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

[Paulus]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The issue is not Erwin Puts, or other testers I think. The issue really is the matter of trust. Once a lens is properly tested and this lens was. I worked with Erwin in those years for the Magazine FOTO and I know him as a very exact and trustworthy person. But also others have tested the 24MM Elmarit-M. In most of these tests a concencus of quality was reached " above f/4,0 , good lens .. " one would say. 

 

The issue is, that we just don't know anymore what we buy, but first have to spent over € 2000,- and find out... A little bit sad.. 

 

Other lenses ( Like the APO 75 summicron I have mentioned before. ) also have issues like these.

 

Also the issue, that a 20 year old lens performs way over better than the same lens of a more recent date. Might this be because the production proces has changed, or is this just coincidence? 

Edited October 31, 2017 by Paulus

[a.noctilux]

May I suggest that this type of Elmarit-M Asph., when created long time ago, before digital age, the "flat field" may not be first priority.

 

I assume that the OP tests with "flat papers" = not fair to this lens.

 

I suggest to use it for what it was created for, by then, to photograph real life with "deep subjects", for a while.

After that, judge by the results.

[Ecar]

The issue is not Erwin Puts, or other testers I think. The issue really is the matter of trust. Once a lens is properly tested and this lens was. I worked with Erwin in those years for the Magazine FOTO and I know him as a very exact and trustworthy person. But also others have tested the 24MM Elmarit-M. In most of these tests a concencus of quality was reached " above f/4,0 , good lens .. " one would say. 

 

The issue is, that we just don't know anymore what we buy, but first have to spent over € 2000,- and find out... A little bit sad.. 

 

Other lenses ( Like the APO 75 summicron I have mentioned before. ) also have issues like these.

 

Also the issue, that a 20 year old lens performs way over better than the same lens of a more recent date. Might this be because the production proces has changed, or is this just coincidence? 

 

You are right, but testers only get to evaluate one sample, or perhaps a couple of them. Lemons are (fortunately) infrequent but a fact of life in industrial production and (unfortunately) unrelated to the perceived quality or cost of the item itself: there are lemons amongst cars, computers, etc.

The real questions are: how many lemons are there in a given manufacturer's production batch i.e., what is the likelihood of getting one? - and, what is the seller/manufacturer's return policy?

The answer to the first question is difficult to measure and, if available, would be a closely-guarded secret anyway. Indeed, the bad news for lens manufacturers is that in our age of pixel-peeping an increasing number of what were previously considered oranges turn out to be lemons...

The answer to the second question is effectively the only one that a buyer should consider, as sad as it may be. Here, the good news is that most sellers/manufacturers nowadays are prepared to replace or refund a purchase with no questions asked.

 

In this particular case (this is just me speculating based on my experience in other manufacturing environments), it could very well be that the tools/equipment/skills required to make an item whose production life was coming to an end did not receive the same attention as the latest ones. In practice this means slightly worn out tools, somewhat larger tolerances, most skilled workers/QC people moving on to the newest assembly lines, etc. So, no, it's not uncommon to see last-of-the-line products perform worse than older ones.

Edited October 31, 2017 by Ecar

[adan]

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!

 

The MTF chart for the 24 Elmarit shows exactly what your test pictures show - the MTF (contrast + resolution) nosedives in the corners (the right-hand side of the chart). At f/2.8 and f/5.6, and therefore in between at f/4 as well.

 

In other words, for anyone who can read an MTF chart, your samples come as no surprise at all. You are demonstrating exactly what an extreme-corner contrast of 10%-20% at 40 line pairs per mm really looks like. Very soft edges to all the small details.

 

Puts' comments need to be interpreted thoughtfully. I've been reading him for 15 years or more, and he tends to praise with faint damns, or damn with faint praise.

 

When he says "At f/8 corners continue to improve..." - that's a not-so-subtle hint that at apertures f/2.8, f/4, and f/5.6, there remains room for improvement. Sometimes lots of room for improvement.

 

When he says "I would say that at f/4.0, this lens is at its best..." - as I pointed out before, he has a fetish about image contrast. As soon as the center contrast starts to decline even slightly (e.g. at f/5.6 or smaller apertures, per his observations and the chart) - then as far as Puts is concerned, the lens is past its peak performance. Other people's mileage may vary.

 

It helps to know that Puts comes out of photojournalism, not landscape photography (mostly). While he evaluates lens performance in the corners, it is not his top priority. And as he clearly says, "it is a matter of priorities" which aperture is optimum. A photographer who wants sharp corner performance will prefer a smaller aperture (f/8 or f/11).

