28mm f2.8 Elmarit M v1 & v2 images and opinions

[pippy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

38 minutes ago, shirubadanieru said:

Light Lens Lab just announced a reissue of this lens, ready for pre-order...

Thanks for that!

I notice that they mention;

"Optimized for digital sensors, elimination of red-fringing phenomenon that occurred on the original Nine Element."

Fine and dandy if there is no colour-fringing but the rear element does seem to be deep-set so I wonder if metering accuracy would be affected. On the other hand - just from memory (I'd have to go to the studio to check) - it might not protrude any further than does the rear element of the Voigtlander 28mm f2.0 Ultron v1 and that lens meters accurately so all might be well.

I like the fact that it has the nice infinity-lock focus tab but my issue with these early 28s has always been their physical size / finder-blockage when used with their hood.

Regardless; it is a very interesting offering and I wish them well as far as sales are concerned.

Philip.

Edited August 28, 2024 by pippy

[Advertisement]

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

[adan]

14 minutes ago, pippy said:

Fine and dandy if there is no colour-fringing but the rear element does seem to be deep-set so I wonder if metering accuracy would be affected.

Less so with the M11 and Leica's move to "off-the-sensor" metering. And color fringing would be no issue at all with a Monochrom. I was just going to say that this is a well-timed introduction.

But still "Leica-ly" to show quite a lot of general vignetting (on either film or digital), due to the exit pupil being significantly closer to the center of the sensor/film than to the corner (light falls off as the square of the distance from the source - trigonometry and all that.)

Nevertheless, the first Chinese remake that might actually temp me.

And don't forget - with this formula, a lot of the lens length is inside the camera (like the 21 SAs).

Edited August 28, 2024 by adan

[lct]

6 minutes ago, adan said:

the first Chinese remake that might actually temp me.

 

+1

[Smudgerer]

13 minutes ago, pippy said:

I like the fact that it has the nice infinity-lock focus tab but my issue with these early 28s has always been their physical size / finder-blockage when used with their hood.

Regardless; it is a very interesting offering and I wish them well as far as sales are concerned.

Philip.

Yes I got the same email from LLL today too, and it seems to be another very interesting offering from them, ( I have two LLL's so far, the 35mm 8e collapsible and the 50mm Elcan both of which I am more than happy with ), so I was very tempted to pull the trigger on this lens BUT then I figured that the VF blockage would be much greater than I now experience with my 28mm Elmarit M ASPH V4 (?) and the VM 28 Skopar V2 and as I do dislike VF blockage I talked myself out of the new LLL 28mm...............At least for now.

[shirubadanieru]

While the v1 is big for a 28mm f2.8, in black paint I must admit it looks gorgeous, and this remake looks exactly the same as the original. It seems the pre-order price will be lower than the regular price, so for those interested I suggest pre-ordering it there. 

[Alberti]

. . Only praise for the re-designers. I like it - "Fluorite glass. . . Extra-low dispersion (ED) glass to improve distortions, edge-to-edge rendering performance, dispersion, and distortion."   Better corners! better high contrast!

My only issue is the weight  =  300g+ (brass) as much as my 50 Summilux. Compare: My 35/8E is 180g. 

• Redesigned for digital. But how will it behave on a rather traditional sensor such as my M10-R? 
• "VF blockage" - Ask them 'to cut corners' (well, literally, that is)?

Edited August 28, 2024 by Alberti

[pippy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

53 minutes ago, adan said:

...And don't forget - with this formula, a lot of the lens length is inside the camera (like the 21 SAs).

Yes, Andy, I was thinking about the 21mm f4.0 S-A when I typed my earlier post.

So, just out of curiosity, I dragged out the 28 Elmarit ASPH v1, the 28 f2 Ultron and the 21 f4 S-A to take a snap and make some comparisons / measurements.

Here is an image of the three lenses all sitting with bums-on-deck and set at at Min. Focus (for maximum rearward projection);

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!

The table-to-flange distances are as follows : Elmarit = 12mm; Ultron = 13mm; Super-Angulon = 20mm.

In the case of all three lenses the rearmost lens-surface is only marginally inside the barrel. As the Film / Sensor-plane-to-flange depth of the Leica M is 27.80mm it can be seen that whilst there is a fair distance between the lens-to-f/plane in the cases of the Elmarit and the Ultron that of the S-A is only c. 8mm away; hence the inherent vignetting / exposure problems associated with using this lens.

Philip.

[pippy]

1 hour ago, adan said:

...color fringing would be no issue at all with a Monochrom...

Hmmm....well; Yes and No...

Colour-fringing itself wouldn't be an issue in terms of colour (of course), but, depending on which iteration of the Monochrom one is using, the effects of the shortness of the lens-to-sensor plane distance - and the inability of the microlenses to cope with the acuteness of the angle of light-incidence at the sides of frame - could still play a significant role in how the photograph turns out. I believe that the newer Monochrom versions suffer far less from this aspect than does the original M Monochrom.

FWIW here are a pair of images from the same file. Camera was a M Monochrom; lens was the 21mm f4.0 Super-Angulon. First pic is image as shot SOOC. Second image is after using some quick'n'easy adjustment using the 'Vignette' slider in Photoshop;

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!

Now obviously here we are talking about the 21 S-A and not the LLL 28 '9 Element' which,  I suspect, will show no such problems but even with the 28 Elmarit and the Voigt Ultron there is some slight side-edge vignetting (not fundamentally due to the lens' covering-circle) present in the uncorrected DNG files.

