Jump to content

Anybody interested in a 90mm: Summilux M 1:1,5/90 ASPH


Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Just happened to see this in Lightroom, I don't know what it means. Another bug?

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

DNG File

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Alex U. said:

I think that the 90mm indication is wrong as he has a 50mm. Is that it? I would clean the contacts . .

Good idea… indeed a Summilux 1,5/90 ("twin" of the 1,25/75) is rumored by some time : see Leicarumors and also the Forum.. it's even in the official "Leica Poster" , but without a declared 6 bit code, contrary to the available lenses :  probably a code has been issued… Adobe took notice and listed it in new version of LR as a recognizable lens… which lens was mounted in your picture, Paulus ? Supposing that 1 bit only was misread… we could speculate by "reverse reasoning" what's the code of the 1,5/90... B)

Edited by luigi bertolotti
Link to post
Share on other sites

There is something very strange in the exif!

Focal Length                    : 90.0 mm (35 mm equivalent: 535.4 mm)

There is also:

Lens Info                       : 90mm f/1.5-16
Lens Make                       : Leica Camera AG
Lens Model                      : Summilux-M 1:1.5/90 ASPH.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

A 90 mm f/1.5 at a minimum focusing  distance of 0.7 m, presupposing a conservative circle of confusion of 0.3 mm, would have a DOF of about one milimeter to each side of the true focus point. A very useful and much needed lens to take portraits of a single eyelash🙄. This will be difficult to achieve without EVF as viewfinder blockage will amount to total eclipse.

The downside would be the two strongmen aides needed to carry around the lump of glass for you, and the bodyguard on which the insurance company will insist due to the expected retail price😂.

Sadly, in real life, the rumour on this lens has been condensing since about June. But to each his own...

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

And what is this?

 

 

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Zeiss announced a Otus 1.4/100 after the Otus 1.4/85 came out a while ago, which is also not a small lens.

The 1.0/35mm apparently coming from Zenith (isn‘t there a Switch watch brand, too? How come the lawyers let the brand names coexist?) probably obstructs more of the viewfinder‘s frames, which are bigger for a shorter focal length.

So whoever must have such an object should not give up hope imo.

Link to post
Share on other sites

vor 1 Stunde schrieb Paulus:

Just happened to see this in Lightroom, I don't know what it means. Another bug?

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!

What lens did you use, Paul?

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, luigi bertolotti said:

LOL …:D Adobe's developers make usual Software errors… a Supertele for cellphones  :lol:

😀

Yes, but Adobe software did not write the 

Quote

Lens Model                      : Summilux-M 1:1.5/90 ASPH.

... that was clearly written in camera. So I would suggest that this lens is "known" in the firmware, and as you mentioned maybe some dirt corrupted the reading of the real lens and the camera just thought that a lens having this "new" code was attached.

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ianman said:

😀

Yes, but Adobe software did not write the 

... that was clearly written in camera. So I would suggest that this lens is "known" in the firmware, and as you mentioned maybe some dirt corrupted the reading of the real lens and the camera just thought that a lens having this "new" code was attached.

You're perfectly right … name of the lens is in the camera firmware, no doubt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Oh, here then my EXIFs 🙂

And here the EXIFs after being throughtinyjpg.com 🙂

Edited by Alex U.
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...