 

I mean, in a documentary picture like this (24 Elmarit ASPH), just how important is corner performance?

 

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!

 

From a historical perspective, looking back nearly 1/5th of a century (there are probably a few 24mm Elmarit ASPH users younger than their lens!), the 24mm Elmarit-M ASPH was hardly "rubbish." At the time Puts wrote his review, it was much better than Leica's only other 24mm lens (the R lens for their SLRs). Or their previous f/2.8 M-mount superwide, the 21mm Elmarit-M from 1980 (which I have and love, but is soft as a down pillow in the corners until f/5.6).

[graphlex]

The MTF chart for the 24 Elmarit shows exactly what your test pictures show - the MTF (contrast + resolution) nosedives in the corners (the right-hand side of the chart). At f/2.8 and f/5.6, and therefore in between at f/4 as well.

 

In other words, for anyone who can read an MTF chart, your samples come as no surprise at all. You are demonstrating exactly what an extreme-corner contrast of 10%-20% at 40 line pairs per mm really looks like. Very soft edges to all the small details.

 

Puts' comments need to be interpreted thoughtfully. I've been reading him for 15 years or more, and he tends to praise with faint damns, or damn with faint praise.

 

When he says "At f/8 corners continue to improve..." - that's a not-so-subtle hint that at apertures f/2.8, f/4, and f/5.6, there remains room for improvement. Sometimes lots of room for improvement.

 

When he says "I would say that at f/4.0, this lens is at its best..." - as I pointed out before, he has a fetish about image contrast. As soon as the center contrast starts to decline even slightly (e.g. at f/5.6 or smaller apertures, per his observations and the chart) - then as far as Puts is concerned, the lens is past its peak performance. Other people's mileage may vary.

 

It helps to know that Puts comes out of photojournalism, not landscape photography (mostly). While he evaluates lens performance in the corners, it is not his top priority. And as he clearly says, "it is a matter of priorities" which aperture is optimum. A photographer who wants sharp corner performance will prefer a smaller aperture (f/8 or f/11).

 

I mean, in a documentary picture like this (24 Elmarit ASPH), just how important is corner performance?

 

24ASPH.jpg

 

From a historical perspective, looking back nearly 1/5th of a century (there are probably a few 24mm Elmarit ASPH users younger than their lens!), the 24mm Elmarit-M ASPH was hardly "rubbish." At the time Puts wrote his review, it was much better than Leica's only other 24mm lens (the R lens for their SLRs). Or their previous f/2.8 M-mount superwide, the 21mm Elmarit-M from 1980 (which I have and love, but is soft as a down pillow in the corners until f/5.6).

Overall, Erwin gives the Elmarit his highest accolades, but he does call attention to sample variation, a notable issue given the extra-tight tolerances required. The kludgy hood design, I suspect, contributes to weakening of the front assembly when the lens has been picked up by the hood.

 

My experience, with an example produced in 2011, is that the Elmarit is superb for people and street, and more than respectable at infinity. Remember that Lloyd Chambers, who likes to see every pebble in the far distance, calls the 24 Elmarit high-performance, though slightly less impressive than the Elmar for landscapes.

 

And at a workshop in 2012, Mary Ellen Mark—who had a very keen eye in such matters—told me that the 24 Elmarit was one of her favorite lenses.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Paulus]

May I suggest that this type of Elmarit-M Asph., when created long time ago, before digital age, the "flat field" may not be first priority.

 

I assume that the OP tests with "flat papers" = not fair to this lens.

 

I suggest to use it for what it was created for, by then, to photograph real life with "deep subjects", for a while.

After that, judge by the results.

 

I'm sorry I forgot to say: The 20 year old lens was better than the new one! So your conclusion must be different. 

[Paulus]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

The answer to the first question is difficult to measure and, if available, would be a closely-guarded secret anyway. Indeed, the bad news for lens manufacturers is that in our age of pixel-peeping an increasing number of what were previously considered oranges turn out to be lemons...

 

The thing is. If the OP sees this on his " pixel peeping ' computerscreen, he will see it on his prints also. We are talking here about big prints. 

[Paulus]

 

 

In this particular case (this is just me speculating based on my experience in other manufacturing environments), it could very well be that the tools/equipment/skills required to make an item whose production life was coming to an end did not receive the same attention as the latest ones. In practice this means slightly worn out tools, somewhat larger tolerances, most skilled workers/QC people moving on to the newest assembly lines, etc. So, no, it's not uncommon to see last-of-the-line products perform worse than older ones.

