Summilux 35mm FLE v1 - problematic flare?

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I’ve since sold mine, but never experienced this type of flare in the couple years of ownership.  Always hood, no filter.  I’ve not read about this being a common issue with the lens.  

You might contact DAG and ask if he’s experienced this problem. That might assist in determining if you should talk with the dealer about refund or exchange.

Jeff

[Advertisement]

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

[KenRothman]

8 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

I’ve since sold mine, but never experienced this type of flare in the couple years of ownership.  Always hood, no filter.  I’ve not read about this being a common issue with the lens.  

You might contact DAG and ask if he’s experienced this problem. That might assist in determining if you should talk with the dealer about refund or exchange.

Jeff

great idea, done.

[TheGodParticle/Hari]

6 hours ago, KenRothman said:

wow, interesting... 

do you have any samples?

and you believe this to be "normal" and not "broken"?

I have 2 copies of the FLE1 and both exhibit the flare pattern. Not sure if I saw this with the FL2. 
I am about to fly out for a week, after I return, will dig up a few samples and post them here. 

[84bravo]

22 hours ago, farnz said:

I had a similar flare issue with a 90/2 APO-Summicron-M asph on my M240 some years ago that would flare at odd times.  Eventually I discovered that it was light leaking between the lens and the lens mount, probably because the 90 AA is quite a heavy lens that put load on the mount causing it to bend slightly (the mount only needed to bend less than a millimetre for the light to get in).

I would be surprised if the 35/1.4 Summilux asph FLE v1 caused similar lens mount bending but it seems worth checking.  The way I tested with the 90AA was to put a black velvet scrunchy around the lens mount to prevent any light getting to it, and the difference was immediate.  Without the scrunchy, even in flat, bright light there would be an 'X' shaped flare (similar to the flare in yours) across most of the pictures but with the scrunchy in place - no flare.  Black tape would probably work for a test as long as it doesn't leave any adhesive on the camera body when removed.

I've since moved both that camera and lens on but I hope this might be of help to you.

One thing I also noted was the 'edge to the flare' in your 'girl in white' picture, which suggests a mechanical cause and would point me at the mount bending.

Pete.

I wonder if the body mount or lens mount screws might have come loose?

[KenRothman]

3 minutes ago, 84bravo said:

I wonder if the body mount or lens mount screws might have come loose?

I did look at the lens mount screws and gave them a little twist with a jeweler's screwdriver and they seemed tight.

Not likely the lens mount as the issue happened on two different bodies 

[lct]

Strange indeed. I would not swear that my Summilux 35/1.4 FLE v1 is my least flare prone lens but it is one of the best among my 35/1.4's from this viewpoint. I don't use filters though and i have always a hood on the lens. Boring snap at f/2 below.

https://photos.smugmug.com/Diverse/n-QFBj4/Leica-M11-Leica-3514-FLE/i-pGHVsbr/0/LL3qRhDmMCBFFb3PVpNH4SRgJCxNgS7h38tbFSvSP/X4/M1201165_sips-X4.jpg

Edited November 19, 2024 by lct

[KenRothman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm really starting to think this may just be a usage issue.

I put the m10r on a tripod today and was able to replicate this flare pattern pretty easily. no filter. with or without hood.

I'm also pretty sure it's not a mechanical issue with the lens, unless it's REALLY subtle...

I took a black sock and wrapped it around the whole barrel of the lens trying to at least filter down any possible light leaks, and no impact from the sock.

So this is almost certainly purely something in the glass.

and I'd call the glass clean.

I'm going to try to get access to another lens at some point and try to do an a:b comparison but who knows.

[Jeff S]

While on tripod, can you eliminate the flare by shielding the lens (just beyond the hood) with your hand?  I sometimes do this (handheld) if the sun is just outside the frame edge, not just with this lens, if I sense likely flare conditions.  A quick screen check after confirms result. My FLE needed no more attention than my other lenses.  In fact, my 35 Summicron ASPH v.1 requires a bit more care.

Jeff

[KenRothman]

17 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

While on tripod, can you eliminate the flare by shielding the lens (just beyond the hood) with your hand?  I sometimes do this (handheld) if the sun is just outside the frame edge, not just with this lens, if I sense likely flare conditions.  A quick screen check after confirms result. My FLE needed no more attention than my other lenses.  In fact, my 35 Summicron ASPH v.1 requires a bit more care.

Jeff

Oh yes, 100%.

 

[Vanillasludge]

If you shine a flashlight through the lens do you see any haze at all?   This looks like flare caused by haze on an element.   

