Leica Summicron-SL 35 f/2 ASPH VS NON APO for SL3

[eab]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I was wondering how/why the Panasonic 35 is advertised with an aperture of f1.8 and the Leica at f2.0.  Same number of elements, slight difference in diameter.  

I purchased the Sigma 35 f2 but thinking I should have bought the Leica.  

Edited June 20, 2024 by eab

[Advertisement]

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

[pf4eva]

4 hours ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

What factual data, exactly, points to the opposite?

Lens optically is the same as Panasonic, I didn't have disassembled ASPH yet, but I'm pretty sure motors and electronics is the same as in Panasonic. If you have info on that - please share.

4 hours ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

The lens is engraved *made in Portugal*. So you think:

1. Leica is lying.

2. Leica is in breach of EU, Portuguese and German law regarding the labelling of products produced for the EU market which includes specific percentages related to manufacture as well as assembly. OK then…

1. I didn't say Leica is lying. All I'm saying without actual confirmation we cannot say what is being "made in Portugal". Is it assembly or just re-packaging.
2. Would you share the law when it specifies what %? It is a well known fact that some products not really made in Germany for example sold with "made in Germany" label on them. Here is an example from a watch world:

https://www.watchuseek.com/threads/how-can-laco-claim-made-in-germany.840287/
https://www.watchuseek.com/threads/made-in-germany-a-re-post.4166/

 

[pf4eva]

1 hour ago, eab said:

I was wondering how/why the Panasonic 35 is advertised with an aperture of f1.8 and the Leica at f2.0.  Same number of elements, slight difference in diameter.  

I purchased the Sigma 35 f2 but thinking I should have bought the Leica.  

It is labeled 2.0 to qualify under existing Leica lens lineup - summicron. It is exactly the same lens

I haven't seen/tried 35 dg dn, but 50 dg dn is significantly sharper than Panaleica ASPH

[BernardC]

3 hours ago, pf4eva said:

I didn't say Leica is lying. All I'm saying without actual confirmation we cannot say what is being "made in Portugal". Is it assembly or just re-packaging.

3 hours ago, pf4eva said:

It is labeled 2.0 to qualify under existing Leica lens lineup - summicron. It is exactly the same lens

There's a whole lot of speculation going on here! Why would we take the word of a Youtuber who doesn't have any special insight?

I don't know what "actual confirmation" means, but it's not something that we are likely to experience from any camera brand. Does Nikon officially acknowledge which of their lenses are made by Tamron, or by others?

The whole controversy is pointless. Some people think that Leicas should only be made by elves in Germany, using in-house components and home-grown knowledge. Maybe that was the case 100 years ago (except for the glass itself, which they purchased), but not 90 years ago, and not since.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

8 hours ago, eab said:

I was wondering how/why the Panasonic 35 is advertised with an aperture of f1.8 and the Leica at f2.0.  Same number of elements, slight difference in diameter.  

I purchased the Sigma 35 f2 but thinking I should have bought the Leica.  

There are a few ways Leica could do this while sharing a design. Could have added a shroud in the lens as a mask. Most likely is the aperture blades are always visible (stopped down to f2). Hasselblad did this on the XCD lenses until people complained and they opened them up. Gained about 1/10th of a stop.That’s my guess. Could be slight transmission differences in the glass. I was told by a Leica employee that they grind their own elements in Portugal, so maybe there’s some different glass involved? Impossible to say. Leica could even be supplying Panasonic with some optical units as part of the shared design?? Likely we’ll never find out. So we may as well speculate.

The Sigma DGDN *i* primes are excellent. I don’t have the 35. Just the 20, 24, 50 and 90. My Leica non APO and the SIgma feel about the same, sharpness wise. I don’t have the Panasonic version. The Leica is fully weather sealed. The Sigma has an aperture ring and is smaller. So functional difference more than wild differences in performance.