 

 

 

In this particular case (this is just me speculating based on my experience in other manufacturing environments), it could very well be that the tools/equipment/skills required to make an item whose production life was coming to an end did not receive the same attention as the latest ones. In practice this means slightly worn out tools, somewhat larger tolerances, most skilled workers/QC people moving on to the newest assembly lines, etc. So, no, it's not uncommon to see last-of-the-line products perform worse than older ones.

Yes....and wouldn't that be embarrassing in Leica's case , if true? 

[bert c]

The issue is not Erwin Puts, or other testers I think. The issue really is the matter of trust. Once a lens is properly tested and this lens was. I worked with Erwin in those years for the Magazine FOTO and I know him as a very exact and trustworthy person. But also others have tested the 24MM Elmarit-M. In most of these tests a concencus of quality was reached " above f/4,0 , good lens .. " one would say. 

 

The issue is, that we just don't know anymore what we buy, but first have to spent over € 2000,- and find out... A little bit sad.. 

 

Other lenses ( Like the APO 75 summicron I have mentioned before. ) also have issues like these.

 

Also the issue, that a 20 year old lens performs way over better than the same lens of a more recent date. Might this be because the production proces has changed, or is this just coincidence? 

 

not just a little sad ... very, very sad that it obviously is common practice - according to some members - to have to search for a good (or even better) quality of a brand-new lens!

[bert c]

The MTF chart for the 24 Elmarit shows exactly what your test pictures show - the MTF (contrast + resolution) nosedives in the corners (the right-hand side of the chart). At f/2.8 and f/5.6, and therefore in between at f/4 as well.

 

In other words, for anyone who can read an MTF chart, your samples come as no surprise at all. You are demonstrating exactly what an extreme-corner contrast of 10%-20% at 40 line pairs per mm really looks like. Very soft edges to all the small details.

 

Puts' comments need to be interpreted thoughtfully. I've been reading him for 15 years or more, and he tends to praise with faint damns, or damn with faint praise.

 

When he says "At f/8 corners continue to improve..." - that's a not-so-subtle hint that at apertures f/2.8, f/4, and f/5.6, there remains room for improvement. Sometimes lots of room for improvement.

 

When he says "I would say that at f/4.0, this lens is at its best..." - as I pointed out before, he has a fetish about image contrast. As soon as the center contrast starts to decline even slightly (e.g. at f/5.6 or smaller apertures, per his observations and the chart) - then as far as Puts is concerned, the lens is past its peak performance. Other people's mileage may vary.

 

It helps to know that Puts comes out of photojournalism, not landscape photography (mostly). While he evaluates lens performance in the corners, it is not his top priority. And as he clearly says, "it is a matter of priorities" which aperture is optimum. A photographer who wants sharp corner performance will prefer a smaller aperture (f/8 or f/11).

 

I mean, in a documentary picture like this (24 Elmarit ASPH), just how important is corner performance?

 

24ASPH.jpg

 

From a historical perspective, looking back nearly 1/5th of a century (there are probably a few 24mm Elmarit ASPH users younger than their lens!), the 24mm Elmarit-M ASPH was hardly "rubbish." At the time Puts wrote his review, it was much better than Leica's only other 24mm lens (the R lens for their SLRs). Or their previous f/2.8 M-mount superwide, the 21mm Elmarit-M from 1980 (which I have and love, but is soft as a down pillow in the corners until f/5.6).

...and he tends to praise with faint damns, or damn with faint praise.

 

I love this frase! :-)

[mdemeyer]

If you are looking for a 24 with very good across-the-field performance, do try the 24 F3.8 ASPH. Might tickle your fancy more, as it does mine.

[bert c]

I've just ordered the SEM 21mm. It will be calibrated to my M240 at Wetzlar at this very moment  :-)

[newnew]

I have acquired a new 6-bit copy of the elmarit 24mm last april and have used it in a variety of situations, including landscapes. I also have the SEM 21 . The Elmarit has a different character but not a disturbing sharpness problem. Its color rendering for landscapes is a superb plus.

[harryzet]

erwin puts - nuff said

[bchalifour]

I just received and tested my Elmarit 24 mm asph. and was really amazed by the image quality (on an M10 monochrome): detailed, smooth almost velvety (even at 12500 iso). One of the best Leica lens I have ever used. The one discussed here seems to have a misaligned lens which would explain the upper right corner at full aperture.