"The 50mm Summilux ASPH was Designed to Front Focus" <-- Leica NJ Technician. Thoughts?

[hmzimelka]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Perhaps I'm one of a handful that have the opinion that just because Leica says it's in tolerance doesn't mean it's good enough. I don't see them as the god like entity that others seem to regard them as. 

I mean, my M3 shows significantly smaller focus error with my 75mm Nokton than my M11 and the other M11 I tried. My M3 has a tiny back focus when pulling focus from close focus, on a subject at around 2m, My M11 is at around 8cm!!! And that focus was done with a magnifier too, and I repeated it ad nauseam and every result was consistently the same.   

Does a camera from 1955 that has had a lot of use up until around 2002 have better mechanical rangefinder mechanism with finer tolerances than a 2022 Leica M11 with all of today's technology?

Edited November 23, 2022 by hmzimelka

[Advertisement]

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

[cboy]

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!

Didn't realise how little depth of field there is @1.4 which is 0.015m as per manual.

But in any case where one focuses to  should be sharp at the plane of focus no matter the dof

Edited November 23, 2022 by cboy

[lct]

3 hours ago, hmzimelka said:

[...] Does a camera from 1955 that has had a lot of use up until around 2002 have better mechanical rangefinder mechanism with finer tolerances than a 2022 Leica M11 with all of today's technology?

I have not my M3 on hand but i don't see significant differences between my M11 and M240 re focusing the Summilux 50/1.4 asph. Both are spot on at f/1.4 and don't show focus shift on real world tests.

[hmzimelka]

17 minutes ago, lct said:

I have not my M3 on hand but i don't see significant differences between my M11 and M240 re focusing the Summilux 50/1.4 asph. Both are spot on at f/1.4 and don't show focus shift on real world tests.

It doesn't seem you read or understood my post you're replying/quoting...

I'm questioning the degree of back focus when pulling focus from MFD, as well as the visible lag of the rangefinder patch when changing lens focus direction. My M3 has NO detectable lag, and my M11 and another new M11 I tried, does. My M3 doesn't back focus as far as my M11 does when pulling focus from MFD.

[lct]

1 minute ago, hmzimelka said:

I'm questioning the degree of back focus when pulling focus from MFD [...]

I never do this. Too slow for me. When i grab any lens with focus tab i always put my index finger on the tab to begin with so i start focusing somewhere between MFD and infinity. 

[hmzimelka]

16 minutes ago, lct said:

I never do this. Too slow for me. When i grab any lens with focus tab i always put my index finger on the tab to begin with so i start focusing somewhere between MFD and infinity. 

The lens need not be at MFD... simply the direction of focus (closer to further) that will lead to the back focus, no matter if started at MFD, or in the middle of the len's focus throw. If the focusing is in the direction towards infinity, it leads to back focus.

[nikrasov]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Some thoughts... I noticed that on my Summilux 50 ASPH. due to mounts on lens and camera are not precisely match there are special springs in the lens mount to press the lens to the camera. But if you touch the lens (it is long and heavy enough) or even focusing tab there is some invisible play causing focusing patch shifts slightly. This shifts could cause focus inaccuracies.

I can see this shifts at infinity - some vertical target at infinity moves left-right when touching the lens in vertical direction.

[lct]

1 hour ago, hmzimelka said:

The lens need not be at MFD... simply the direction of focus (closer to further) that will lead to the back focus, no matter if started at MFD, or in the middle of the len's focus throw. If the focusing is in the direction towards infinity, it leads to back focus.

Seems like you're generalizing individual issues here with respect. My 50/1.4 asph from 2004 doesn't suffer from back focus whatever direction i may turn the focus ring. Only focus problem i got with this lens was a stiff focus ring but Leica fixed it in 2015 and since then i've used the lens with no problem on M8.2, R-D1, M240 and M11, let alone mirrorless cameras.

[charlesphoto99]

On 11/22/2022 at 3:57 AM, jaapv said:

As far as Leica M memory reaches, it has always been the technique for optimal focus to go down from infinity. The other way will be slightly inaccurate due to unavoidable mechanical tolerances in the mechanism. Your lens is calibrated perfectly if focus is spot-on from infinity. Always return it to infinity for the next shot. Hunting focus will result in focus errors on a rangefinder. 
Thank you for highlighting this half-forgotten fact. 

I'm sorry, but in thirty years of using M's I've never heard of nor practiced this. It's a ridiculous proposition imo - just think about how many great shots the classic M photographers would have missed if they were always having to go back to infinity before focusing and grabbing the shot. It's that lens that is/can be the problem, one reason that even though I've always lusted after one, I've hesitated. 

[oldwino]

9 hours ago, hmzimelka said:

Perhaps I'm one of a handful that have the opinion that just because Leica says it's in tolerance doesn't mean it's good enough. I don't see them as the god like entity that others seem to regard them as. 

I mean, my M3 shows significantly smaller focus error with my 75mm Nokton than my M11 and the other M11 I tried. My M3 has a tiny back focus when pulling focus from close focus, on a subject at around 2m, My M11 is at around 8cm!!! And that focus was done with a magnifier too, and I repeated it ad nauseam and every result was consistently the same.   

Does a camera from 1955 that has had a lot of use up until around 2002 have better mechanical rangefinder mechanism with finer tolerances than a 2022 Leica M11 with all of today's technology?

Every digital M I have owned (2x M9 series, 3x M240 series) has had to have the rangefinder adjusted upon purchase. I have no idea if the mechanism is less robust now, or if digital makes the fine-tuning more critical (probably this), but that is my experience. Maybe I've had bad luck. I have not owned or used the M10 or M11. 

