Review: The New Leica APO-Summicron-M 35mm F2 ASPH.

[T25UFO]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 5/4/2021 at 1:43 PM, wlaidlaw said:

Leica Mayfair must have sold all their stock of 35mm APO lenses direct to customers, with few to none going to dealers. Dealers have now been told they will not receive any stock until 28th May. Not good management of expectations, as my dealer was told just at the end of last week, to expect their first delivery at the beginning of this week. A tad deflating. 

Wilson

 

I wonder how many Leica Mayfair received?  

I went to the Leica Online Store and clicked the 'email me when back in stock' button.  I received an email timed at 8:20am on Monday, 3rd May, clicked on the link immediately and it was already out of stock again.  Resubmitted another email notification and received back in stock notification timed at 8:50am this morning.  Clicked on the store link immediately, but with the same result - out of stock again.

I might follow your example and try Park Cameras.  Had excellent service when I've bought from Park previously, and I can also vouch for the fact that their trade-in valuations beat the competition, often by a good margin.  Nice people too.                                                                                                                                                                                      

[Advertisement]

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

[wlaidlaw]

I don't feel that Park Cameras were too pleased, to be told by Leica UK that their order would on its way early this week, only to be told just three days later than it isn't and the earliest they will now receive stock is May 28. I got the feeling they thought they had let me down, which of course, was not the case. I have had this sort of thing happen in the past with Leica, where apparently I had the first deposit paid order in the UK for the M9, some 4 months before it was released (I had spotted a pre-production one on a workbench in Solms). Release date came and went with no M9. After a couple of months with others saying how much they were enjoying the M9, posting unboxing videos and the final straw, was where someone posted that they had walked in off the street to one of the London dealers and been able to buy one off the shelf. I saw red. I wrote a registered letter to the MD of Leica UK, saying as a Leica user at that point for some 50 years, I felt I was receiving very shabby treatment and WTF was going on. It turned out that an area rep was favouring certain dealers and blocking the orders of others. I don't think it enhanced his career. The local dealer received my order of a grey top M9 just a couple of days after my writing the letter but sadly they had their agency taken away later, because they were too small. 

I agree about Park Cameras and I have bought stuff from them for close to 40 years, mainly film, chemicals, printers, and ink, as they were not Leica dealers until fairly recently and I have tended to use Ffordes due to the excellent service I have always received from them. Sadly their offer for my 35 ASPH was not attractive. 

Wilson

[Guest]

On 5/5/2021 at 11:59 AM, LBJ2 said:

I think the 35/2 APO is in general seen as a Huge success both optically as well as likely to be seen as a landmark accomplishment that may spawn a new category in Leica M optics development, Category IV. I am confident there are more M APOs to come.

The Voigtlander 35/2 APO is also another stellar lens added to Voigtlander's APO accomplishments of late, another APO induced renaissance if you will. 

Close-focus while yet another technical watershed for tiny Leica rangefinder glass, is to me icing on the cake. 

From what Peter Karbe tells us...I don't think it's a stretch to believe that modern APO technology is the next step to achieving even more perfect optics. 

Happy Cinco de Mayo ! 

What is a "perfect optic"?

Is the 35 apo summicrom better than the original or version 4 for example?

[wlaidlaw]

8 hours ago, steve 1959 said:

What is a "perfect optic"?

Is the 35 apo summicrom better than the original or version 4 for example?

The resolution at full aperture is considerably higher as can be seen in various comparative tests pitting the 35APO against the 35 ASPH Summicron and 35FLE Summilux. The 35 ASPH Summicron had considerably higher resolution than its predecessors wide open but this was already surpassed by the FLE at f2. However I have never particularly liked the way the FLE renders on digital. I think it seems to have the same issue as the 50 ASPH Summilux, which is that the extremely high micro contrast on well defined edges against a pale background, makes it prone to purple fringing. I don't know if the design was tweaked to improve this but on the early version I was lent, I had to do purple fringe correction on a lot of images. For this reason, I stuck with my earlier 35 ASPH Summilux, where I was lucky enough to have a very good chrome example from the final batch with brass/chrome bodies in Sept 2006. It has minimal aperture shift, the bête noire of many 35 ASPH Summiluxes. I discussed this lens during a meeting at Solms and they admitted that sample variation was too wide on this lens, as the design parameter requirements and tolerances of element spacing, were beyond what could be achieved in practice. I presume this is why they replaced it with the FLE. The additional resolution of the 35 APO would probably only be really noticeable on the M10-R and SL-2 with their higher MP count sensors. 

