Reissue 35mm Summilux Pre-Asph V1 Steel Rim

[Crem]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

18 minutes ago, Fred Miranda said:

I've noticed with some copies (like yours), when screwing the rounded hood, the opening would not end up in the right position for RF focusing, so it seems to vary from copy to copy. My personal copy allowed the hood to be screwed in right position for the RF but I've tested a loan copy which it did not.

I would guess the issue is with the hood and not the lens but I'm not sure.

My personal copy was back-focusing slightly, had stiff focus rotation towards the infinity position and also wobbly aperture ring. I sent it to New Jersey a month and a half ago and now it's in Germany. Leica told me they didn't have the necessary tools to adjust it in the US...

@Fred Mirandathanks for all the info! I had a feeling the hood alignment issue was different between copies. I'll contact Leica and see what they say. My copy was very stiff when I first got it. It look a few thousand focus rotations (very rough guess), but it loosened up a lot and feels normal now. I'm curious if your aperture ring wobble is the same as mine. Here's a better video than my previous post.

 

[Keith (M)]

5 hours ago, Crem said:

 

Why build big vent holes and then not properly align them with the window? Did you look at my two photos? This seem like a manufacturing defect to me. The hood threads appear to be misaligned by about a quarter turn. Hopefully someone like @Fred Miranda can confirm on their copy if the hood vent holes are properly aligned or not. 

Slight thread drift, but this is where bayonet fitting ensures consistent alignment - below a quick grab shot of my newly arrived 35mm Nokton Classic II with ventilated hood.

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!

 

[Crem]

4 minutes ago, Keith (M) said:

Slight thread drift, but this is where bayonet fitting ensures consistent alignment - below a quick grab shot of my newly arrived 35mm Nokton Classic II with ventilated hood.

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!

 

I will do my best to stay on topic, but I must say the Nokton Classic II is a wonderful lens. I much prefer the bayonet hood that works properly with filters, no focus lock button, and cheaper price. That said, I do love the rendering of the steel rim remake @ f1.4. 

[28framelines]

2 hours ago, Crem said:

I will do my best to stay on topic, but I must say the Nokton Classic II is a wonderful lens. I much prefer the bayonet hood that works properly with filters, no focus lock button, and cheaper price. That said, I do love the rendering of the steel rim remake @ f1.4. 

I’d laugh if Voigtlander released a V3 that fixed the distortion issue with it… any nay sayers of this lens would move it truly into the category of “no need to buy the SR Summilux” category

[shirubadanieru]

1 hour ago, 28framelines said:

I’d laugh if Voigtlander released a V3 that fixed the distortion issue with it… any nay sayers of this lens would move it truly into the category of “no need to buy the SR Summilux” category

All voigtlander lenses can replace, and are in same way better than leica lenses when you consider all factors (size / rendering / price / availability, etc), especially since some of them are literal recreations of old leica designs. That’s great to me that we can have both options, people who want to have a Leica-made replica, will get the SR reissue or the original (or the pre-asph v2 lux), people who don’t want / care about having Leica lenses, have voigtlander f1.4 as an option, and many others (such as the great LLL replica of the 8 elements, and other voigtlander lenses that even outperform the f1.4). It doesn’t have to be one or the other. 

Edited January 12, 2023 by shirubadanieru

[MarkP]

12 hours ago, Crem said:

@Fred Mirandathanks for all the info! I had a feeling the hood alignment issue was different between copies. I'll contact Leica and see what they say. My copy was very stiff when I first got it. It look a few thousand focus rotations (very rough guess), but it loosened up a lot and feels normal now. I'm curious if your aperture ring wobble is the same as mine. Here's a better video than my previous post.

 

Yes, my focus ring now feels normal after two weeks of daily use whilst travelling (initially a problem only when focusing to infinity with significantly increased force required only in that direction).

I have no complaints about the aperture ring.

