a dramatic proof of the new 35 APO supremacy?

[hdmesa]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, LarsHP said:

Following this logic, several Voigtländer lenses should be much more expensive than their Leica counterparts since they focus to 50cm whereas the Leica only focus to 70cm.

Floating elements complicates the construction, but the 35mm Apo-Lanthar VM has that too. I doubt there is much difference in construction and design between making it focus down to 30cm versus 50cm, but my guess is just as good or bad as anyone's. That said, the size (length) difference is quite noticeable: 58mm versus 41mm (49mm w/ hood). The question is then: "Do I want to pay several thousand dollars for that smaller size?"

BTW: The Voigtländer weighs 304 grams while the Leica is 320 grams in case weight is more important than size. The diameter is about the same (55mm vs 53mm).

Quote from the link below:

"Lens design includes apochromatic color correction, floating lens elements for better close focusing performance, two double sided aspherical elements,  five abnormal partial dispersion elements and superior multi-coating for outstanding flare control."

https://shop.cameraquest.com/voigtlander-leica-mount-lenses/voigtlander-35mm-f/2-apo-lanthar-m/

It's not about the closer MFD as much as it is the unique focus mechanism with the notch that stops at 0.7m and then the super-long focus throw to get you around to 0.3m. That adds complexity to the assembly versus a lens with a normal focus setup.

But anyway, yes the change in the physical length of the lens makes a big difference for assembly tolerance. And the 35 APO is stuffed full of specialized glass – I recall Leica saying in the interview about this lens that the 35 APO has only one "normal" aspherical element, the rest being more exotic. And we have to look at the difference from a 35 Summilux to the APO, so now we're only talking about what, a $2.2K difference? That's easily accounted for by any or all: higher glass cost, higher assembly cost, and higher labor cost. But I doubt it's just any one of those alone. Also may have to consider how many of these they can even make during a given time period. I seem to recall reading how Leica only had one person with the skill to assemble the 50 APO.

Edited April 28, 2021 by hdmesa

[setuporg]

I personally never suffered from a longer lens blocking the RF, but then again I've neither tried nor really have interest in the M 75mm Noctilux or 90mm Summilux.  The old Mandler 75mm Summilux is fine and the 90/2.0 APO is fine too.  They don't feel like blocking the OVF much.  Nor does the 135mm APO Telyt.  I can see the sort of perfectionism we all experience in different areas to have a short-snouted Leica M lens but the question of whether a longer lens really blocks too much to make it usable is open.  A small lens has its own aesthetics.

[Jeff S]

Longer focal length isn’t necessarily as much a VF blockage issue as lens diameter due to a large aperture, for instance a 50 Noctilux.  The combination of lens speed and steep contrast falloff of the some of the latest M lenses also prompt EVF use due to eyesight and focusing issues for some, not just VF blockage.  Not an issue for me personally, though, as I’m fine with moderately fast, smallish M lenses from 28 to 50mm. The closer MFD also doesn’t appeal; I favor simplicity for M lenses, and use the SL2 for more ‘specialist’ tasks.

Jeff

 

[LarsHP]

13 hours ago, hdmesa said:

It's not about the closer MFD as much as it is the unique focus mechanism with the notch that stops at 0.7m and then the super-long focus throw to get you around to 0.3m. That adds complexity to the assembly versus a lens with a normal focus setup.

But anyway, yes the change in the physical length of the lens makes a big difference for assembly tolerance. And the 35 APO is stuffed full of specialized glass – I recall Leica saying in the interview about this lens that the 35 APO has only one "normal" aspherical element, the rest being more exotic. And we have to look at the difference from a 35 Summilux to the APO, so now we're only talking about what, a $2.2K difference? That's easily accounted for by any or all: higher glass cost, higher assembly cost, and higher labor cost. But I doubt it's just any one of those alone. Also may have to consider how many of these they can even make during a given time period. I seem to recall reading how Leica only had one person with the skill to assemble the 50 APO.

Leica may try to impress their costumers and justify their prices by saying this or that, but in the end it comes down to how the lens performs. Many (but not all) current Leica M lenses are extremely well in that regard, but so are (most of) the current Voigtländer and Zeiss lenses. For instance, I recall seeing a side-by-side comparison with the 35mm Summicron-M Asph and Voigtländer Ultron 35mm f/2 Vintage Line and the reviewer was shocked that the Voigtländer was sharper (wide open) while costing a fraction of the Leica lens.