Wilson

[mmradman]

1 hour ago, wlaidlaw said:

The resolution at full aperture is considerably higher as can be seen in various comparative tests pitting the 35APO against the 35 ASPH Summicron and 35FLE Summilux. The 35 ASPH Summicron had considerably higher resolution than its predecessors wide open but this was already surpassed by the FLE at f2. However I have never particularly liked the way the FLE renders on digital. I think it seems to have the same issue as the 50 ASPH Summilux, which is that the extremely high micro contrast on well defined edges against a pale background, makes it prone to purple fringing. I don't know if the design was tweaked to improve this but on the early version I was lent, I had to do purple fringe correction on a lot of images. For this reason, I stuck with my earlier 35 ASPH Summilux, where I was lucky enough to have a very good chrome example from the final batch with brass/chrome bodies in Sept 2006. It has minimal aperture shift, the bête noire of many 35 ASPH Summiluxes. I discussed this lens during a meeting at Solms and they admitted that sample variation was too wide on this lens, as the design parameter requirements and tolerances of element spacing, were beyond what could be achieved in practice. I presume this is why they replaced it with the FLE. The additional resolution of the 35 APO would probably only be really noticeable on the M10-R and SL-2 with their higher MP count sensors. 

Wilson

As much as we admire older versions for number of resons, mostly emotional in nature, it seems every new iteration improves technically on previous models, like it or hate it it is called progress. 

[Guest]

4 hours ago, mmradman said:

As much as we admire older versions for number of resons, mostly emotional in nature, it seems every new iteration improves technically on previous models, like it or hate it it is called progress. 

Trouble with progress is you often lose more than you gain.

I mean with all this progress the world must be a better place in every imaginable way right?

my voigtlander 40mm f1.4 which i am told is based on a 1960 leica lens produces nicer  images to my eyes/brain than several modern lenses i have used ,why is that?

Progress is overrated in my view..

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

7 hours ago, Steven said:

A perfect optic is not a better optic. 

By perfect, people refer to optical/technical excellence. To some of us, including me, the perfection is not the best route, when it comes to lenses. A comparison of the v4 and the APO was actually the turning point in my decision of returning the APO. I preferred the smudgy corners of my ex V4. 

In 20 years you’ll better appreciate the old and less than perfect APO.

Jeff

[jonoslack]

42 minutes ago, steve 1959 said:

Trouble with progress is you often lose more than you gain.

I mean with all this progress the world must be a better place in every imaginable way right?

my voigtlander 40mm f1.4 which i am told is based on a 1960 leica lens produces nicer  images to my eyes/brain than several modern lenses i have used ,why is that?

Progress is overrated in my view..

Well

Whilst I like the charm of some older lenses (and film come to that) I think that all of Leica's recent APO lenses (both for the M and the SL) have a consistent charm of their own, a combination of gentle sharpness, great bokeh and a lovely roll-off between the two. This is obviously a function of both excellent design and terrifyingly small tolerances in manufacture (something quite impossible in the past). For me this gives me a number of lenses which give me a similar 'look', and that makes life easier and more pleasant on a number of levels. 

Nothing 'clinical' about this lens, it's a lovely and sophisticated look - very much of a piece with the 50 APO M and all the SL Summicrons.

[mmradman]

48 minutes ago, steve 1959 said:

Trouble with progress is you often lose more than you gain.

I mean with all this progress the world must be a better place in every imaginable way right?

my voigtlander 40mm f1.4 which i am told is based on a 1960 leica lens produces nicer  images to my eyes/brain than several modern lenses i have used ,why is that?

Progress is overrated in my view..

You seem to have a rose tinted glasses view of the past, in a way I understand that as here on LUF many expressed opinions are emotive (people live in the past), nothing wrong with that.  I am realist with formal training in a well established branch of engineering, i can appreciate latest development like an APO lens being discussed while not falling for marketing hype. 

Let’s look at the assertion that we lose more than we gain with progress.  For instance, in public health arena progress in science and advanced bio-chemical manufacturing enabled rapid vaccine development and mass production which was not available at times of earlier pandemics. Or maybe last two decades saw rapid decline in CO2 emitting power generation, or advance in personal computers and communication devices and data networking is enabling us to work from home in large numbers, and so on.

[wlaidlaw]

2 hours ago, steve 1959 said:

Trouble with progress is you often lose more than you gain.

I mean with all this progress the world must be a better place in every imaginable way right?

my voigtlander 40mm f1.4 which i am told is based on a 1960 leica lens produces nicer  images to my eyes/brain than several modern lenses i have used ,why is that?

Progress is overrated in my view..

Glass half empty? 

[Jeff S]

17 minutes ago, Steven said:

Sooner than that. One day I feel Mandlerish, the other I'm in a Karbish mood. 

But will you still ‘“hate” Karbe’s beloved FLE?

Jeff

[Guest]

6 hours ago, jonoslack said:

Well

Whilst I like the charm of some older lenses (and film come to that) I think that all of Leica's recent APO lenses (both for the M and the SL) have a consistent charm of their own, a combination of gentle sharpness, great bokeh and a lovely roll-off between the two. This is obviously a function of both excellent design and terrifyingly small tolerances in manufacture (something quite impossible in the past). For me this gives me a number of lenses which give me a similar 'look', and that makes life easier and more pleasant on a number of levels. 

Nothing 'clinical' about this lens, it's a lovely and sophisticated look - very much of a piece with the 50 APO M and all the SL Summicrons.

I read your review of the 35mm apo and noticed you were very determined to point out that the lens is not coldly clinical and i believe you.

