Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
tashley

Sean Reid on 35mm lenses for M8

Recommended Posts

Guest Olof
If I recall you have a PayPal problem that has nothing to do with RR. Let's keep the facts straight please.

 

Your HP offers the use of a credit card, i tried to use it and it dosent work. These are the straight facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You prefer the second version? Do you mean that you have tried an Aspherical *and* an ASPH version? The first one is very rare and goes for something like $5-6000. It is meant to be almost identical in performance.

 

I did see the B+H link, but as a quick search on Google will reveal, online is not very authoritative for correctness

My books all treat the nomenclature the same, as far as I can see, but online is all over the place.

 

The Leica order numbers are 11873 (Aspherical) and 11874 black (ASPH), 11883 chrome (ASPH), 11859 titanium (ASPH), btw.

 

Hi Carsten,

 

Yes, last year I was lent an example of the first version by a friend who is an LHSA member and a collector. That copy was soft wide open. I'll try to remember to use ASPH for this current lens. Again, this distinction is from the great marketing minds that brought us cameras named Digilux 2 and D-Lux 2.

 

As you might guess, I myself am not a collector <G>.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sean I just read your last article . It was as excellent as allways.

As I have a 35 Summilux praeasph. ( Canadian) it would be interesting to see how it performs compared to the others. I like it because its very small. Do you think the quality is so much worse I should consider a change? The comparable small lens would be the Elmarit 28. ?

Your oppinion is much appreciated!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Adam,

 

Thanks very much. It should even better when its finished. Are you happy with the pictures you get from that 35? If so, I wouldn't change a thing. Chasing after better and better lenses can be one of the great red herrings in photography. If you like what you have, save your money.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Adam,

 

Thanks very much. It should even better when its finished. Are you happy with the pictures you get from that 35? If so, I wouldn't change a thing. Chasing after better and better lenses can be one of the great red herrings in photography. If you like what you have, save your money.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

 

Now that there is no smoking in UK pubs and restaurants, the smoke coming off one's wallet after visiting the Leica shop is the only fun we can get.

 

Wilson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Sean

As a matter of fact I like the lens. Theres only the Magenta problem and with a BW Filter a cyan drift. But as I use this set mostly outdoors it doesnt matter as much

thank again

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote

I don't know what you mean with "does not distinguish them". As soon as you use aspherical, you are talking about version 1. The proper names of the two lenses are:

 

Leica Summilux-M 1:1.4/35mm Aspherical (1st version)

Leica Summilux-M 1:1.4/35mm ASPH. (2nd version)

Unquote

 

 

Out of interest e-bay.co.uk has an Aspherical on at the moment with some good pictures which clearly show the name in full.

No affiliation to the seller or e-bay (other than buying now and then).

 

IIem number: 320124555075

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I don't know what you mean with "does not distinguish them". As soon as you use aspherical, you are talking about version 1. The proper names of the two lenses are:

 

Leica Summilux-M 1:1.4/35mm Aspherical (1st version)

Leica Summilux-M 1:1.4/35mm ASPH. (2nd version)

Unquote

 

 

Out of interest e-bay.co.uk has an Aspherical on at the moment with some good pictures which clearly show the name in full.

No affiliation to the seller or e-bay (other than buying now and then).

 

IIem number: 320124555075

 

Read further on in the thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Sean

As a matter of fact I like the lens. Theres only the Magenta problem and with a BW Filter a cyan drift. But as I use this set mostly outdoors it doesnt matter as much

thank again

 

Stick with it then. You could send it in to Leica to be coded or use Cornerfix.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Adam,

 

Thanks very much. It should even better when its finished. Are you happy with the pictures you get from that 35? If so, I wouldn't change a thing. Chasing after better and better lenses can be one of the great red herrings in photography. If you like what you have, save your money.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

 

Sean, wisdom rarely pays!

 

;-)

 

Tim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Sean,

Leica sent it back saying it was not codable!. What is Cornerfix?

Adam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Adam,

 

See the "CornerFix" article on the site and do a search for it on the forum. Also, e-mail John Milich about your lens and see if he has any ideas. <G>

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sean,

 

Having cost me quite a lot of money - I have just ordered a Voigtländer Nokton 35/1.2 after reading your 35mm review (finding the 35 Biogon too slow for evening shots), do you know of anyone doing anything similar to Cornerfix for Mac?

 

Wilson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Wilson,

 

I think someone on the forum is going to bring the program over to Mac once the 16-bit version is out of beta so maybe we'll something in the next week or two. In the meantime, I'd suggest trying various codings on the lens (maybe some that are not for 35 mm lenses) to see if you can find a magic (or near enough) match. Then talk to John about milling the bayonet. That would be my approach if I bought the lens.

 

Did you order from CameraQuest? If not, make sure you get the new version of the Nokton. The old one will chew up your M8 a little bit. I don't think Stephen Gandy is selling the older version but some dealers might still be.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sean I just read your last article . It was as excellent as allways.

As I have a 35 Summilux praeasph. ( Canadian) it would be interesting to see how it performs compared to the others. I like it because its very small. Do you think the quality is so much worse I should consider a change? The comparable small lens would be the Elmarit 28. ?

