Which lens from history would you like to see remade?

[TomB_tx]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

DAG didn't comment on my LLL 50 Rigid, or the CV50 1.5 he also calibrated (all three lenses were brand new), just the negative comment on the Aritzlab. However, another forum member also sent his LLL 50 Rigid for calibration, and DAG told him there was too much "glue" inside so he couldn't calibrate it. So obviously some sample variation in production. Also, I already had another CV50 1.5 (same model) that had perfect cal, so some variation in these also. But in my experience with a number of CV lenses their consistency has been at least as good as Leica. This was was not far off, and neither was the LLL, but both perfectly match my cameras now.

I was skeptical of the Aritzlab when I bought it because of the incredibly low price, so getting it was an experiment. checking it closer, infinity on the scale matches the RF adjustment, so that much was right, but the optical cell seems to be slightly too deep in the mount. I'm curious if that were corrected how it would be. Maybe I'll dig out my lens spanners and experiment. Results on an A7III show reasonable results using live view so for the price may be worth trying.

[Alberti]

I would like to see a 35mm Summicron version IV - the King of Bokeh. 
I had the ‘plastic’ version - you know why I say that) but that ELC version was superb. I can only try to find words from sculpture.
I tested two vintage 35mm version last week: the ELC version clearly won. They had a ‘method’ of alignment that clearly was better; although this was just a two sample test; but what I like to say is that I suspect the Maple Leaf adorers might just have had a different focus (pun intended).

[skahde]

I would like the Summicron 2/50 v4 to come back. I owned v4 as well as v5. While the mechanics of the v5 are really solid and impressively excellent, I never had problems with flare on the v4 where the v5 was troubled once in a while. My impression: The seperate shade is much more efficient than the short integrated. And my v4 had a tab, something I always liked a lot. 

[costa43]

4 hours ago, TomB_tx said:

DAG didn't comment on my LLL 50 Rigid, or the CV50 1.5 he also calibrated (all three lenses were brand new), just the negative comment on the Aritzlab. However, another forum member also sent his LLL 50 Rigid for calibration, and DAG told him there was too much "glue" inside so he couldn't calibrate it. So obviously some sample variation in production. Also, I already had another CV50 1.5 (same model) that had perfect cal, so some variation in these also. But in my experience with a number of CV lenses their consistency has been at least as good as Leica. This was was not far off, and neither was the LLL, but both perfectly match my cameras now.

I was skeptical of the Aritzlab when I bought it because of the incredibly low price, so getting it was an experiment. checking it closer, infinity on the scale matches the RF adjustment, so that much was right, but the optical cell seems to be slightly too deep in the mount. I'm curious if that were corrected how it would be. Maybe I'll dig out my lens spanners and experiment. Results on an A7III show reasonable results using live view so for the price may be worth trying.

Thank you, much appreciated. I agree on CV, my APO 50 VM is built better than any of my Leica glass imo. They are the most exciting lens producer too, they take risks. I think they are brilliant. 

[250swb]

3 hours ago, Alberti said:

I would like to see a 35mm Summicron version IV - the King of Bokeh. 
I had the ‘plastic’ version - you know why I say that) but that ELC version was superb. I can only try to find words from sculpture.
I tested two vintage 35mm version last week: the ELC version clearly won. They had a ‘method’ of alignment that clearly was better; although this was just a two sample test; but what I like to say is that I suspect the Maple Leaf adorers might just have had a different focus (pun intended).

But it never was the 'King of Bokeh' , which is why no more 'hype' lenses should be remade. Mike Johnston himself (the author of 'King of Bokeh') said he'd never opened it up beyond f/4 at best, and now everybody gets trolled down the same rabbit hole even to this day. That is what the hype about re-issue lenses do, they are made to make you buy lenses, which if you need a 35mm lens is a selling point, but if you don't you're not going to see much if any difference between 'it' and the one you've got.

Edited April 27 by 250swb

[costa43]

3 minutes ago, Al Brown said:

I can comment, I have opened my 8 elemet 35mm LLL and repaired it and written a post about it here on LUF, but then again, I am not a DAG level expert, he is the final boss.

Can you link the post please?