Fred, I clearly don’t have the same gravitas as you with Leica as your email was referred to the Design Team 🙄.  My complaint about the hood was brushed off by Leica customer care by referring me to Leica Australia.  I sent a rather shitty reply suggesting they did not read my email and unless Leica Australia had been tasked with a hood re-design then please send it to someone who understood the problem. 
 

 

Edited January 13, 2023 by MarkP

[wattsy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

19 hours ago, Crem said:

 

Why build big vent holes and then not properly align them with the window? Did you look at my two photos? This seem like a manufacturing defect to me.

I did see the photos you posted. The hood blockage in either instance (and even were the hood not to have any vent holes) is minimal. It's not something that would bother me as I only use framelines semiconsciously (I always visualise the photo I'm about to take before I lift the camera to my eye). The framelines are a rough guide for me and I don't really notice any "viewfinder blockage" unless it is particularly egregious like you get with a lens like the F0.95 Noctilux.

Edited January 13, 2023 by wattsy

[hdmesa]

8 hours ago, wattsy said:

I did see the photos you posted. The hood blockage in either instance (and even were the hood not to have any vent holes) is minimal. It's not something that would bother me as I only use framelines semiconsciously (I always visualise the photo I'm about to take before I lift the camera to my eye). The framelines are a rough guide for me and I don't really notice any "viewfinder blockage" unless it is particularly egregious like you get with a lens like the F0.95 Noctilux.

Not sure if you're being intentionally difficult for no reason here. The hood vents clearly provide additional relief from blockage when aligned properly.

[wattsy]

1 hour ago, hdmesa said:

Not sure if you're being intentionally difficult for no reason here. The hood vents clearly provide additional relief from blockage when aligned properly.

No, I'm not being "intentionally difficult for no reason". I'm just suggesting that the "additional relief" is of little consequence for such a minimally intrusive viewfinder. I understand the complaint – I just don't think it merits much attention. I'm sure Leica will supply a replacement hood if @Crem asks for one. Alternatively, he or she could send it in for service and let Leica fiddle around with it. 

[hdmesa]

3 hours ago, wattsy said:

No, I'm not being "intentionally difficult for no reason". I'm just suggesting that the "additional relief" is of little consequence for such a minimally intrusive viewfinder. I understand the complaint – I just don't think it merits much attention. I'm sure Leica will supply a replacement hood if @Crem asks for one. Alternatively, he or she could send it in for service and let Leica fiddle around with it. 

I can understand a cheap filter from China not threading-up correctly on the lens, but not from Leica.

But this just illustrates what's wrong with using a screw-in hood for/on a high-end lens. The results are inconsistent. If it lined up right on the lens, the odds of it lining up right on any given filter are a crapshoot.

[Crem]

34 minutes ago, hdmesa said:

I can understand a cheap filter from China not threading-up correctly on the lens, but not from Leica.

But this just illustrates what's wrong with using a screw-in hood for/on a high-end lens. The results are inconsistent. If it lined up right on the lens, the odds of it lining up right on any given filter are a crapshoot.

Exactly this. Quality control is a well understood problem. So is the science of manufacturing threads. This all boils down to the thread tapping being left to random chance instead of a set standard. They are making thousands of these hoods/lenses. Somebody simply forgot to tell (and then check) the person doing it to align them correctly. Both myself and @Fred Miranda have experienced this problem on two copies. Fred also has used a second copy that doesn't have this problem. I'm not a fan of screw in hoods, but at minimum if they are going to make a hood that isn't compatible with filters... at least line the thing up correctly. I've currently got the $8 Ebay hood (thanks Fred!) on order so I can avoid flare with my lens and use filters. I won't care if it doesn't line up... because at least I will be able to use a yellow filter and not have to crop. 😂

Edited January 13, 2023 by Crem

[grahamc]

Hello, sorry to go back over old info here but are we now sure the reissue is brass? I can't remember the conclusion of the chat on that .  