Your oppinion is much appreciated!

 

You may be interested in my experience. I found the lens to be very good indeed on a M8, even wide open. The parts of the image field where the lens is noticeably soft at f:2 are of course largely cropped away, and the general impression is very pleasant. Best definition comes at around f:5.6 of course. In all, performance is creditable and I must admit that I use my Summilux less than before, even though this is a super optic, at least on my cameras and in my hands (I can't imagine what kind of junk some of the posters here have bought!)

 

Also, I find the resulting equivalent length of 47mm extremely useful, much more useful than a 50mm lens on a film camera. So the old Summilux is a favourite 'walkabout lens'. –Note however that this refers to the last (4th version) pre-asph. lens (1979–96, #2,974,251 and later). The predecessor was less sharp off-axis, and had less pleasant bokeh.

 

The old man from the Age of Goggle Optics

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Wilson,

 

I think someone on the forum is going to bring the program over to Mac once the 16-bit version is out of beta so maybe we'll something in the next week or two. In the meantime, I'd suggest trying various codings on the lens (maybe some that are not for 35 mm lenses) to see if you can find a magic (or near enough) match. Then talk to John about milling the bayonet. That would be my approach if I bought the lens.

 

Did you order from CameraQuest? If not, make sure you get the new version of the Nokton. The old one will chew up your M8 a little bit. I don't think Stephen Gandy is selling the older version but some dealers might still be.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

 

Sean,

 

Over the last few months, I have become pretty handy with the Sharpie, so I will follow your suggestion and try a few different codings. I bought the lens from Foto-Mundus and they said the lens had only arrived from Cosina last Friday and was the latest type, modified for the M8 on the focus cam - from reading Stephen Gandy's site, I knew to ask but thanks for the warning anyway. I have also ordered from Michael Huppert, a B+W 486, as Leica does not make a 52mm 13411 filter. If I get on well with the Voigtlander, I will first send my Biogon 35 Bayonet to JM for milling (I have a spare 24/35 bayonet off my Biogon 21, which I changed to a 28/90 bayonet) and when I get that back, send the Voigtlander.

 

Will look forward to Cornerfix in due course.

 

Wilson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
........ I find the resulting equivalent length of 47mm extremely useful, much more useful than a 50mm lens on a film camera. So the old Summilux is a favourite 'walkabout lens'. –Note however that this refers to the last (4th version) pre-asph. lens (1979–96, #2,974,251 and later). The predecessor was less sharp off-axis, and had less pleasant bokeh.

 

Lars,

 

You have me totally confused.

 

A 35mm focal length lens – actually 35.6mm for the current f/1.4 ASPH – is, as you correctly say, equivalent in terms of field of view to 47.4mm on a film M. Your post then implies that a 50mm lens – actually 51.6mm for the current f/1.4 ASPH – used on a film M is quite different. It is certainly heavier and more bulky and has less depth of field at any given aperture, but the field of view is practically identical and well within the tolerance of the viewfinders.

 

None of my reference sources lists a 4th generation pre-aspheric 35mm f/1.4. Can you expand on this please? Indeed there seems to have only been one optical version from 1961 to 1993, though there may well have been changes to the mount and hood etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sean,

 

Over the last few months, I have become pretty handy with the Sharpie, so I will follow your suggestion and try a few different codings. I bought the lens from Foto-Mundus and they said the lens had only arrived from Cosina last Friday and was the latest type, modified for the M8 on the focus cam - from reading Stephen Gandy's site, I knew to ask but thanks for the warning anyway. I have also ordered from Michael Huppert, a B+W 486, as Leica does not make a 52mm 13411 filter. If I get on well with the Voigtlander, I will first send my Biogon 35 Bayonet to JM for milling (I have a spare 24/35 bayonet off my Biogon 21, which I changed to a 28/90 bayonet) and when I get that back, send the Voigtlander.

 

Will look forward to Cornerfix in due course.

 

Wilson

 

Hi Wilson,

 

52 mm 486 should be fine, that's what I've been using on it. Try coding it as a 35/2.0 for starters and see where that puts you. Also, and I imagined you've checked, make sure the Biogon bayonet will fit on the CV.

 

BTW, there's no change to the focus cam. The change is a smaller shroud around the rear element.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Wilson,

 

Also, and I imagined you've checked, make sure the Biogon bayonet will fit on the CV.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

 

Sean,

 

I had not actually thought of that. I was just going to send away my spare bayonet to get JM to code it. Then when I go it back and put it on my Biogon 35, I would then take the bayonet off my CV35/1.2 and send that to JM. The CZ bayonet might fit on the CV given that they were made in the same factory but I think that would be very fortunate if it were the case. Obviously, my technical German was not up to translating what the difference between the two models of CV35/1,2 were.

 

Wilson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I've tested the new sample of the 35 Summilux and a revised resolution section is now in the article. Its performance was consistent with other examples of the lens that I've tested in the past. I did retain a mention and discussion of the problems with the first lens (damaged and from the press pool).

 

As time allows this week, I'll be completing the other sections (contrast and OOF) and filling in general illustrations.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×