Regarding the notch at 70cm, it is not unique to the 35mm Apo-Summicron-M (or Leica). Laowa (Venus Lens) already did this on their 9mm f/5.6 FF RL lens in M mount (the world's widest rectilinear lens for full frame - which is tack sharp too) focusing down to 12cm from the sensor. Price? $899, not $8999 or $12,199 which may have been the price if it said "Leica" on the lens.

7Artisans have made it possible for the customer to adjust the rangefinder focusing mechanism on their M mount lenses. Exotic price? Certainly not (but optical quality not so either).

In summary, I think modern Leica lenses (and cameras) are super-duper-hyper overpriced. There is no way to explain it otherwise in my opinion even though Leica may want to. Buying a used Leica M lens may make sense though, since it will keep its value or even go up as the years pass.

Edited April 29, 2021 by LarsHP

[lct]

11 minutes ago, LarsHP said:

Leica may try to impress their costumers and justify their prices by saying this or that, but in the end it comes down to how the lens performs. Many (but not all) current Leica M lenses are extremely well in that regard, but so are (most of) the current Voigtländer and Zeiss lenses. For instance, I recall seeing a side-by-side comparison with the 35mm Summicron-M Asph and Voigtländer Ultron 35mm f/2 Vintage Line and the reviewer was shocked that the Voigtländer was sharper (wide open) while costing a fraction of the Leica lens.

For you yes but not for everybody. It comes down to how the lens performs, you say, but not for me. It comes down to how i like the lens actually. Your example with Leica and CV 35/2 asph lenses is excellent from this viewpoint. I happen to own both lenses that i like much and i prefer the CV on crop bodies (CL, X-E1) due to its smaller size but my favorite remains the Leica on full frame bodies. Photography is a subjective matter where the better lens is neither the  more expensive nor the cheaper. The better lens is the better lens for you and for me and it is not always the same obviously .

[jaapv]

32 minutes ago, LarsHP said:

sharper

???  Sharper is not an optical parameter.
What do you mean? More contrasty? Higher resolving? Higher microcontrast? What were  the numbers? What was the MTF curve like? What was the OTF diagram  like? lateral and sagittal chromatic aberration? In the corners, field or center? The OOF rendering parabola?  
If you want to judge a lens by performance, you must be precise and not rely on Internet Blog catchall phrases that mean nothing.

[LarsHP]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

17 minutes ago, lct said:

For you yes but not for everybody. It comes down to how the lens performs, you say, but not for me. It comes down to how i like the lens actually. Your example with Leica and CV 35/2 asph lenses is excellent from this viewpoint. I happen to own both lenses that i like much and i prefer the CV on crop bodies (CL, X-E1) due to its smaller size but my favorite remains the Leica on full frame bodies. Photography is a subjective matter where the better lens is neither the  more expensive nor the cheaper. The better lens is the better lens for you and for me and it is not always the same obviously .

We agree that when considering subjective factors some may prefer one over the other (in different situations or generally). My point is and was that the Leica prices doesn't relate much to the optical / technical performance.

[LarsHP]

13 minutes ago, jaapv said:

???  Sharper is not an optical parameter.
What do you mean? More contrasty? Higher resolving? Higher microcontrast? What were  the numbers? What was the MTF curve like? What was the OTF diagram  like? lateral and sagittal chromatic aberration? In the corners, field or center? The OOF rendering parabola?  
If you want to judge a lens by performance, you must be precise and not rely on Internet Blog catchall phrases that mean nothing.

As I am sure you know, sharpness is resolution and contrast combined. This is what an MTF chart will show. As such it is an optical parameter. Sharpness is of course just one parameter, but it's one that most people consider important when buying expensive lenses, particularly when buying a lens with rather normal specs: a 35mm f/2 lens.

Regarding the side-by-side comparison, the reviewer took images on tripod and looked at the results. No measurements. This is not scientific in any way, but done properly it is still usable for judging how one lens compares to another. As to the other lens characteristics you list, I didn't mention them and some a very subjective (like out of focus rendering).

Please note that I am not trying to bash Leica for anything other than the current pricing.