Gordon

[pf4eva]

33 minutes ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

There are a few ways Leica could do this while sharing a design. Could have added a shroud in the lens as a mask. Most likely is the aperture blades are always visible (stopped down to f2). Hasselblad did this on the XCD lenses until people complained and they opened them up. Gained about 1/10th of a stop.That’s my guess. Could be slight transmission differences in the glass. I was told by a Leica employee that they grind their own elements in Portugal, so maybe there’s some different glass involved? Impossible to say. Leica could even be supplying Panasonic with some optical units as part of the shared design?? Likely we’ll never find out. So we may as well speculate.

The Sigma DGDN *i* primes are excellent. I don’t have the 35. Just the 20, 24, 50 and 90. My Leica non APO and the SIgma feel about the same, sharpness wise. I don’t have the Panasonic version. The Leica is fully weather sealed. The Sigma has an aperture ring and is smaller. So functional difference more than wild differences in performance.

Gordon

You can take those two lenses and test yourself. Light transmission is identical. The only explanation i have is that they did it to fit existing lens lineup. 

[pf4eva]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

4 hours ago, BernardC said:

There's a whole lot of speculation going on here! Why would we take the word of a Youtuber who doesn't have any special insight?

I don't know what "actual confirmation" means, but it's not something that we are likely to experience from any camera brand. Does Nikon officially acknowledge which of their lenses are made by Tamron, or by others?

The whole controversy is pointless. Some people think that Leicas should only be made by elves in Germany, using in-house components and home-grown knowledge. Maybe that was the case 100 years ago (except for the glass itself, which they purchased), but not 90 years ago, and not since.

You don't need to believe anyone, just take both lenses and test them. They are absolutely identical optically. 
By actual confirmation, I mean someone saw, took photos from factory or got a statement to what degree those lenses are "made in Portugal". 

Would be nice to see someone like lens rentals disassembled and tested both.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

2 minutes ago, pf4eva said:

You can take those two lenses and test yourself. Light transmission is identical. The only explanation i have is that they did it to fit existing lens lineup. 

Transmission and aperture are not the same thing. Aperture doesn’t take into account losses of transmission from physical restraints such as different glass types, etc. While aperture affects transmission it’s not the only thing that affects transmission.

Your explanation is possible but not exclusively correct. It may also be the Panasonic fudge to get 1.8. Or both. Or neither.

I take it, you have both lenses and have tested transmission?

Gordon

[pf4eva]

30 minutes ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

Transmission and aperture are not the same thing. Aperture doesn’t take into account losses of transmission from physical restraints such as different glass types, etc. While aperture affects transmission it’s not the only thing that affects transmission.

Your explanation is possible but not exclusively correct. It may also be the Panasonic fudge to get 1.8. Or both. Or neither.

I take it, you have both lenses and have tested transmission?

Gordon

Yes, I rented both and tested. I suggest doing the same if really interested. I didn't disassemble them, however.

I tested light transmission, sharpness, flare, AF speed, colour, CA, bokeh - everything was identical, however I don't have scientific tools to say it 100%, but from photography application POW they are the same. 

It is possible, in theory, that Leica has better sample variation, I don't own a store to confirm or deny it. Leica lens has much better quality outer shell, obviously.

 

[Kristofferpaulsen]

i used my 35 ASPH the other day, and as always i was so stoked with the results. Seriously guys, just get what you can afford and go and make work, that's all that matters.

 

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!

[BernardC]

13 hours ago, pf4eva said:

By actual confirmation, I mean someone saw, took photos from factory or got a statement to what degree those lenses are "made in Portugal". 

Would be nice to see someone like lens rentals disassembled and tested both.

What do you hope to learn by taking the lenses apart, exactly? We already know that they use the same motors/actuators/PCBs, and that they have similar optical configurations. Do you think you'll be able to tell where an element was ground, or to what specification? Can you tell, by eye, how many microns of deviance there is from that specification? Can you examine the PCB to see the firmware?

My guess is that Leica uses Panasonic components, adds some of their own, grinds some elements (as has been reported), and assembles the lenses (in Portugal). Not much of a scandal there, unfortunately.

You can download optical tests from Panasonic and Leica's respective web sites. They will tell you all that you need to know: the lenses have similar performance in the centre, but the Leica ASPH are stronger in the periphery. Both sets of lenses are extremely good, so the performance delta might not be something that you need, want, or even notice. You almost certainly wouldn't at web resolutions, but it could make/break an image at large magnification. And that's not even taking aesthetics into consideration: you might want your images softer in the corners!

