What's the 'worst' lens you've used on a Leica?

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm not talking about maladjustment but any lenses (M or ltm with adapter) which have been optically 'poor' by design? A serious question because I'm intrigued by Leica's latest offerings; Thambar and Noctilux. Their imaging intent could not be more different.

 

So what contenders are there for lenses which were never 'fit for purpose' (any manufacturer)? And why?

Edited December 2, 2017 by pgk

[luigi bertolotti]

"Poor by design" ? That's a hard question related to Leitz  The original Thambar was designed as a specifically purposed lens... maybe, in very historical terms, one could argue that the first 135 for Leica (Elmar 4,5) was someway "poor by design"... afaik it was originally a lens designed a standard lens for 9x12, fitted on a Mount for 24x36... its resolution, being aimed at contact prints or very small enlargements factor, wasn't not so fit for the enlargements required by 35mm...

 

... and the Hektor 125 was a projectior lens adpted as a taking lens,,,

 

The various Russian lenses have a far from bad design (mostly copied from Zeiss... but Soviets had very good lens designers of their own, anyway) : the problem was vague quality consistency, so that, for instance, my Russian 35mm was really a "poor" performer...

[Advertisement]

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

[pgk]

"Poor by design" ? That's a hard question related to Leitz .....

 

An example (notM/ltm): the 43~86 Nikkor Zoom was an early zoom which was 'sharp' enough but suffered from severe distortion (visible on a small - 6" x 4" - print). So its distortion characteristics meant that it was a real compromise - 'sharpness' versus distortion - and thus a 'poor' design. I suspect (especially from its low value today) that this characteristic relegated it to being put on the shelf or sold off as soon as better, lower distortion zooms became available for Nikon.

[derleicaman]

I would say that the Thambar is the one Leica lens that I love to hate. Or, should I say it loves to hate me! I have had an original one for years. Back in film days, I tried my best with it and was never happy with the results. I even tried it on a wedding shoot (professionally) to give the bride some "interesting" shots during her formals. The bride and the family hated them. I thought the M10 would help with the EVF and Live View. Well, not so much. The OOF areas are so out of focus, its almost impossible to focus with Live View. Hard to explain, but once you try it you will understand. Reults are very hit or miss, and I don't think it is a lens that anyone can truly master. I am much happier with the results I get with a 73/1.9 Hektor. I've given some thought to making a spot filter for it to see how it does with that in comparison to the Thambar.

[derleicaman]

Another lens that comes to mind is the old collapsible Summar LTM lens. I think the problem with these is that because of age and soft front elements, a lot of them are fogged or have a very scratched front element. Some of them are indeed hopeless. But if you get a nice clean one with a good front element, it actually performs quite well. This is part of the fun of a digital M. You can try out or play with a lot of old LTM lenses and get results immediately. Some of these oldies but goodies are quite surprisingly good.

[luigi bertolotti]

Yes, the Summar has a longtime fame of one of the "less good" Leitz lenses, and has its supporters anyway (also here in the forum) : I cannot judge upon my item... which is far from "collector grade"  (and same applies to my Xenon...) ; anyway I think that AT THEIR TIMES, Summar and Xenon  were generally considered inferior to the corresponding Zeiss Sonnars, which were their natural competitors.

Also the Alpine Elmar was not highly appreciated... but I think more for its modest aperture (6,3, less than the very good Hektor 13,5) which gave issues of camera shake (films of the era had very small ISO/DIN values) , than for its rendering : my very clean Alpine is indeed a good performer...

Edited December 2, 2017 by luigi bertolotti

[farnz]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

An awful Lomo lens (forget its details) that produced appalling smeary colours, looked to be heavily de-centred, vignetted like a medieval telescope and wasn't sharp anywhere in the frame at any aperture.  But I think it was supposed to be like that so I'm not sure if that counts.

 

Pete. 

[Michael Geschlecht]

Another lens that comes to mind is the old collapsible Summar LTM lens. I think the problem with these is that because of age and soft front elements, a lot of them are fogged or have a very scratched front element. Some of them are indeed hopeless. But if you get a nice clean one with a good front element, it actually performs quite well. This is part of the fun of a digital M. You can try out or play with a lot of old LTM lenses and get results immediately. Some of these oldies but goodies are quite surprisingly good.

 

Yes, the Summar has a longtime fame of one of the "less good" Leitz lenses, and has its supporters anyway (also here in the forum) : I cannot judge upon my item... which is far from "collector grade"  (and same applies to my Xenon...) ; anyway I think that AT THEIR TIMES, Summar and Xenon  were generally considered inferior to the corresponding Zeiss Sonnars, which were their natural competitors.

Also the Alpine Elmar was not highly appreciated... but I think more for its modest aperture (6,3, less than the very good Hektor 13,5) which gave issues of camera shake (films of the era had very small ISO/DIN values) , than for its rendering : my very clean Alpine is indeed a good performer...

