I'm not sure, but is this the M Cron 35 APO?

[dkmoore]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

25 minutes ago, astrostl said:

I am me, and know my intents. You are you, and don't. This is an asinine take. I can assure you that I'm not lying, and have no incentive to lie.

it’s actually not asinine but regardless, the Voigtlander looks solid and therefore it’s a win win. 
 

 

[fotomas]

vor 3 Stunden schrieb Alistairm:

Do the M lenses rely as heavily on software “correction” as the SL lenses?

Hope they don't. This shouldn't be possible because you can also use them with film.
Otherwise you have make clear, that they shouldn't be used on analogue Ms.

[UliWer]

You can test what happens, when you switch off lens detection for the lens or use an uncoded lens. Then the camera has no clue which lens is used and cannot correct anything. You can also disable all corrections in the raw converter. In most cases you won‘t be able to see any difference. In camera lens detection - and correction - by the M may reduce vignetting and in some cases color shifts but there is no correction of distortion as with the TL and probably the SL lenses.

Optical correction of distortion is another example of coping with side effects of improved resolution. It is easier to achieve high resolution if the optical design doesn‘t care about distortion. The old 50mm Zeiss Sonnars are good examples: their resolution was much better than their Leitz contemporaries - but they showed massive distortion, which would be unacceptable today and which you won‘t see on results by Leitz lenses. 

With modern technologies optical design can follow a similar path of optimizing resolution by ignoring distortion: you can correct the distortion electronically. With M lenses this option doesn‘t work since many designs come from the times of film photography and even with newer designs any lack of corrected distortion would immediately show on film. That‘s one reason why M-lenses are - relatively -more expensive than lenses from the TL or SL series. 
 

[UliWer]

Here is a quick try about the different effects of resolution for aberrations. Both examples are strong crops (approx 200%). Both 35mm Leica Summiluxes at f/1.4:

1. 35mm FLE:

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!

You clearly see the green/purple color shifts. One might say the lens needs some more correction (well, it's 200%...).

2. 35mm Summilux pre. asph:

Green/purple shifts strongly reduced. But certainly the lens needs some more resolution.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 21, 2021 by UliWer

[farnz]

(Decided to delete post as it could become a distraction.)

Edited February 21, 2021 by farnz

[jaapv]

Resolution is linked to contrast - see MTF curves, they must be measured at different contrast levels.

[adan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

For the record, I have no problem with Leica producing a "better" 35mm f/2 lens. I only object to calling it an "APO," for the reasons previously mentioned. But the plain-vanilla 35mm ASPH does have minor flaws that can be improved, just as the 50 APO-Summicron ( ) improved on the plain-vanilla 50 Summicron.

The 35mm f/2 ASPH is, after all, a 24-year-old design (possible tweaked a little bit recently).

Specifically:

- more distortion than the pre-ASPH 35 Summicrons (the quasi-symmetrical Double-Gauss design was their friend there) 1% vs. about 0.15%;

- slightly more residual coma/astigmatism than the 35 Summilux-ASPH ("winged" images of sharp points near the corners that image as blurs);

- generally wavy MTF (hills and valleys) from the center out to the corners, especially at f/2 (that was the single largest improvement the 50 APO achieved over the older 50 Summicron's "Summicron valley");

AND - strictly my personal taste:

- overly "pink" color

-  too much global (as opposed to optical edge) contrast.

- heavy by "Leica-M 35mm f/2" standards. Although gaining anything there may require skipping a floating element (weight of mechanism).

If Leica can fix all those - and retain the E39 filter size - and shave the weight down to 200g± - that will be be pretty impressive. With a price to match, of course. And the plain 35 f/2 ASPH will revert to being the "entry-level" Leica 35, just as it was for the decade before the Summarits came out.

[padam]

Reducing the weight, keeping it at 7 elements and using floating elements for focusing is impossible (the Voigtländer APO-Lanthar 35mm f/2 has 11 elements...)
You can see that while it has retained the E39 filter thread, it is a wider diameter and probably longer as well as it blocks the camera body a bit.
But I guess keeping it around the 35mm f/1.4 Summilux FLE size without the hood attached with less weight is more than good enough.

[lct]

42 minutes ago, padam said:

[...] keeping it around the 35mm f/1.4 Summilux FLE size without the hood attached with less weight is more than good enough [...]

To me the reference is the 35/2 v4 and i find my 35/2 asph v1 a bit too tall yet so a lens the same size as the 35/1.4 FLE would not be good enough at all. YMMV.

[padam]

16 minutes ago, lct said:

To me the reference is the 35/2 v4 and i find my 35/2 asph v1 a bit too tall yet so a lens the same size as the 35/1.4 FLE would not be good enough at all. YMMV.