Besides one M2 that I bought knowing the rangefinder was way out (got a good price), every film M that I have owned over the years (M2/2xM4/M5/M6/M7) has never need periodic adjustment. Again, I realize film is more forgiving. Or, maybe I've just been lucky.

[jaapv]

3 hours ago, charlesphoto99 said:

I'm sorry, but in thirty years of using M's I've never heard of nor practiced this. It's a ridiculous proposition imo - just think about how many great shots the classic M photographers would have missed if they were always having to go back to infinity before focusing and grabbing the shot. It's that lens that is/can be the problem, one reason that even though I've always lusted after one, I've hesitated. 

You should have read this forum - over the years there a dozens of posts mentioning this technique... Those great shots were mostly on film BTW, which is less critical and many of them are not pixel-peeping sharp either. 

[jaapv]

5 hours ago, hmzimelka said:

The lens need not be at MFD... simply the direction of focus (closer to further) that will lead to the back focus, no matter if started at MFD, or in the middle of the len's focus throw. If the focusing is in the direction towards infinity, it leads to back focus.

Precisely.

[eyeheartny]

5 hours ago, charlesphoto99 said:

I'm sorry, but in thirty years of using M's I've never heard of nor practiced this. It's a ridiculous proposition imo - just think about how many great shots the classic M photographers would have missed if they were always having to go back to infinity before focusing and grabbing the shot. It's that lens that is/can be the problem, one reason that even though I've always lusted after one, I've hesitated. 

It is entirely ridiculous. And if it is the lens, I'll be parting ways with it. The output can be gorgeous with it but if the design is so finicky that it can't be made to work consistently in both directions it's not for me. And the M system as a whole may not be, based on this experience. 

[lct]

7 hours ago, charlesphoto99 said:

I'm sorry, but in thirty years of using M's I've never heard of nor practiced this. It's a ridiculous proposition imo - just think about how many great shots the classic M photographers would have missed if they were always having to go back to infinity before focusing and grabbing the shot. It's that lens that is/can be the problem, one reason that even though I've always lusted after one, I've hesitated. 

I'm aware of this direction thing since half a century perhaps but i never cared about it i must say. The mere idea to have to focus from infinity or MFD would have put me off rangefinders for ever. Now, and this is perhaps a difference between an oldie like me and some new comers to RF photography, i don't mistake cameras for measure instruments. A rangefinder, at least an optical one, is by nature inaccurate in that its accuracy is limited depending on factors like aperture, focal length, visual acuity and circle of confusion. For better accuracy in the RF world there are laser rangefinders like Leica Disto. 

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!

[Jeff S]

2 hours ago, eyeheartny said:

 And the M system as a whole may not be, based on this experience. 

Maybe not; not everyone bonds with the RF experience.  I did immediately, from my first  M in the 80’s, continuing to this day, even while owning 11 other brands, and multiple formats, along the way. I love it for what it is, and accept it for what it’s not, and don’t mind spending loads of cash for the former. Ultimate precision is not among its many attributes. A very slight mis-focus, or framing, has never prompted a negative comment from any of my print viewers, or caused me to lose sleep, provided the pic/print has been worthy. Others will certainly have different equipment needs and preferences.

As noted earlier, if I bought a new M camera or lens (always from a reputable Leica dealer) that had significant performance concerns, I would ask for an immediate replacement or refund. Otherwise I’d deal with minor service, whether DAG or Leica Germany. If I found that I needed to focus from one direction for better precision (I typically focus toward MFD from infinity, but not fanatic about it), then that’s what I’d do. Like the old joke … patient says, “Doc, it hurts when I do this.”  And doc replies, “So don’t do that.”  

Of course, someone with different requirements or expectations might find this unacceptable and choose other tools.  The SL2 system serves those complementary needs for me.

Jeff

[grahamc]

11 hours ago, jaapv said:

Precisely.

or, not precisely  🤭

[jaapv]

19 hours ago, eyeheartny said:

It is entirely ridiculous. And if it is the lens, I'll be parting ways with it. The output can be gorgeous with it but if the design is so finicky that it can't be made to work consistently in both directions it's not for me. And the M system as a whole may not be, based on this experience. 

It is not the lens, it is the rangefinder mechanism and there is nothing ridiculous about the realities of mechanical designs. The only thing that the lens contributes is a razor-thin DOF wide open which allows you to see the phenomenon. I agree that the M system may not fit you. It is a digital reincarnation of a 1954 camera design, with all the limitations that this implies. If you want present-technology and photographic experience you probably should look elsewhere. 

[insomnia]

I have not noticed the issue with my M10 and the 50/1.4 ASPH, but when I tried a 90 and miserably failed due to varying results if I’ve come from MFD or infinity. Happy SL2-s user now. If financially possible I would have kept the M10 for the 50, it's a dream combination, but the rangefinder has its limitations.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[insomnia]

By the way, it's ridiculous in real live shooting of moving objects to strictly move down from the infinity side. If you shoot trees you might be able to get away with it though, otherwise it's just something of an iterative, dynamic process. I would still always move my lens to the infinity stop, just to know my starting point, even with a focus tab lens.

[darylgo]

The Leica M rangefinder is consistent, it is consistently in the center of the viewfinder, it is consistent once calibrated on each body to give the same distance on a lens when focused, it is consistently bright.  I can’t say that about AF systems, they have their advantages but they choose their focus points inconsistently.  I spend more time getting the autofocus system to focus where I want than manually focusing a lens.  Systems like the S with one point of focus are often misfocused more than my rangefinder M’s.  If  the rangefinder has limitations the Visoflex is there to back me up.