 

By the way, aperture isn't written in stone. There's a tolerance, and there's also more than one way to calculate it. There are also reasons why optical designers might mechanically limit maximum aperture (all "fixed aperture" zooms do this, for instance).

Story from my university days: one of the members of the student darkroom had a Leica kit and an SLR kit (Nikon, I think). He also did some paid work: portfolios, etc. He compared his two kits in a controlled environment: studio with good strobes (Speedotron), same aperture, same film from the same batch, processed together in the same tank. He even used the same shutter speed, even though ambient lighting was several stops below the strobes. The Leica shots were consistently half a stop brighter. Feel free to draw your own conclusions.

[EDN]

On 4/24/2024 at 1:12 PM, Dr. G said:

You just need to look at RAW files.  Here are two photos that show the detail and subject separation the APO 35 has.  Not the most artistic shots, and they’re downsized to 2048 on the long edge, but hopefully you can see what I’m talking about.  Make sure you click on them to view them as best as possible.

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!

What I see is a very sharp foreground and a very soft background with no transition between them. It looks like the music instrument is suspended in the air, almost as if if has  been added on the picture via Photoshop. Because of the blurry table maybe? The lens is excellent at what it does but the picture looks a bit unnatural to me... My point is that this extremely quick transition between sharp and blurry zone with this strong contrast gives a result that may not always look very natural.

[ibramr]

At the risk of coming across to the erudite Forum Members in this thread as flippant, here is how I address the main question, the 35mm APO vs Non-APO.  My answer is, time is of the essence and the main determining factor, followed by your ability to carry the lens around comfortably, and lastly your finances.  I am seventy years old and keen to have the best technically (the APO), can still carry it, but this ability is diminishing very rapidly (still the APO but happy to know that a lighter option exist), and so far can afford it (still the APO but, again, happy to know that a competent cheaper option exists).   Of course, your logic might differ and other factors can change the outcome (e.g., carrying more than one lens, hence, the weight factor pops up again).  But going back to the main point, “time”, it is important enjoy in good health whatever lens you pick.  And, here is a good sample of the APO output for your opinion.  Regards. 

Edited June 21, 2024 by ibramr

[pf4eva]

6 hours ago, BernardC said:

We already know that they use the same motors/actuators/PCBs

Do we? Please share the link where it is confirmed.

6 hours ago, BernardC said:

they have similar optical configurations

Not similar, but identical, that part is actually being confirmed.

6 hours ago, BernardC said:

Do you think you'll be able to tell where an element was ground, or to what specification? Can you tell, by eye, how many microns of deviance there is from that specification? Can you examine the PCB to see the firmware?

There are other things to see, how lens is assembled internally, what casing is used to hold glass elements, there is a lot of stuff really apart from what you've mentioned. Yes, I do not have any scientific equipment to see compare glass itself ( this is work for other people), however, for example if element coating colour is different, this would indicate different coating.

 

7 hours ago, BernardC said:

My guess is that Leica uses Panasonic components, adds some of their own, grinds some elements (as has been reported), and assembles the lenses (in Portugal). Not much of a scandal there, unfortunately.

My guess is that Leica uses everything from Panasonic except external housing with some re-labling in a firmware. At best, they do assemble those lenses in PT, although I wouldn't be surprised if it is not the case. Many luxury brands in electronics are doing that, it is typical practice. They want to have low end product in the lineup and instead of design anything and manufacture, they take existing product from someone and re-lable it with visual modifications. All of this is pretty typical business practice and not really a scandal, fortunately

 

7 hours ago, BernardC said:

You can download optical tests from Panasonic and Leica's respective web sites. They will tell you all that you need to know: the lenses have similar performance in the centre, but the Leica ASPH are stronger in the periphery.

My understanding is that panasonic and leica MTF graphs are measured differently, so it is not really compared directly.