Of course I meant taking into account that we are talking about a new yardstick in terms of optical quality.
Even on an M10M these are far from being really utilised to their potential.
The compact size simply may not be a reason to go for it. I mean, if someone spends this kind of money on a lens, this may not be the only 35mm to have at their disposal.
But it's all relative, still likely to be less than half the weight and size of the 35mm f/2 APO-Summicron-SL and there are other M lenses (mainly from different manufacturers) which are bigger and heavier.

Let's just wait and see. I hate teasers, especially if they are official...

[lct]

It can in no way be bulkier than the M 50/2 apo IMHO but i have no info at all about that.

[padam]

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!

Not that much difference between the 50/1.4 ASPH and 50/2 APO M lenses either, so that's why I thought the FLE without the hood is more of an indicator.

And the barrel definitely looks wider, but maybe in exchange they've kept it shorter, hard to tell since the teaser shot was taken much closer.

[earleygallery]

17 hours ago, fotomas said:

Hope they don't. This shouldn't be possible because you can also use them with film.
Otherwise you have make clear, that they shouldn't be used on analogue Ms.

I think it does, but it will automatically include instructions as to how best to print the image/s which will appear in the margins between the frames. You may need a loupe to read them easily.

[rpsawin]

On 2/20/2021 at 2:55 PM, farnz said:

Hi Bob,

50 mm and longer.  The 50/1.4 Summilux asph is actually apochromatically corrected even though it's not labelled an APO lens.  (There are statements from Herr Karbe to support this but no explanation as far as I remember as to why APO was left off the name.)

If you look at the Leica lenses that have been around for a while that are apochromatically corrected you have:

Thank you Pete. From what I could gather it seemed to be the longer lens. and while my technical sophistication is lacking but my hunches are fairly good.

[mike3996]

I love my 35 Summicron Asph to bits and don't want to buy a more clinical lens. But I do recognize that there are opportunities to improve on the optical department, eliminating focus shift and all. Those who need the ultimate performance and presumably a compacter form than the CV 35 APO, the Leica version should do fine. Based on prior track record...

[Harpomatic]

On 2/20/2021 at 11:07 AM, Stuart Richardson said:

The fact that they are only doing it twenty years later is testament to Leica's skill.

I think if the other companies decided to do it they would have the same performance at the same size at the same price. The other companies are price conscious like their customers. Leica can ask any price they like and they do. They should be far ahead of the competition with those prices, and they aren’t anymore with the new mirrorless lenses coming in. It’s not the absolute quality, it’s the size that differentiates Leica M lenses. There are better lenses out there. Just bigger and way cheaper.

[Dennis]

1 hour ago, Harpomatic said:

I think if the other companies decided to do it they would have the same performance at the same size at the same price. The other companies are price conscious like their customers. Leica can ask any price they like and they do. They should be far ahead of the competition with those prices, and they aren’t anymore with the new mirrorless lenses coming in. It’s not the absolute quality, it’s the size that differentiates Leica M lenses. There are better lenses out there. Just bigger and way cheaper.

I agree.

I think that nowadays, with many options available, it's more about the camera system you use, than the lenses. I'm with Leica not because of the lens performance, but because the rangefinder camera, because it's so simple as a film camera, but digital. Then I appreciate the M lenses performance and size. As you say Harpomatic, it's about the size. My 50 Leica it's a wonder. But I prefer M10 + a Zeiss (or CV or ...) than a Sony + a 50 Lux. Do you guys get my point?

[lct]

3 hours ago, Dennis said:

I think that nowadays, with many options available, it's more about the camera system you use, than the lenses. I'm with Leica not because of the lens performance, but because the rangefinder camera, because it's so simple as a film camera, but digital. Then I appreciate the M lenses performance and size. As you say Harpomatic, it's about the size. My 50 Leica it's a wonder. But I prefer M10 + a Zeiss (or CV or ...) than a Sony + a 50 Lux. Do you guys get my point?

Not at all . It's more about lenses for me. With identical or similar sensors, digital cameras are more or less the same nowadays. I take them like digital backs that i choose for their capacity to fit my favorite lenses but it's just me . 

[Dennis]

2 hours ago, lct said:

Not at all . It's more about lenses for me. 

It makes sense. That's you, and it's then that's me  I enjoy the process of taking photos using the huge OVF, top class manual focus, small size and weight, a very few buttons, beautiful handle. All of this, it's the camera. Taking photos with a 35/2.8 Biogon or 50 Leica, it becomes the same for me. 

2 hours ago, lct said:

With identical or similar sensors, digital cameras are more or less the same nowadays.

Yes, sure. You can compare the M10 sensor with other brands. But the M approach for shooting, it's complete different.  

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[lct]

4 hours ago, Dennis said:

Yes, sure. You can compare the M10 sensor with other brands. But the M approach for shooting, it's complete different.

For you and photogs using mainly RF cameras i guess but people like truly yours have been using both RF and TTL cameras for 30+ years and don't change approach each time they (at least i) take such or such body. Matter of age perhaps i don't know honestly as i've been spending my youth with both Leica Ms and Canon and Nikon SLRs.

Edited February 23, 2021 by lct