Great if so, but 200g seems light for a brass lens.  35:2v4 is 250g in silver chrome over brass, and 35:1.4 v2 titan over brass is similar (mine 243g)

Edited January 14, 2023 by grahamc

[wattsy]

14 hours ago, hdmesa said:

But this just illustrates what's wrong with using a screw-in hood for/on a high-end lens. The results are inconsistent. If it lined up right on the lens, the odds of it lining up right on any given filter are a crapshoot.

I think Crem's problem is the other way around: the hood lines up incorrectly on the lens but lines up correctly when screwed into a filter (the latter causing some additional vignetting).🤣 I know I don't sound sympathetic with @Crem's plight but I do agree with you about screw-in hoods on Leica lenses. I guess I'm dismissive of the problem because I'm not impressed by the lens itself. When it was announced, I thought I was going to buy this lens (I've bought two of the other "reissues") but I'm singularly unimpressed by everything I've seen from the steel rim so far. I know people talk about loving the look at F1.4, etc. but I think most are deluding themselves. A bit of extra vignetting and/or VF blockage seems like the least of the problems to me.

Edited January 14, 2023 by wattsy

[Crem]

5 hours ago, grahamc said:

Hello, sorry to go back over old info here but are we now sure the reissue is brass? I can't remember the conclusion of the chat on that .  

Great if so, but 200g seems light for a brass lens.  35:2v4 is 250g in silver chrome over brass, and 35:1.4 v2 titan over brass is similar (mine 243g)

I haven't seen anything conclusive. I can confirm I do see some brass when I look at it from the rear, but I don't know how to check the other components. The machining on this lens is very impressive. They clearly have some really good CNC machines producing these parts. I attached a couple photos of the rear of the lens and one of them shows some brass. Personally I suspect some of the outer parts of the lens are aluminum, but I don't know how to confirm.

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!

Edited January 14, 2023 by Crem

[RexGig0]

My level of desire for this re-issued Steel Rim Summilux was quite slow to start, then slow to build, gradually reached a high point, and, lately, has been diminishing. The asking prices for well-preserved pre-ASPH Summilux lenses had made the cost of a re-issue Steel Rim look relatively reasonable. I am thankful for the user reports and images that have been posted, here and at Fred Miranda’s forum. It would probably be better for me to look for a shooter-grade Summilux-M Version II, which is what I had in mind before the re-issued Steel Rim captured my attention. (Realistically, looking at my 2023 budget, I should probably opt for a Voigtlander Ultron, if I want a compact 35mm lens with an aperture wider than my Summaron 3.5cm f/3.5.)

Of course, I can be patient, and hope that a pre-owned re-issued Steel Rim eventually becomes available, when some serial lens collector trades his sample for the next big thing. I  might get a chance to handle and test-shoot such a pre-owned lens, at the nearby Houston Camera Exchange, or other high-end photo store that I might visit, someday. 

[hdmesa]

24 minutes ago, RexGig0 said:

My level of desire for this re-issued Steel Rim Summilux was quite slow to start, then slow to build, gradually reached a high point, and, lately, has been diminishing. The asking prices for well-preserved pre-ASPH Summilux lenses had made the cost of a re-issue Steel Rim look relatively reasonable. I am thankful for the user reports and images that have been posted, here and at Fred Miranda’s forum. It would probably be better for me to look for a shooter-grade Summilux-M Version II, which is what I had in mind before the re-issued Steel Rim captured my attention. (Realistically, looking at my 2023 budget, I should probably opt for a Voigtlander Ultron, if I want a compact 35mm lens with an aperture wider than my Summaron 3.5cm f/3.5.)

Of course, I can be patient, and hope that a pre-owned re-issued Steel Rim eventually becomes available, when some serial lens collector trades his sample for the next big thing. I  might get a chance to handle and test-shoot such a pre-owned lens, at the nearby Houston Camera Exchange, or other high-end photo store that I might visit, someday. 