Edited November 20, 2024 by Vanillasludge

[henning]

I don't have an FLE, but this kind of flare is the same as on my original 35/1.4 ASPH. Flare is a bit of a problem for many Leica lenses. I've been shooting Leica since the early 60's and have had at least 6 and at times more than 25 Leica branded lenses. They have all had many great qualities, and I'm quite fond of most of them but flare suppression has not generally been their strength. Overall, in my experience having tried many but certainly not even the majority of Leica lenses, the 35's have been some of the most problematic with the 50's and 90's probably next in line. Then again, when a lens is used in the manner described below shots taken with a longer telephoto lens can be a complete wipeout so might be deemed even worse, even though conditions have to more precise.

That said, I have no trouble making any lens flare to some degree under some conditions. The angle of the sun in your pictures, ie, just outside the upper corners of the frame is usually the harshest test and most lenses flare when the sun is in this region. Lenshoods don't help either, in this region. If you have the sun actually in the frame, flare is usually less. The main problem on the M is that if you are using the optical finder, you don't see the problem until after you've taken the shot. An assistant with a flag is the only real solution. If you want to see how and where a lens flares, use an electronic Visoflex on a recent M and move it around, or put the lens on an adapter on a FF mirrorless camera, although this isn't quite as accurate as using the Visoflexes.

While I love my 35/1.4 ASPH, I have used a 35 Distagon much more often in the last while, mainly because of the flare issue, although I can certainly make it flare as well. Zeiss definitely has better coating technology overall. The Distagon also behaves better in a number of optical respects, although the difference is not huge. Then again, huge is the reason the Distagon hasn't fully supplanted the Leica 35/1.4 as it's annoyingly large. So then I fall back on some other 35's, such as the CV 35/2 Ultron. Since Cosina produced most of the Zeiss M lenses including the Distagon, they had access to Zeiss' coating technology and probably incorporated some of that into their coatings. In any case, the 35 Ultron is small, has good flare resistance, doesn't have focus shift like the Summicron ASPH and has decent flare suppression.

Edited November 20, 2024 by henning

[KenRothman]

Yes, thanks for this detailed reply.

The flare itself is not the problem, in fact it can be very interesting and cool.

I just was worried it was emblematic of a broken lens in some way

And it's a $$$ lens ... my most $$$ lens

So, I have not yet checked for haze, BUT, a quick non-scientific peek thru earlier looked clear to me.

 

So I really do think, at this point, it's working as designed and it's been a learning for me.

Maybe this thread will help someone else in the future who has the same question.

[lct]

I would not worry too much about that. This kind of flare is not rare at Leica and elsewhere. The MATE at 50mm is well known for that and fine lenses like Tele-Elmarit "thin" 90/2.8, Summarit 50/2.5 or Summmicron 50/2 v4 or v5 can produce ugly results when used by incompetent or even competent shooters.

M11, MATE, 50mm:

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!

M11, Summicron 50/2 v5:

 

 

Edited November 21, 2024 by lct

[KenRothman]

ha yeah.

I actually really like the effect in the first few shots I posted at the top of this thread... but again, the line between cool aberration and broken lens is fine

but thx, yeah, I'm pretty convinced this is just how this lens reacts to the bright sun at those angles.

I will check for haze, but I'm pretty sure it's nice n clean

[RexGig0]

A Summilux-M 50mm ASPH can certainly produce interesting flare, too, though not exactly like this. One wedding photographer, whose name I cannot recall, at the moment, likes to use this flare effect creatively, with her Summilux-M 50mm ASPH. I have used the flare, creatively, too, though have not mastered it, like her. Indeed, I bought my Summilux-M 50mm ASPH, plus an M10, to start using the Leica M system, because of its optical imperfections, to act as an antidote to the toxicity of evidentiary/forensic/crime scene photography, with optically “perfect” SLR lenses, during the final 7+ years of my career in public service. 

If I had to document a scene/event, in flare-inducing conditions, with a Leica M camera, when/where I could not control the light, I would, if practicable, select my Voigtlander 50mm APO Lanthar VM, especially if making images that would be used by others. If shooting 35mm, , I would use my Zeiss Distagon 35mm f/1.4 ZM, for the same reason. (I do not have a 35mm FLE, but, do have a Re-Edition Steel Rim Summilux-M 35mm lens.)

The 35 FLE II, and Summilux-M 50mm ASPH II, may have different coatings, which deal “better” with flare, for those who want this kind of “better.”

Edited November 21, 2024 by RexGig0

[jankap]

Please take your camera without sock and with lens cap and hold it in the sun shine. Turn it around, after a few minutes fire the shutter (say at 1/100 sec)and turn it around for another few minutes in the sunlight. Then go inside (in the dark) and fire it another time. You should have 2 completely blank exposures. If not, you know more.

In your third photo - the one with the house - one sees normal flare, namely the diaphragm shows up.

Edited November 23, 2024 by jankap