 

 

7 hours ago, BernardC said:

By the way, aperture isn't written in stone. There's a tolerance, and there's also more than one way to calculate it. There are also reasons why optical designers might mechanically limit maximum aperture (all "fixed aperture" zooms do this, for instance).

Of course, but in case of ASPH and panasonic it is identical, you can rent and compare yourself. Also if you compare ASPH to APO you'll see that APO a bit brighter lens, despite them being both 2.0
 

[Simone_DF]

Some Leica employees also claimed that the Q3 hand grip was Arca Swiss compatible, until it units were received and it was discovered that it was not compatible. 
So, unless there’s a written statement by Leica, I’d take the statement about in-house grinding with a big big grain of salt

[BernardC]

16 hours ago, pf4eva said:

Not similar, but identical, that part is actually being confirmed.

Really? So far we've only seen speculation by people who probably couldn't tell any two lenses apart. Perhaps we should put this conversation on hold until they come-up with the goods!

16 hours ago, pf4eva said:

My understanding is that panasonic and leica MTF graphs are measured differently, so it is not really compared directly.

Your understanding from what sources? Do they flip sagittal and tangential? Do they use a different definition of the millimetre? Does "percent" not mean the same thing in Japanese and German? Please explain.

I understand what you are trying to tell us, everybody does. There's always a strong compulsion to "prove" that something more expensive is really just a cheap thing in disguise (even though the ASPH lenses are not all that expensive). It doesn't matter if we are talking about lenses or sandwiches, there will always be someone to tell you that you overpaid. Even when you buy the cheapest, the same people will "inform" you that you could have paid even less if you were willing to put-up with more inconvenience (or stale bread!).

That's not something that you or I can change, it's just human nature. We all deal with this every day.

17 hours ago, pf4eva said:

At best, they do assemble those lenses in PT, although I wouldn't be surprised if it is not the case. Many luxury brands in electronics are doing that, it is typical practice.

This is a prime example of un-informed insinuation. Leica has never been shy about labeling a product as "Made in Japan," "Made in France", "Made in Portugal," "Made in Canada," even "Made in China" for some accessories. They put-out joint press releases explaining how they are sharing development and production of key components with Panasonic (search for "L2 Alliance" in your favourite search engine), and they arrange for tours of their Portugal factory and celebrate its successes. All of this is well-documented and done in public view, and yet we are supposed to be swayed by insinuation instead? Isn't it time for the burden of proof to switch from the accused to the accusers? Even the most ardent skeptic reluctantly admits that the ASPH lenses are built to a higher standard than the corresponding Lumix lenses, although they sweep that eye-popping evidence aside, as they do with every other verifiable piece of information that contradicts their theories.

[Dr. G]

On 6/21/2024 at 9:25 AM, EDN said:

What I see is a very sharp foreground and a very soft background with no transition between them. It looks like the music instrument is suspended in the air, almost as if if has  been added on the picture via Photoshop. Because of the blurry table maybe? The lens is excellent at what it does but the picture looks a bit unnatural to me... My point is that this extremely quick transition between sharp and blurry zone with this strong contrast gives a result that may not always look very natural.

It's completely dependent on distance to your subject and background and, of course, aperture.  

[Planetwide]

I am going to "guess" that Leica found the F1.8 performance unacceptable even with the new coatings. They probably limited the aperture to F2.0 to yield a slight mtf increase wide open.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[jaapv]

On 6/20/2024 at 2:37 PM, eab said:

I was wondering how/why the Panasonic 35 is advertised with an aperture of f1.8 and the Leica at f2.0.  Same number of elements, slight difference in diameter.  

I purchased the Sigma 35 f2 but thinking I should have bought the Leica.  

Reducing the aperture gives the Leica a minor advantage in the corners wide open. A trick, but it works in the reviews. 

[LD_50]

1 hour ago, jaapv said:

Reducing the aperture gives the Leica a minor advantage in the corners wide open. A trick, but it works in the reviews. 

If the Panasonic is set to f/2.0 and the Leica is set to f/2.0, how does Leica have an advantage? 

Are you referring to corners when comparing the Panasonic at f/1.8 vs the Leica at f/2.0? 

Which reviews make this comparison?