Jump to content

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


eyeheartny

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Not that I have a lux, I opted from a Cron instead in the past, but it's understandable that any owner of a lux or any  Leica lens for that matter would be upset if an issue came up upon purchase. Particularly more now given the prices.  Shouldn't they make it standard to test in store prior purchase to check to see it's properly calibrated than the owner to find disappointment themselves at home and struggle to to organise repair. The onus should be on Leica to ensure the product is at reasonable expected customer standard of satisfaction upon sale right? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The onus is on Leica to deliver gear complying with specs but the onus is on users to know if they want the same for real world photography or for shooting rulers. If rulers is what imports the most for them, they might wish to forget things subject to inaccuracy like rangefinders. Nothing personal :cool:.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had my 50 Lux-Asph since 2010, purchased new after going through two copies. Has been spot-on wide open with all the M cameras I have purchased since, including M9 (x2), M9-Monochrom, M10 (x2) and now the M10-R and M10-Monochrom where I have settled for the next decade or so. Seems once you get a good one, you're set for life provided the M RF is well calibrated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, lct said:

The onus is on Leica to deliver gear complying with specs but the onus is on users to know if they want the same for real world photography or for shooting rulers. If rulers is what imports the most for them, they might wish to forget things subject to inaccuracy like rangefinders. Nothing personal :cool:.

This has nothing to do with shooting rulers. Focus should be the same in one position on the ring. The issue is that it seems to behave different depending if your focussing from close to infinity or infinity to close. 2 meter is 2 meter, that is why we have marks on the barrel. I am german, I have authority here 😀. Unless I misunderstood this 

Best

JK

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Jk1002 said:

This has nothing to do with shooting rulers. Focus should be the same in one position on the ring. The issue is that it seems to behave different depending if your focussing from close to infinity or infinity to close. 2 meter is 2 meter, that is why we have marks on the barrel.

I was reacting to a post referring to the onus of proof but does the lens behave differently on rulers or in real world photography? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 11/17/2022 at 12:16 AM, eyeheartny said:

As part of the ongoing, intensely frustrating dialogue with them, a technician reported to the tech service manager, who reported to me, that "wide open the 50mm Summilux ASPH was designed to front focus, so it will never be fully accurate at 1.4 because then it would not accurately focus at narrower apertures."

I've heard that the pre-ASPH Summilux was designed this way, so if you wanted to minimize back focusing when stopped down, you had to calibrate to f/2.0 and accept some front focusing at f/1.4. On the ASPH version though, I have never experienced anything like this. I've had several copies and they've always been spot on at f/1.4, and I haven't seen any focus shift when stopping down.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 minutes ago, evikne said:

I've heard that the pre-ASPH Summilux was designed this way, so if you wanted to minimize back focusing when stopped down, you had to calibrate to f/2.0 and accept some front focusing at f/1.4. On the ASPH version though, I have never experienced anything like this. I've had several copies and they've always been spot on at f/1.4, and I haven't seen any focus shift when stopping down.

+1 but i have never got this issue with the 50/1.4 v3 either. v2 perhaps but i don't remember.

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, lct said:

The onus is on Leica to deliver gear complying with specs but the onus is on users to know if they want the same for real world photography or for shooting rulers. If rulers is what imports the most for them, they might wish to forget things subject to inaccuracy like rangefinders. Nothing personal :cool:.

You keep coming into this thread and posting this. It's not helpful. I did not set out to shoot rulers. I had a bunch of pictures ruined on a trip because of this issue. I bought the focus target to help narrow down what was going on and provide me and Leica a reliable way to see the focus behavior. You are arguing as if I am enjoying this or looking for problems. My expensive camera and lens are not performing adequately. Do you think I enjoy photographing rulers on my dining table? I can assure you I do not, but it is the only way to get a reliable sense of whether this equipment is working appropriately. I have no idea why you persist in making this argument, but I guess it makes you feel better about yourself to be critical of someone who's having a disappointing experience as a new Leica user. Good luck to you, and please don't post this same garbage in this thread again. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, lct said:

I was reacting to a post referring to the onus of proof but does the lens behave differently on rulers or in real world photography? 

BOTH. That's the WHOLE POINT. A ruler shows you how the lens behaves in real world photography. Would you be okay with front focus of 2.5 inches at 5 feet and getting worse as distance increases? How would you propose to show Leica that there is an issue if you don't have empirical evidence using a ruler? This is just the stupidest argument you're making, it's beyond embarrassing to see you beat this dead horse. Take this somewhere else please. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, eyeheartny said:

Would you be okay with front focus of 2.5 inches at 5 feet and getting worse as distance increases? How would you propose to show Leica that there is an issue if you don't have empirical evidence using a ruler?

By a real world test of course. I'm not sure to comprehend your rant against me. Last time it happened to me i sent pics like this to Leica. Now it's up to you of course...

