*4* New Summarits

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

...I still find it very surprising that the lenses are only standard and tele, on the M8...

Choosing a 35/2 asph or a 35/2 IV is a matter of tastes but deprieving DRF users of small/fast wides is the unavoidable consequence of a political (or religious) choice according to which all M lenses should cover the 24x36 format.

[sean_reid]

Now I have been carrying around the M8 and either Noctilux or CV 35/1.2 Nokton for the past few weeks, I almost feel strong enough to carry around a Digilux 3 - but not quite.

 

Wilson

 

Hi Wilson,

 

That camera with kit lens actually isn't very heavy.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[marknorton]

Choosing a 35/2 asph or a 35/2 IV is a matter of tastes but deprieving DRF users of small/fast wides is the unavoidable consequence of a political (or religious) choice according to which all M lenses should cover the 24x36 format.

 

I asked over on the film forum how many people are using the WATE on their film Ms and the answer is precious few. The WATE might be a FF lens but to all intents and purposes, it is being used as a digital only lens which begs the question of whether they could have made it lower cost or faster or smaller if it only had to support a 1.33 crop factor.

 

I would certainly like to see one or more faster wide-angles designed for just the M8. Even if a future M camera were to use a larger sensor, mounting the lens could crop the image and display the correct frame in what, surely, will by then be electronically projected accurate frame lines for all focussing distances and all focal lengths down to the optical finder limit.

 

The reason "not to" is said to be the physical size of the lens and the Noctilux sets an absolute limit on how big an M lens can be if you want it to be rangefinder coupled; go any larger and the rangefinder window is blinded. That, I suppse, is the reason the Zeiss 15mm f2.8 is not rangefinder coupled. Not out of cussedness or arrogance on Zeiss' part but simply the fact that even if they had made it rangefinder coupled, the lens is so large that the rangefinder window doesn't see anything.

 

Still, a 28/1.4, 24/2, 21/2 would certainly be interesting...

[marknorton]

The Summarits have also got me wondering whether Leica is more or less likely (or no change) to accede to the requests/demands here for a lens selection menu.

 

Seems to me less likely.

 

If I was Leica, I would turn a blind eye to the coding efforts developed here, irrespective of any patent application, which neatly takes care of legacy and competitor lenses for those who will go to the trouble.

 

Beyond that, the Summarits, not a lens selection menu, are Leica's response to the need for lower cost coded lens solutions.

[wlaidlaw]

Hi Wilson,

 

That camera with kit lens actually isn't very heavy.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

 

Sean,

 

You are quite right - I had one of the "loaner" Panasonic LX1's at Photokina last year. It is bulky and awkward rather than heavy. I fully expected to be buying a Digilux 3, as I had had every Digilux since the original Fuji Digilux of 1999. After looking at the images I had taken at Photokina, I decided I did not like the 4/3 standard, did not think 7.5 Mp was enough considering I had been using a 10.3 Mp APS C Sony R1 for a year, thought the viewfinder was too dark and in general was disappointed with the handling, ergonomics and performance of the camera. Given all that, I came the conclusion that I should sell all my collection of Contax equipment (G1, G2 and RX plus 12 lenses) and get an M8, once it was over its teething period by December/January (ha ha). It is a decision that I have not regretted for a second since. Well maybe a second after I had climbed up to the top of the cathedral in Barcelona and the M8 locked up. My spare battery and firmware were back in the hotel. I now carry a spare battery and the firmware with me all the time in one of Luigi's cases.

 

Wilson

 

Wilson

[luigi bertolotti]

I don't think that Leica can successfully compete with Voigtländer with these lenses. There will surely be people who will buy them instead of the various Skopars and so on, but they will most likely be in the minority. I do believe that Leica will take the wind out of Zeiss's sails with them, however, as do many of us. The more sophisticated Zeiss lenses will continue to have their customers, as well as various specialised lenses, but the ones which overlap with the new Summitars will likely see a sharp sales drop. Leica camera customers will tend to buy Leica lenses, as long as they can afford to.

 

However, there is another "competitor" which Leica may be partly aiming at: the second-hand market. There are a lot of people looking for good or very good older lenses, to save a little money after shelling out for a very expensive camera. The kind of people who might buy a 35/2 IV. I am here not talking about people like lct who *prefers* it to the modern lenses, but more to the kind of people who might frequent second-hand markets, looking for a good deal on a good old lens to fill a gap.

 

I still find it very surprising that the lenses are only standard and tele, on the M8. Half the focal length range has not been covered here, and the strongest half, in many ways. There are lots of good teles out there, but the wide angles on the M platform are quite possibly the best (and most compact) wide-angle lenses out there. Comparing them to SLR lenses at the very wide end, they are even very affordable, in some cases.