In the eighties and nineties I owned a Leica M4-2, 21mm Super-Angulon, 35mm and 50mm Summicron and (slim) 90mm Tele-Elmarit, and I found them to perform much better than the Nikon SLR counterparts I used previously (except perhaps for the 105mm f/2.5 Nikkor). Today I own three Leica M lenses: 90mm Apo-Summicron-M, the discontinued 90mm Elmarit-M, and the 28mm Summicron-M Asph II as well as two Voigtländer VM lenses and several in Nikon F mount from different brands. When comparing my two current Leica M lenses to the competition, they are not nearly as superior to much cheaper alternatives as the price difference suggests.

In short, my point is that in the analog days the difference in price between Leica and the competition was justified by the increase in sharpness etc., but that this is no longer the case - not in my opinion at least.

[jaapv]

4 minutes ago, LarsHP said:

As I am sure you know, sharpness is resolution and contrast combined.

Sorry, it is not. It is, if anything, the graphic rendering of a block wave, also called micro-contrast, better called acuity.

[LarsHP]

1 minute ago, jaapv said:

Sorry, it is not. It is, if anything, the graphic rendering of a block wave, also called micro-contrast, better called acuity.

I'll make this short since this is getting way off-topic, but what you describe = the MTF chart. This translates to what we perceive as sharpness.

And by the way: acuity is a synonym for sharpness.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/acuity https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/acuity#synonyms

[jdlaing]

Though the word acuity has to do with the mind, sight or hearing. It’s grossly misused with regard to a lens characteristic.

[lct]

Indeed. I guess our colleagues refer to acutance here.

Edited April 29, 2021 by lct

[LarsHP]

33 minutes ago, lct said:

Indeed. I guess our colleagues refer to acutance here.

Thanks for referring to that word. I just looked it up, and it this appears to be the most correct term for "sharpness" in an image. From the description it would translate into what an MTF chart shows, if I am not mistaken.

"a measure of the steepness or abruptness of an edge in a photographic image" https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/acutance

"a physical rather than subjective measure of the sharpness of a photographic image" https://www.thefreedictionary.com/acutance

Edited April 29, 2021 by LarsHP

[hdmesa]

3 hours ago, LarsHP said:

Leica may try to impress their costumers and justify their prices by saying this or that, but in the end it comes down to how the lens performs. Many (but not all) current Leica M lenses are extremely well in that regard, but so are (most of) the current Voigtländer and Zeiss lenses. For instance, I recall seeing a side-by-side comparison with the 35mm Summicron-M Asph and Voigtländer Ultron 35mm f/2 Vintage Line and the reviewer was shocked that the Voigtländer was sharper (wide open) while costing a fraction of the Leica lens.

Regarding the notch at 70cm, it is not unique to the 35mm Apo-Summicron-M (or Leica). Laowa (Venus Lens) already did this on their 9mm f/5.6 FF RL lens in M mount (the world's widest rectilinear lens for full frame - which is tack sharp too) focusing down to 12cm from the sensor. Price? $899, not $8999 or $12,199 which may have been the price if it said "Leica" on the lens.

7Artisans have made it possible for the customer to adjust the rangefinder focusing mechanism on their M mount lenses. Exotic price? Certainly not (but optical quality not so either).

In summary, I think modern Leica lenses (and cameras) are super-duper-hyper overpriced. There is no way to explain it otherwise in my opinion even though Leica may want to. Buying a used Leica M lens may make sense though, since it will keep its value or even go up as the years pass.

If it comes down to how the lens performs, then I look forward to your full-blown comparison write-up of the Leica 35 APO vs the CV 35 APO. 

I was saying the Leica version pricing makes sense next to the 35 Lux. I’m not saying Leica pricing in general makes sense. That’s another conversation entirely. And if complaining about Leica lens prices is your thing, you may get more high fives by posting in the comments section on DPR when they announce Leica just dropped a new, expensive lens.

[LarsHP]

9 minutes ago, hdmesa said:

If it comes down to how the lens performs, then I look forward to your full-blown comparison write-up of the Leica 35 APO vs the CV 35 APO. 

I was saying the Leica version pricing makes sense next to the 35 Lux. I’m not saying Leica pricing in general makes sense. That’s another conversation entirely. And if complaining about Leica lens prices is your thing, you may get more high fives by posting in the comments section on DPR when they announce Leica just dropped a new, expensive lens.