 

Hello Everybody,

 

Some of the less than optimal reputation that is related to some of the 50mm, F2, Summars has to do with problems related to the glue that was used to cement elements to each other internally. For some time period Leitz offered a service where lenses with this problem could be sent to them for re-gluing.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

Edited December 2, 2017 by Michael Geschlecht

[Printmaker]

135 Elmarit M aka. "big ugly." It was never critically  sharp nor easy to use. Replaced it with a 135 teleElmar. Much better lens all around.

[gyoung]

135 Elmarit M aka. "big ugly." It was never critically sharp nor easy to use. Replaced it with a 135 teleElmar. Much better lens all around.

Hmm, I don't have that opinion of mine.

 

Gerry

[pico]

That sounds a bit like the 75mm Summilux that I once had. Without doubt the VERY worst lens that I have used from any manufacturer. That lens was a total dog and wouldn't give a sharp image at ANY aperture!

 

The 75mm Summicron that replaced it is a stellar lens at any aperture.

 

Paul, I believe you had a bad sample. To all, if you find such return it to Leica to make it right again.

[TomB_tx]

The only Leica lenses I found disappointing simply had problems develop in use, not as new. I bought a 90 T.E. new in 1968, and loved it. Then after a few years I noticed I always weeded out the shots taken with it as unsharp and low contrast, while my 50 & 35 Summicrons were great. So I quit using the TE for decades. About 10 years ago I sent it to Gus Lazzari to see what could be done, and he said a rear element or group had shifted out of position. Since getting it back it has been great again.

Similarly I had a 1941 50 Elmar that had similar sharpness and contrast issues. Sherry Krauter sorted it out, and it is fine now.

[pico]

So far the only Leica lens that was disappointing was a 50mm Summarit which was very poorly maintained with a front lens covered with cleaning marks. It was my late father in-laws. Its last and only image cannot bear enlargement. (That's me sweetheart and me. )

Edited December 2, 2017 by pico

[happymac]

SUMMILUX-M 1.4/35 pre ASPH.

[pico]

SUMMILUX-M 1.4/35 pre ASPH.

 

You must be kidding! What expectations did it not meet?

[happymac]

Look at the pictures and you will see it! Small lights become swallows, sharp edges become indefinite contours...

[pico]

Look at the pictures and you will see it! Small lights become swallows, sharp edges become indefinite contours...

 

Under what circumstances?

[happymac]

1:1,4!

[adan]

Well, if you can identify a better 35 f/1.4 designed in 1960, tell us about it. Or for that matter prior to the Zeiss Contax and Leica R 35 f/1.4s (1975 and 1984). Lens design is relative to the technology of its era.

 

Lens design is also relative to the learning curve of working with new technologies. The two M lenses that I've found to be most disappointing (not horrible, just not great even by the standards (Leica, and the competition) of their time) are the 90mm Tele-Elmarit v.1 and the 28mm f/2.8 v.2.

 

Both of those were Leica's first attempts to design for the M, respectively, telephoto (lenses shorter than the nominal focal length) and retrofocus (lenses with more back focus than their focal length) lenses. The 90 for compact size that would fit into the regular Leica never-ready camera case (replacing the collapsible 90 f/4), and the 28 to avoid interference with TTL metering (the M5/CL with physical arms behind the lens).

 

In about 1983, I picked up what seemed like a nice used Leica package - an M4-P with those two lenses. Their performance was so - unfortunate - that that experience put me off trying Leica again for nearly 20 years. Primarily a general softness anywhere not dead-center at larger apertures, with fuzzy corners that never really sharpened up at any aperture. The Nikkors and Canon FD lenses of similar specs and era (and designed for SLRs) were much cleaner.

 

Rather quickly, (for Leica) both those versions were replaced by improved versions, so I'm sure Leica was not too happy with them either. Leica obviously improved their understanding and handling of such designs by the time their second attempts were made.

 

I also tried the very early Leicaflex 35mm f/2.8 on a Canon EOS mount - much fuzzier, streakier corners at f/2.8 than the 35 Summilux pre-ASPH at f/1.4 (!). But again, that was Leica's "first attempt" at a retrofocus wideangle.

 

Other than those, the only unfortunate lens I've used was a T-mount pre-set 28mm f/3.5 ( a house brand from Spiratone, the big NYC mail-order store (now long gone) that was the conceptual predecessor of B&H and Adorama). On my first camera, a Canon FX SLR. But for $29.95 (in 1971 dollars) - what could I expect?

 

This beast: https://http2.mlstatic.com/a64-lente-28mm-t135-spiratone-expandar-cine-foto-nikon-D_NQ_NP_667421-MPE20799297518_072016-F.jpg

 

By 1985 or so, I had earned to test and check any lens before buying, so my experiences improved.

Edited December 3, 2017 by adan

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[lct]

Worst i don't know but the lens i've used the least due to its flaws is the CV 35/1.4 SC. Very nice little lens though but too much focus shift and too much flare for my taste. I much prefer the Summilux 35/1.4 pre-asph in spite of its own flaws but its glow is appealing to me whereas the CV has no glow at all. Poor CV lens, i should give it another chance on a mirrorless camera.