It would be interesting to know what the rear-of-lens to Sensor distance is where the LLL is concerned.

Philip.

[lct]

3 hours ago, Alberti said:

My only issue is the weight  =  300g

Thanks for warning i will pass on this one and praise my Rokkor 28/2.8 even more (138g).

[Alberti]

I have a query outstanding, if this is correct.

[Mute-on]

12 hours ago, pippy said:

Hmmm....well; Yes and No...

Colour-fringing itself wouldn't be an issue in terms of colour (of course), but, depending on which iteration of the Monochrom one is using, the effects of the shortness of the lens-to-sensor plane distance - and the inability of the microlenses to cope with the acuteness of the angle of light-incidence at the sides of frame - could still play a significant role in how the photograph turns out. I believe that the newer Monochrom versions suffer far less from this aspect than does the original M Monochrom.

FWIW here are a pair of images from the same file. Camera was a M Monochrom; lens was the 21mm f4.0 Super-Angulon. First pic is image as shot SOOC. Second image is after using some quick'n'easy adjustment using the 'Vignette' slider in Photoshop;

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!

Now obviously here we are talking about the 21 S-A and not the LLL 28 '9 Element' which,  I suspect, will show no such problems but even with the 28 Elmarit and the Voigt Ultron there is some slight side-edge vignetting (not fundamentally due to the lens' covering-circle) present in the uncorrected DNG files.

It would be interesting to know what the rear-of-lens to Sensor distance is where the LLL is concerned.

Philip.

Perhaps perversely I vastly prefer the version WITH vignetting. Far more dramatic and engaging to me. 

[Alberti]

3 hours ago, Mute-on said:

Perhaps perversely I vastly prefer the version WITH vignetting. Far more dramatic and engaging to me. 

Then you must have the Super-Angulon too?

[I had it but sold it because of unclear corners).

[pippy]

5 hours ago, Mute-on said:

Perhaps perversely I vastly prefer the version WITH vignetting. Far more dramatic and engaging to me. 

I don't want to derail the '9 Elements' thread so won't go into discussing the 21 S-A too much but I know what you mean, Mute-on.

The snap was taken on (I believe) my first outing with the S-A and I was curious to know whether the lens/camera had captured all the 'info' underneath the heavy vignetting. Happily - and, I admit, somewhat to my surprise - I discovered that it had. The 'Final Version' (as printed) of the snap was not corrected to quite the same degree as the second image shown here but even in the version as posted I have left some amount of subtle shading to either side.

It was useful to know, however, that if needed then all the shading can be cleared-up without any loss of image-detail.

Philip.

Edited August 29, 2024 by pippy

[Alberti]

A question on coding the V1: does it make sense to have the lens 6-bit coded? (I can have that made by an artisan in my home country…).
Of course I have no idea which code to use. That for the V2? 

For the later versions, Leitz will do it (by exchanging the flange if I understand correctly) and that implies that the corner/vignetting info of the later versions is in the profile; but the V1 has - to my understanding - more vignetting, and maybe another linearity, so the automatic adaptation might not totally fit. 

• Are there any experiences in the profile selection manually?

Edited September 11, 2024 by Alberti

[pippy]

16 minutes ago, Alberti said:

A question on coding the V1: does it make sense to have the lens 6-bit coded?...Of course I have no idea which code to use. That for the V2?...

...the V1 has......more vignetting, and maybe another linearity, so the automatic adaptation might not totally fit...Are there any experiences in the profile selection manually?

On the M Monochrom the earliest 28mm f2.8 listed is that of the 11804 which I believe to be the v3. Having just had a quick google I can see that although the rearmost bits are not the same as the v1 it still has quite a deep-set rear element so it might well be worth giving it a go.

It would probably also be useful to have a look at how profiles for other lenses work with the 28 v1. FWIW I found - through trial and error - that by selecting the profile for the original 50mm f1.2 Noctilux (11820) from the menu of the M Monochrom the in-camera correction worked wonders when shooting with the aforementioned 21 f4 S-Angulon so with the 28 v1 some lateral-thinking might reap rewards!

Philip.

[adan]

Bottom line on which lenses Leica chose to "grandfather in" for 6-bit coding support in 2006 (and thereby recommend for use on the digital Ms):

Leica used two different thicknesses of chromed-steel lens mounting flanges over the years: 2mm and ~1mm (the current style - made universal about 1980, except for the legacy 50 Summilux II pre-1992, 135 TEs pre-1992, and 35 Summilux pre-ASPH)).

This 90TE v.2 shows the 1mm thin flange - which it came with as early as 1974 (and eventually became the standard for all "modern" M lenses, these days)

http://wiki.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/images/1/1d/M-90f28-ii.jpg

This shows the "thick" 2mm flange on the 28 v.2 (and the "nine-element," and various other "antique" M lenses (e.g. 50mm Summicron v.3 1969-79)

http://wiki.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/images/6/67/M-28f28-ii.jpg

http://wiki.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/images/c/cf/M5f2ii.jpg

Leica decided that they were simply NOT going to re-start manufacturing of the obsolete 2mm-thick mounts - just to allow 6-bit coding. It would be nonsensical (like Ford deciding to re-start manufacturing front grilles for 1959 Edsels in 1985. 🤪 )

They would only support coding for lenses that already conformed to the modern/current 1mm flange, and required just a simple 1mm flange-swap (6 screws and done).

Thus the 50, 135 and 35 (and the 28 v.1/2) were "orphaned" when it came to 6-bit codes, regardless of whether they could "safely" be fitted on the digital Ms physically.