If you want to save money with a Voigtlander, the 35 1.4 Nokton Classic II (SC) is extremely close to the 35 Lux pre-A v2. It has a bit more distortion and a little less glow. Even the size and ergonomics are nearly identical.

[Knipsknecht]

vor 1 Minute schrieb hdmesa:

If you want to save money with a Voigtlander, the 35 1.4 Nokton Classic II (SC) is extremely close to the 35 Lux pre-A v2. It has a bit more distortion and a little less glow. Even the size and ergonomics are nearly identical.

I can second this finding. I had the chance to compare the Nokton with a pre-asph Lux and for me personally the Nokton appears to be more usable on a daily basis. And, of course, it‘s a new lens that one can get for about 1/5th of the price of a 30 or more years old Lux.

[Fred Miranda]

31 minutes ago, hdmesa said:

If you want to save money with a Voigtlander, the 35 1.4 Nokton Classic II (SC) is extremely close to the 35 Lux pre-A v2. It has a bit more distortion and a little less glow. Even the size and ergonomics are nearly identical.

I'd say the Voigtlander can't quite match the Leica 35/1.4 pre-asph's 'glow' intensity. For some, it will be a more practical lens wide open but for many others, the Leica still produces unique images even though their overall draw is quite similar. This also includes the reissued SR which pretty much matches the contrast of the Voigtlander 35/1.4 II SC.

Here is a quick side by side comparison:

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1779165/3#16091647

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1779165/4#16091662

I shoot with both lenses and prefer the Leica in most situations. After testing many copies of both lenses, I concluded that the Voigtlander is not quite as sharp as the Leica off-axis (away from center) even stopped down. The new SR is sharp across the field including the very corners starting at f/5.6.

Edited January 14, 2023 by Fred Miranda

[hdmesa]

1 hour ago, Fred Miranda said:

I'd say the Voigtlander can't quite match the Leica 35/1.4 pre-asph's 'glow' intensity. For some, it will be a more practical lens wide open but for many others, the Leica still produces unique images even though their overall draw is quite similar. This also includes the reissued SR which pretty much matches the contrast of the Voigtlander 35/1.4 II SC.

Here is a quick side by side comparison:

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1779165/3#16091647

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1779165/4#16091662

I shoot with both lenses and prefer the Leica in most situations. After testing many copies of both lenses, I concluded that the Voigtlander is not quite as sharp as the Leica off-axis (away from center) even stopped down. The new SR is sharp across the field including the very corners starting at f/5.6.

Yes, I mentioned it has less glow. The CV has much less flaring, too, right? At least that's what I remember from the short time I spent with the CV.

Does your SR have more glow wide open than your Pre-ASPH v2? The samples I've seen with the SR at 1.4 seem to look that way.

Has Leica said if the SR reissue is single or multicoated?

Edited January 14, 2023 by hdmesa

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[RexGig0]

2 hours ago, hdmesa said:

If you want to save money with a Voigtlander, the 35 1.4 Nokton Classic II (SC) is extremely close to the 35 Lux pre-A v2. It has a bit more distortion and a little less glow. Even the size and ergonomics are nearly identical.

True. Thanks. I did have low-distortion in mind, when mentioning the Ultron. The Nokton Classic 35/1.4 is, indeed, the closer to the pre-ASPH Summilux, but, with more barrel distortion. Not that a bit of barrel distortion is, necessarily, a bad thing, of course, especially for such subjects as children. A child, especially at close range, appears normal, with a bit of barrel distortion. One could use an Ultron for street shots, with architectural backgrounds, and a Nokton f/1.4 for times when one’s grandsons fill the frame, plus, a Nokton f/1.5 for whatever bokeh magic it has, and, finally, a Lanthar APO for when everything has to be “perfect.” Four 35mm VM lenses cover it all. 😉 Analysis paralysis is my bank account’s friend.