 

I think that the logical followup to the Summitars would be 21/25 or 21/24/28 f/3.5 or f/4 lenses, to round out the more affordable Leica lens lineup.

 

I agree completely, with your last statement, Carsten; with these Summarits, they surely havemade a FIRST move, and a correct one for in the WA area there is already a "new" and rather "cheap" lens (28 2,8): now they can plan the announcements for 2008 : I think they shall not abandon at all the "high prices" market, so, together with 21 (and 24 ?) there is still room for the foreseen SWA 15 or so (and I still think that for marketing reasons they could "stretch" it to 14...); if I were them, I'd plan 4 other lenses for 2008 : 21, 24, 15 or 14, 135 with some intelligent "goggle system".

Regarding the user market... well, a partial problem only... it depends on what shall be the real performances of Summarits, both in the areas of image quality AND focusing: if I had the alternative of a very good Summarit 35 that focuses perfectly vs. a used, similar priced Cron IV uncoded, which I suspect to have some focusing issue... well I throw away that "0,5" more...

[Alberti]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I agree completely, [CW:I think that the logical followup to the Summitars would be 21/25 or 21/24/28 f/3.5 or f/4 lenses ] & I'd plan 4 other lenses for 2008 : 21, 24, 15 or 14, . ..

 

This is quite true and lenses could be rethought now for digital purposes. Hrere is my Not Invented Yet wish:

- I need simple (cheap) lens but excellent, like a F5.6 21 mm lens that could be so small it fits partly in the camera, thinking of the Hologon. Just give it 3 F stops that dial in like a rotor, at F11 everything is sharp to 1m25 anyway... and for some the standard sharpening does the rest.

Prove me I don't need the bulky ZI-4,5/21.

 

The digital world should make lenses simpler, as we can use a little bit of software speed adaption. The idea of a rotor (several diafragma's click in from rotation, all perfectly round holes and very very thin) is an old and now unpatented idea. I have it on an oldie. In a small lens it is much cheaper to implement than a bladed diafragma.

Of course we should prepare all equipment for the M10 which is FF 22Mb and that next we all wil run for (I saw that in Aladin's Lamp). So no shortcuts in the image diameter please.

[sean_reid]

The Summarits have also got me wondering whether Leica is more or less likely (or no change) to accede to the requests/demands here for a lens selection menu.

 

Seems to me less likely.

 

If I was Leica, I would turn a blind eye to the coding efforts developed here, irrespective of any patent application, which neatly takes care of legacy and competitor lenses for those who will go to the trouble.

 

Beyond that, the Summarits, not a lens selection menu, are Leica's response to the need for lower cost coded lens solutions.

 

There may be other responses as well coming down the road.

[guywalder]

Then why is it standing in a layby with nobody behind the wheel?

 

ah, that will be because whenever I try driving and taking pictures at the same time the results are disappointing...

[hankg]

 

Still, a 28/1.4, 24/2, 21/2 would certainly be interesting...

 

These are lenses that probably are not doable for size, cost reasons with a 24x36 image circle and if they were to produce one only M8 owners would be motivated to pay the freight. So if a certain segment of the lens line is so obviously of interest to only the digital market it seems a bit absurd to not produce it or if you do produce it make it so large and expensive that it won't be practical so it can be compatible with a set of users who won't buy it and don't need it.

 

I agree with the philosophy of complete interchangeability between film and digital M's but not in applying that philosophy in such a rigid manner that a real need of the digital users is left unaddressed. The most important practical result of interchangeability should be parity in functionality and features. So if film users have a 35/1.4 and a 28/2 in a usable size, with minimal vignetting (wide angle designs that give film RF an advantage over SLR are not suited to digital) and at the cost of typical Leica primes (not Nocti price and size) so should digital users.

 

In all other normal/longer focal lengths there is no practical need for adjustments between digital and film and there interchangeability works as well in reality as in theory. But the problems and special needs digital has at the wide end require some specialized handling. A 21/2 at the size/price of the current 28 summicron and a 28/1.4 at the size/price of the current 35 Summilux (and without it's focus shift issues) would probably be the best selling lenses for the M8 unless of course reducing the image circle does not have as big an impact as I am assuming it has on cost and size.

 

FIlm and digital are very different sensor technologies and have different needs. This basic fact puts a limit to how interchangeable components for the 2 systems can really be in practice on the wide end of the lens range.

