for your information: I've returned the lens to the dealer in Germany. 

 

 

Dear friends at the Leica forum.

 

I wonder, does someone have any thoughts on this one ...

 

The other day I bought an 'new in the box' SEM 24mm 2.8 asph, according to the dealer right off an 'insolvency' problem of the former owner/store. The lens number exceeded 407XXXX, so probably one of the last lenses of the production.

 

Since my M240 is at Wetzlar, I started taking some photo's with my M9. All literature, including Leica's own and others, state this lens would be one of Leica's bests. The renowed Mr. Puts says: [...] No Leica M user should be without this lens. The M style of photography demands intimate close range photography and the 24 is one of the best lenses to explore this area. It delivers unsurpassable quality in the 24 focal length. I would say that at f4.0 this lens is at its best. [...]

 

 

Much to my surprise I noticed some unsharpness in the corners of the landscapes I took at f5.6-f8 ... So I took some other shots at several apertures and again noticed some fuzziness at the corners. All images were taken with sufficient shutter speed of 125 so there was no unsharpness by movement of the camera.

 

I decided to do the old 'test with the newspaper'. I know some people will say, what the f**k is he doing, Leica has equipment of millions of dollars to check their cameras and lenses. But that is besides the point. Take my word for it that the camera was aligned properly towards the wall with newspapers. No newspaper is totally flat unless glued. So, some of the paper does 'wave' a little but that would not have interfered with the sharpness in the corners.

 

So. I taped several sheets of newspapers, flat on the wall. There is diffuse light coming from left to right that, of course, would not influence the sharpness of the letters of the newspaper. Camera on tripod, 24mm lens chosen in as well AUTO as Manual. That did not make a difference in the quality of sharpness.

 

As we can see  - it is a pity I can not upload bigger files - at f4 (remember what Mr. Puts concluded?) it is extremely unsharp in the corners. Also at f 5.6. At f8 it starts to get better but at f11 the corners are crisp and sharp. 

 

I could not believe what I saw. Therefore I consulted my friend Paulus. He borrowed me his M240 and his older SEM 24mm. His lens was absolutely better, sharp and crisp at f 5.6. All apertures below that ... rubbish. (remember what Mr. Puts concluded? By the way, I do think highly of his studies and of his knowledge!) 

 

There was no difference between the images of my M9 and Paulus' M240 in respect to the quality of my SEM 24.

 

Sofar for my conducted test.

 

Any thoughts on this one?

 

 

Thanks and greetings from the Netherlands,

 

 

Bert

 

1st image: full frame wall with newspaper

 

LC_24mm_full frame.jpg

I can backup this story. Both Elmarit-M 2,8/24 ASPH did not perform as expected according to the reviews between 2,8 and 5,6.  Maybe Jaap or an other moderator can alter the title in " Any thoughts about the behaviour of the Elmarit-M 2,8/24mm ASPH. " Bert? 

Edited October 30, 2017 by Paulus

[bert c]

Yes, I would like to alter the title of this topic but I am afraid I can't.

 

Sorry folks, for the misunderstanding!

[Paulus]

Obviously lenses vary in quality but it is not me who set the standard ... is it? I would like to live and photograph by the standard but I am not setting it.

 

In my opinion it is a shame to pay top of the bill prices for lenses and than come to the conclusion to have to shop around and buy/sell a couple of times before to decide what lens to keep. Isn't that the world upside down? What's the use of all those reports and MTF charts? Should we therefore have to go into a trial & error mode?

 

I am still on a learning curve ... therefore all input on this matter is greatly appreciated! 

 

 

 

On page 407 of Erwin Puts book rule 5 till 11  :"  Stopping down to f/1:4 overall contrast improves and extremely fine detail is clearly visible. Corners lag a bit but centre performance is at its optimum. ......... ..stopping down to 5,6 the finest details get a tighter structure on axis,but overal contrast in the outer zonal area is lower. .........: f/4 this lens is for all intents and purposes best. " 

 

For me it's difficult to read in the upper review of Erwin, how to interpret the unsharpness at the corners.

Still, the performance of the two lenses varied so much that it is almost embarrassing....

[bert c]

Yes, indeed.

[Ecar]

I have both lenses.

The 24/3.8 is clearly the *better* one from a technical standpoint - best for landscape, architecture, etc.

Yet, I prefer the rendering of the 24/2.8 in many situations - best for street, moody atmospheres, very low light, etc.

They both have their purpose for me, but I can understand how one could be disappointed by the latter if looking for APO-like perfection.

However, I agree that this should be no excuse for sample variability: it shouldn't happen, but we all know it does from time to time, and the only solution is to get a replacement.

And I wouldn't be too harsh on Mr. Puts: he probably wrote that several years ago when optical standards were lower and hasn't revised his assessment since.

[adan]

Super-Elmar f/3.8 mtf chart: https://cdn.photographylife.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Leica-Elmar-M-24mm-f3.8-ASPH-MTF-Chart.jpg

 

Elmarit-M f/2.8 mtf chart: http://allphotolenses.com/public/files/mtf/511f047895eb82136dd44b782f4cdabd.png

 

The 24 Elmarit-M (and Puts' review) date to 1998 (19 years ago and pre-digital pixel-peeping). What he ACTUALLY said back then - and remember, Puts has something of a fetish about "contrast" and not necessarily raw resolution:

 

At full aperture the lens exhibits a very high contrast image from center across the whole field. Only the far corners drop in contrast and produce soft details. Over an image circle with a diameter of 12 mm the outlines of subject shapes and details are delineated with superb edge contrast and extremely fine details are crisply and clearly rendered. In the rest of the field the very fine details are crisply attached in the emulsion with extremely fine details visibly rendered but with softer edges. Exceedingly fine detail is just rendered above the threshold of visibility, but with slightly lower contrast.

 

Going from center to corner the contrast of the extremely fine details drops a bit, but while a bit soft these details are still clearly visible.

 

Stopping down to f/4,0 the contrast of very fine detail improves and the exceedingly fine detail now is clearly visible. Corners still lag a bit but center performance (12 mm image circle) is at its optimum. This aperture can be called the optimum. Stopping down to 5.6 we see that the finest possible detail crispens a bit, but the outlines of shapes and details starts to soften faintly. Overall contrast thus is a bit lower.

 

It is a matter of priorities which aperture is optimum. I would say that at f4.0 this lens is at its best.

 

At f/8,0 corners continue to improve where the center now drops in contrast. At f/16 the overall image contrast is lower and very fine detail suffers as diffraction sets in.

 

http://www.imx.nl/photo/leica/lenses/lenses/page86.html.

Edited October 31, 2017 by adan

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[bert c]

I have both lenses.

The 24/3.8 is clearly the *better* one from a technical standpoint - best for landscape, architecture, etc.

Yet, I prefer the rendering of the 24/2.8 in many situations - best for street, moody atmospheres, very low light, etc.

They both have their purpose for me, but I can understand how one could be disappointed by the latter if looking for APO-like perfection.

However, I agree that this should be no excuse for sample variability: it shouldn't happen, but we all know it does from time to time, and the only solution is to get a replacement.

And I wouldn't be too harsh on Mr. Puts: he probably wrote that several years ago when optical standards were lower and hasn't revised his assessment since.

 

I did not have the intention being hars on Mr. Puts. As stated I regard him very highly in his knowledge on the subject of Leica (a.o.).

 

I was very surprised towards the quality of my 24mm lens and his study that recounted for f4 as best aperture. My f4 image quality was clearly totally rubbish!

Edited October 31, 2017 by bert c