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

[TomB_tx]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've used the CV 35 1.4 MC on a Sony A7, and moderate apertures do focus better. The size feels good on the A7, and I've had pleasing pictures in spite of the corner smear. Now I have a 7-Artisans 35 f2 in E mount, which is really quite good, but with flare due to the non-blackened edges of the elements.

[david strachan]

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.  

I've tried to enjoy my Voight 35 f 1.4 sc too. On my my M8's and M-P...but the pics look flat to me.

Sad really because it's a really nice lens for build, weight and general comfort. Of course focus shift is one of the main probs with this lens. I've  tried on my APS-C camera Fuji XE1...but still little excitement. :-((

 

I'm a bit off it at the moment.

...

Edited December 3, 2017 by david strachan

[Advertisement]

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

[david strachan]

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.

 Mmmm... i think a quick copy of the very first zoom lens invented by Voigtlander, the Zoomar.

 I quickly realized why it was given to me.

 

...

[Ko.Fe.]

"Worst" to me was Color Skopar 35 2.5. Three times LN lenses, clean optics. No flaws, except shifting for no reason aperture ring. But not appealing to me on BW prints or color digital. Flatest rendering most of the time.

And I have tried other lenses same brand, FSU and old Leitz. But Color Skopar 35 2.5 is the "winner" .

Edited December 3, 2017 by Ko.Fe.

[farnz]

I've tried to enjoy my Voight 35 f 1.4 sc too. On my my M8's and M-P...but the pics look flat to me.

Sad really because it's a really nice lens for build, weight and general comfort. Of course focus shift is one of the main probs with this lens. I've  tried on my APS-C camera Fuji XE1...but still little excitement. :-((

 

I'm a bit off it at the moment.

...

 

Dave,

 

Perhaps that's because it's the SC (single-coated) version and it's falling victim to flare that causes low contrast?  I had the MC version but, like LCT's, it had so much back focus that I let it go; contrast was 'okay'.  As you say, it was a lovely combination of speed, size, and weight but it just couldn't do the business unfortunately.

 

Pete.

[david strachan]

My thoughts exactly Pete.

 

Trust you are well, and kind regards.

 

...

Edited December 3, 2017 by david strachan

[pierovitch]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Summilux R 35mm f/1.4 wth rattling element - not floating. The factory replacement was a definite improvement. On the M it was a donated fake Russian elmar just out of curiosity.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[pgk]

My Summilux wouldn't actually focus at all when I saw it in the dealer's, but the deal included a trip to Leica and coding and when it arrived back it proved to be absolutely spot on. My first Summicron wasout too. My second copy is, like the Summilux, spot on.

 

But I wasn't really meaning lenses which are incorrectly set up or which have suffered wear and tear. I am more interested in posts like Adan's (my observation coincide with his about the 28 v.2 and 90 TE v.1 he mentions) and not just with Leica lenses.

 

I'd also like to ask whether, despite their shortcomings, users still find such lenses 'fit for purpose' or 'viable' to use, even if this is within their limitations. Or to put it another way, which lenses are not 'competent' performers?

Edited December 3, 2017 by pgk

[farnz]

Definitely.  Some people refer to it as "character" I prefer to think of it as an alternative 'look' that other lenses won't produce.  I have several lenses of this type that I use and in particular a 1947 Carl Zeiss Jena 50/2 Sonnar that has helped me two Leica One Challenges owing partly (I think) to the particular rendering that the lens produces as a result of its aberrations.  I use it particularly at events where people dress in clothes from earlier generations because it's 'older look' seems to portray the essence of that time better.  I include an example below (an my apologies if people have seen it before) that slightly brings to mind the paintings of Toulouse Lautrec. I wouldn't choose this lens for some other subjects but, for me, it works for this type of work.

 

Pete.

 

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!

[rramesh]

Any lens can be used to produce a remarkable photograph.

 

There are no 'poor' lenses.

 

There are only 'poor' choices.

[Ecar]

Amen to that...

Although I own a Soviet-made 1987 black J-9 85/2 in Contax mount that would certainly qualify for the title. It had never been used when I got it, and I understand why: the only decent thing about this lens is that it kind of looks the part. Since I had paid next to nothing for it, I even sent it to Will van Manen a few years ago, alas to no avail.

On the other hand, my older 1959 J-9 is an almost perfect copy of the earlier Zeiss Sonnar in all respects and is a good performer for its age.

[tobey bilek]

12 25 15 CV lenses on digital M.   

 

21 3.4 has serious vignetting issues.

 

original 35 1.4 `Lux at 1.4    not sharp and flair/low contrast wide open.   

 

Focus shift on 75 1.4 M which I thought was normal wide open softness until I put it on my M9.   The lens is sharp at 1.4, just calibrated for 2.8 like the Zeiss 50.  Looked at many samples and cameras and all the same.  Use a 75 APO now and am a happy camper.