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, evikne said:

I've heard that the pre-ASPH Summilux was designed this way, so if you wanted to minimize back focusing when stopped down, you had to calibrate to f/2.0 and accept some front focusing at f/1.4. On the ASPH version though, I have never experienced anything like this. I've had several copies and they've always been spot on at f/1.4, and I haven't seen any focus shift when stopping down.

The known one with this issue is 35mm lux ASPH.  50 lux ASPH is one of the best

Link to post
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, lct said:

By a real world test of course. I'm not sure to comprehend your rant against me. Last time it happened to me i sent pics like this to Leica. Now it's up to you of course...

 

"Real world" tests are not repeatable. They are not consistent. You have posted in this thread three times with the same comment with sarcasm about posting ruler pictures. You think you are making a clever joke that is also a criticism of me. There's no interest on your side about understanding why someone would use a focus target. So you are not here to learn and you're not here to help. You're here to try to score points and be mean, because it makes you feel better to try to criticize me. It's pathetic and obnoxious. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, lct said:

By a real world test of course. I'm not sure to comprehend your rant against me. Last time it happened to me i sent pics like this to Leica. Now it's up to you of course...

lct, was this shot wide open?

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, eyeheartny said:

"Real world" tests are not repeatable. They are not consistent. You have posted in this thread three times with the same comment with sarcasm about posting ruler pictures. You think you are making a clever joke that is also a criticism of me. There's no interest on your side about understanding why someone would use a focus target. So you are not here to learn and you're not here to help. You're here to try to score points and be mean, because it makes you feel better to try to criticize me. It's pathetic and obnoxious. 

I'm not sure to have replied to you in this thread. I prefer not to answer so as not to aggravate things unnecessarily.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Latest from Leica on what they did: 

 

Quote

Basically, the only things being retained from your original camera are the rear panel, base plate and top plate. You are getting a newer main(internal) body, front panel, sensor, shutter, rangefinder, etc.. This is not contradictory we just use different terminology than perhaps you’re envisioning. The reason the technician did this is because the accuracy of the rangefinder unit itself cannot easily be measured prior to being installed on the main body. We have a series of bodies we keep in stock to swap components from as needed. Our technician examined three different bodies and found the one he used to be the most accurate. The variance between them is miniscule but we wanted to make sure to give you the best possible. Your original rangefinder was still within service’s tolerance, but he said it was at the limit of that tolerance. In combination with the slight focusing issue present in the lens as well, which he’s since adjusted/rectified, it made for a combination that was not ideal.

 

Edited by eyeheartny
Link to post
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, eyeheartny said:

Latest from Leica on what they did: 

 

 

Sounds like they are admitting your original camera was a bit dodgy...You're at the point now where you need to get the "repair" back and try it out. Hopefully, the situation will be resolved in a positive manner.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

So they're admittedly saying 0.5" was within allowable service tolerance from factory? or they're trying to save face. Is this for the just for the lux or differs from one lens to another? At least it justified the OPs testing. Hope it gets sorted soon

All the best

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, cboy said:

So they're admittedly saying 0.5" was within allowable service tolerance from factory? or they're trying to save face. Is this for the just for the lux or differs from one lens to another? At least it justified the OPs testing. Hope it gets sorted soon

All the best

They tried to claim that. I told them that was ludicrous and unacceptable. I asked for a specific linear distance focus error that they considered allowable, the service manager indicated they’d ask the tech, and they failed to provide an answer. That line of discussion was happening around the time they decided to rip out and replace the entire guts of the camera. They’re now claiming the rangefinder focuses accurately with the 50 Lux wide open after both the lens and body were worked on. I’ll have my gear back on Monday and will test again with a ruler (bring on the haters, I don’t care) so I can validate that everything works as expected. If not, it’ll go back and I’ll be demanding a replacement of both the body and lens.
 

The level of incompetence, chaos, outright lies, and attempts to put the blame on me are stunning. At one point the service manager indicated that if I wanted focus accuracy below 0.5” I’d be better off using Live View or the EVF, or using a different lens that didn’t have such narrow depth of field. It was shocking. Either these people are totally incompetent, or they know the equipment is faulty on a broad level, or they are comfortable lying, but the overall picture I have of Leica is terribly diminished after this experience.

 

If things don’t work out smoothly I’ll be done—owning an M has been a decade-plus goal and dream and Leica themselves have tarnished that almost immediately. Every negative thing I have heard (inconsistent quality control, finicky cameras that need regular calibration, incompetent repair service) has proven to be true. I had convinced myself that those things weren’t major concerns and they absolutely are. I am bearish with respect to Leica’s future if this is the level of quality management they put in place. Combined with the problems with the new 35 Lux (aperture blades falling off their pins and an indefinite pause on production) it’s very clear there is something very wrong at Leica. Right now I completely regret my purchase. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...