[ddp]

I asked over on the film forum how many people are using the WATE on their film Ms and the answer is precious few. The WATE might be a FF lens but to all intents and purposes, it is being used as a digital only lens which begs the question of whether they could have made it lower cost or faster or smaller if it only had to support a 1.33 crop factor.

 

 

 

As a film user - and possible M8 user down the road - the original Tri-Elmar and WATE have never been on my radar. My personal preference with M glass is to shoot the fastest primes they make. That's why as good as the 75/2 Summicron is, I won't buy one.

 

The new Summarits certainly fill a need in the lineup for those who just threw down $3600 or so for a film M or $5000 for an M8....and may not want to search the used market for glass.

 

Nikon has made digital only lenses for their DSLR's for a few years now...but doesn it make economic sense for Leica to go down a similar path for M8 users?

[wstotler]

I don't think anyone has asked it during the discussion--and I'd like to add this question for speculation. The chrome lens lineup is looking a bit thin at the moment. (Yes--chrome is heavier, etc., but I *like* it.) Any thoughts based on past lens release trends (black vs. chrome) regarding these lenses being released in chrome? The 75 and the 90 are at quite tempting pricepoints but I'd prefer chrome over black, for sure. Thanks! Will

[luigi bertolotti]

I don't think anyone has asked it during the discussion--and I'd like to add this question for speculation. The chrome lens lineup is looking a bit thin at the moment. (Yes--chrome is heavier, etc., but I *like* it.) Any thoughts based on past lens release trends (black vs. chrome) regarding these lenses being released in chrome? The 75 and the 90 are at quite tempting pricepoints but I'd prefer chrome over black, for sure. Thanks! Will

 

Will, I am with you from my hearth, I ALWAYS will prefer chromes !!! The announcement doesn't say anything about.. the 28 2,8 (same "philosophy") is black only... and, as I often said "they are becoming marketing-wise"... maybe too much... "Let's make the chrome too... 10-15% added to the price... how many ADDITIONAL lenses we would sell if so done ?..." I suspect the conclusion of this thinktank is "we'll make NO chrome version". I have targeted surely the 75, maybe the 35... would like them chrome... I would be disposed to pay A LITTLE more... would I NOT BUY if no chrome ? mmhhhh...

[Lucklik]

The 75 seems interesting, but I don't like the bokeh of the 90mm.

@ Leica Camera AG - Photography - Summarit-M Lenses you can download performance proofs .

 

Luc

[andybarton]

Nikon has made digital only lenses for their DSLR's for a few years now...but doesn it make economic sense for Leica to go down a similar path for M8 users?

 

But, Nikon have basically abandoned film for several years now, too, so it makes sense for them.

 

Last time I looked, Leica still made film Ms (although you wouldn't think so if you read this forum )

[wlaidlaw]

But, Nikon have basically abandoned film for several years now, too, so it makes sense for them.

 

Last time I looked, Leica still made film Ms (although you wouldn't think so if you read this forum )

 

F6 - the only new serious film SLR in the last 5 years - not that I have ever been a Nikon fan after a dreadful FE and horrible Nikkor Zoom, that I bought in the 1980's. After it died for the third time in 4 months, I changed it for a Contax 139Q, which in the hands of a friend, is still working perfectly 23 years on, with its 35-70 Vario Sonnar and Planar 50/1.4. Who says electronic cameras cannot last.

 

Wilson

[leitz_not_leica]

I, for one, am not interested in any of these lenses in the least. IMO, the only ones that will buy them are the Stuart R., Alex S., and Tom A's of the world who MUST have one of each.

[guywalder]

But, Nikon have basically abandoned film for several years now, too, so it makes sense for them.

 

Last time I looked, Leica still made film Ms (although you wouldn't think so if you read this forum )

 

Andy,

as well as the lovely F6 Nikon are still making the F75 and F80, and last time I was in Japan it seemed that the unlovely FM10 was also still in production. According to my calculations that means Nikon make a greater variety of film cameras than Leica....

 

I think the point is that both Canon and Nikon have found it makes sense to offer lenses tailored to their smaller format DSLRs while Also offering lenses for the 35mm format. If Leica have the engineering and manufacturing capacity, and expect to have a 1.33x sensor for long enough I am sure that they could make money from a digital only lens series, should they so choose.

Guy

[wlaidlaw]

If Leica decided on a 1.33 crop series of lenses, they can be faster for the same bulk - we could have an F0.75 Noctilux - WOW ;-}}

 

Wilson

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[sdai]

If Leica decided on a 1.33 crop series of lenses, they can be faster for the same bulk - we could have an F0.75 Noctilux - WOW ;-}}

 

Can someone photoshop an artists' rendition of such a lens? I'm sure it'll look good on paper.