I am not buying any 35mm as it is. I have a 28mm and 50mm lens and don't see the need for a lens between those two. I know it's a bit like swearing in the church to criticize Leica in this forum, but I do think their products are vastly overpriced nonetheless. As stated above, I think the notion of Leica lenses being superior is based on history, but not compared to the current performance from competitors.

When you say "I’m not saying Leica pricing in general makes sense", this suggests we don't disagree much. (If not, so be it. I don't expect us necessarily to agree.)

[marcg]

6 minutes ago, LarsHP said:

I am not buying any 35mm as it is. I have a 28mm and 50mm lens and don't see the need for a lens between those two. I know it's a bit like swearing in the church to criticize Leica in this forum, but I do think their products are vastly overpriced nonetheless. As stated above, I think the notion of Leica lenses being superior is based on history, but not compared to the current performance from competitors.

When you say "I’m not saying Leica pricing in general makes sense", this suggests we don't disagree much. (If not, so be it. I don't expect us necessarily to agree.)

 

[lct]

1 hour ago, marcg said:

I am not buying any 35mm as it is. I have a 28mm and 50mm lens and don't see the need for a lens between those two. I know it's a bit like swearing in the church to criticize Leica in this forum, but I do think their products are vastly overpriced nonetheless. As stated above, I think the notion of Leica lenses being superior is based on history, but not compared to the current performance from competitors.

Then what do you think of people with 30+ years experience considering Leica M lenses the best compact lenses in the world? Stupid? Absent minded? More money than brain? Tick the appropriate box .

[farnz]

1 hour ago, LarsHP said:

but I do think their products are vastly overpriced nonetheless.

A generalisation but your opinion is your prerogative nevertheless.  Price is determined by what the market will bear so your belief that Leica products are overpriced is regrettably meaningless and really translates to 'being more than what you want to pay'.  Basic economics tells us that if the price is too high then Leica will not sell its products and will be forced to lower its price to attract sales.

Pete.

PS, To avoid the discussion straying into this area. Leica products are not examples of Veblen goods.

[LarsHP]

33 minutes ago, lct said:

Then what do you think of people with 30+ years experience considering Leica M lenses the best compact lenses in the world? Stupid? Absent minded? More money than brain? Tick the appropriate box .

As I have written several times now, historically it has been so, so from that point of view I agree. From my point of view, paying the excess price for a new Leica lens today may be explained by several factors, but not solely by optical quality.

It think those who buy expensive luxury items buy them because they like the feeling having such a luxury item, including the sense of owning something only few can afford. 

Since we are already out on a tangent, I will tell you a couple of stories that relate to the above.

My grandfather had a fashion shop and the story from the late fifties. The wife of a rich man ordered a fur coat (after measure). When the fur coat was made, my grandfather calculated the price with VAT and his regular profit. Then, he told my mother, after thinking about it, he doubled the price, because he thought the customer would be happier if the price was much higher. When she came to get the fur, she paid it happily without complaining about the price. 

A colleague of mine at the school of journalism told me a story from his time as a business counselor about a Danish firm that made high quality products that allegedly were of even better quality than one of the famous manufacturers made. They set the price 20% below the competition, but struggled selling their products even though it was both cheaper and better made. They were about to give up business entirely. The advice was that the Danish company should double the price. After they doubled the price, the sales sky-rocketed. 

My point with the two stories is that people relate very high prices to products of similarly high quality, but in reality it's not necessarily related that closely. There is something about owning expensive things that few can afford which appeals to those who can afford it. 

When we buy Leica, we also "buy" the history about Leica, and that we have bought something special. I can relate to this myself, so I am not pointing fingers at anyone. However, the huge price tag is not justified by optical quality alone in my opinion. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[LarsHP]

1 hour ago, farnz said:

A generalisation but your opinion is your prerogative nevertheless.  Price is determined by what the market will bear so your belief that Leica products are overpriced is regrettably meaningless and really translates to 'being more than what you want to pay'.  Basic economics tells us that if the price is too high then Leica will not sell its products and will be forced to lower its price to attract sales.

Pete.

PS, To avoid the discussion straying into this area. Leica products are not examples of Veblen goods.

Regarding Veblen goods, I certainly think this applies to current Leica pricing strategy, so we obviously disagree. See my post above.

(I actually had to look up the concept before replying and discovered that what I had just written refers to the Veblen idea.)