I have a £1,700 zeiss distagon which is not at all clinical in the look of the images but my £300 used voigtlander 40mm f1.4 produces much nicer images in my view,it also outshines the 35mm and 50mm summarit lenses i used to own.

Its about discovering what we like as individual would be artists and i have learnt over a long period of time that i prefer lenses whose origins come from the 1950-80 period.

I bought the 28mm f5.6 summaron  remake for example and i love it.

I have been critical of the close focus addition of the 35mm apo but apart from that i am sure its a great lens for the people that want that cutting edge lens.

[Guest]

6 hours ago, mmradman said:

You seem to have a rose tinted glasses view of the past, in a way I understand that as here on LUF many expressed opinions are emotive (people live in the past), nothing wrong with that.  I am realist with formal training in a well established branch of engineering, i can appreciate latest development like an APO lens being discussed while not falling for marketing hype. 

Let’s look at the assertion that we lose more than we gain with progress.  For instance, in public health arena progress in science and advanced bio-chemical manufacturing enabled rapid vaccine development and mass production which was not available at times of earlier pandemics. Or maybe last two decades saw rapid decline in CO2 emitting power generation, or advance in personal computers and communication devices and data networking is enabling us to work from home in large numbers, and so on.

Maybe i should have said "we lose as much as we gain" ?     Its too big a subject for a camera forum but if we just take say mobile phones and facebook its easy to see that progress is not all sunny and nice is it?

[Jeff S]

14 minutes ago, Steven said:

I still do.
His Summilux 28, however, is an absolute masterpiece to me. It is the most pleasing lens I’ve ever owned, I think. It’s an example of when gear improves one’s photography, in my case. It has made me a better photographer. 

I meant in 20 years.

Jeff

[Rick]

Could someone explain in certain terms what folks mean when the say, a lens is too clinical for me?

I find this term vague.  Does it mean some like the look of higher degrees of aberrations?  Does a clinical lens have a lower Abbe value?  Is clinical lens, a lens that only Ernst Abbe would like?

I know I like clinicians... I'm one.  

 

RickAbbe

 

[Rick]

3 minutes ago, Steven said:

I think clinical means too sharp, too clean, too transparent, and therefore, without character, or soul. 
A vintage lens, in comparison, is more imperfect, has more personality. 
 

If we wanted to make an extreme généralisation, I suppose we could say that digital is too clinical compared to film? The beauty of imperfection is something that appeals to a lot of nostalgics. 

I understand sharp.  But, what does 'clean" and "transparent" mean?

Optically speaking, what would the optical characteristics of a lens without "character" or "soul" be defined as?  Personality?

[Jeff S]

2 minutes ago, Steven said:

I think clinical means too sharp, too clean, too transparent, and therefore, without character, or soul. 
A vintage lens, in comparison, is more imperfect, has more personality. 
 

If we wanted to make an extreme généralisation, I suppose we could say that digital is too clinical compared to film? The beauty of imperfection is something that appeals to a lot of nostalgics. 

The APO is more ‘perfect’ than the FLE, by traditional optical measures.  Do all lenses become ‘clinical’ stopped down?  Can better processing make a ‘clinical’ lens not clinical? How about via a fine print? Is there a ‘soul’ rating scale that is not image-specific?  So many more questions...

Jeff

[mmradman]

55 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

Error

 

13 minutes ago, Steven said:

Clean means too sharp. Transparent means it doesn’t have character. Character means soul. Soul means means not clean. Wait, I’m losing track myself. 
 

some sharp lenses don’t have character, for example, the 35 Cron ASPH ( Berk) 

some shape lenses have character. A look of there own. They’re identifiable easily. For example, the 35 M APO 

Transparent lens means neutral, unbiased, objective recording tool, it doesn’t add or take away. It keeps OOF gently blurred and it makes subject in focus as close to the reality as it is technically possible.

Why would close to perfection be without character? Are flaws really all that desirable, if so there are millions of old optics in the world, many needing cleaning and good overhaul and all capable producing images with “character”.

Edited May 7, 2021 by mmradman

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Jeff S]

9 minutes ago, Steven said:

Yes 

 

Yes, although I generally prefer lenses that produce a look that I don’t want to work hard to alter. 

 

From my very very short experience with printing, things even out a bit when printing. One can still tell which lens might have been used, but it’s less obvious than on a screen. 

 

Of course there is. There are plenty. Let’s start with one. 
On a scale from 0 to 10 If clinical is 0 and soul is 10, the Cron ASPH is a zero, the summilux 35 Pre ASPH at 1.4 is a 10. 

It cannot be generalized to Mandler vs Karbe, I think. The 28 summilux Wide open should raté around 7,5 out of 10 on the soul scale. 

 

Shoot 🔫

Most were rhetorical.  I find the concept rather silly, and judge pictures and prints, not concerned with gear used.  If it all depended on gear, we’d each produce the same output, soul-wise or other. Lens soul rating? Nonsense  to me.

Jeff

[Jeff S]

Just now, Steven said:

My soul rating was meant to be humour as well. Not funny ? 😏

Hard to tell, on record for ‘hating’ a lens, and constantly rating one lens (and camera) against another. Equally strange to me.

Jeff