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I’m with Uli and Steve on this.  Peter Karbe famously used Leica’s archive of lens calculations when designing new lenses to always try to improve on Leica’s offerings.  What is really wrong with the current releases?  I’m also unconvinced by a lot of the hype attached to legacy lenses, Steve’s comments about the “kob” 35 Summicron.

But then … I don’t particularly like the APO-Summicron-M 75, preferring the 75 Summilux designed by Walter Mandler.

There are a number of Leica lenses with what seem like justified acclaim (though not all M mount):

• 15/2.8 Distagon T* ZM (red edges)
• 35 Summilux-M Aspherical
• 50/2 Summitar LTM (coated and with the additional aperture blades) for those who like sea sick inducing bokeh
• 75 Summilux-M (based, off the 80 Summilux-R, also a nightly rated lens)
• APO-Elmarit-R 180/2.8
• APO-Telyt-R 280/4 (legendary, apparently)

I appreciate that the last two are not really M mount relevant (apart from using EVF).  The list is really about classic Leica lenses, no longer made.

[costa43]

8 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

I’m with Uli and Steve on this.  Peter Karbe famously used Leica’s archive of lens calculations when designing new lenses to always try to improve on Leica’s offerings.  What is really wrong with the current releases?  I’m also unconvinced by a lot of the hype attached to legacy lenses, Steve’s comments about the “kob” 35 Summicron.

But then … I don’t particularly like the APO-Summicron-M 75, preferring the 75 Summilux designed by Walter Mandler.

There are a number of Leica lenses with what seem like justified acclaim (though not all M mount):

• 15/2.8 Distagon T* ZM (red edges)
• 35 Summilux-M Aspherical
• 50/2 Summitar LTM (coated and with the additional aperture blades) for those who like sea sick inducing bokeh
• 75 Summilux-M (based, off the 80 Summilux-R, also a nightly rated lens)
• APO-Elmarit-R 180/2.8
• APO-Telyt-R 280/4 (legendary, apparently)

I appreciate that the last two are not really M mount relevant (apart from using EVF).  The list is really about classic Leica lenses, no longer made.

I agree with you on the hype bit, the v4 is a lovely lens but it’s way overhyped. 

There are no bad lenses imo, just different. I see a beauty in all of them and if I could afford to own them all I would!

I think current lenses are great and Peter Karbe is an absolute legend but some of the recent releases are a bit too big for my liking. I value a small setup beyond anything else with my M cameras. I find a lot of vintage glass is smaller with fast apertures that give you interesting results at the wider end and modern enough results stopped down. I do also value modern and more transparent lenses, where the aperture has little effect on the quality of the image and is just used for creative purposes and exposure. I’m actually looking for a 28mm as we speak and want a high performing current release. The re-releases and homage lenses have their place for me and are good fun for us enthusiasts. I really don’t want to drop many thousands of pounds/euros on some of this vintage stuff that has become collectible but, I also enjoy variety, it’s one of the key reasons I use the M, trying out new lenses is such a pleasure and brings me great joy. I love it!

Edited April 28 by costa43

[hansvons]

17 hours ago, ELAN said:

35 Summicron v4 (KoB) in silver chrome exactly as the original (11311), i.e., made of brass, E39, same optical formula.

Precisely. Purely from a marketing perspective and if I were Leica, I‘d reissue the 35mm V4 King of Bokeh Summicron. Not because it’s so brilliant; because it’s the Summicron of all Summicrons and it‘s indeed a nice everyday lens.

The nickname King of Bokeh is rubbish. But it adds a feel of legend to this lens which it somewhat deserves as the last 35mm double Gauß lens in Leica‘s line-up bar the Steel Rim (another marketing helper), of course, which is a reissue. 

Also, I‘d bring back the 35mm Summarit as an modern-drawing, affordable entry lens to the Leica universe. The current V5 35mm Summicron ASPH is from the film days and a wonderful lens in its own right, but it‘s arguably drawing closer to the V4 than to the APO 35mm Summicron, most notably regarding flare and curvature. The Summarit‘s character, however, is closer to the APO and would complement the 35mm f/2 line-up nicely. 

Edited April 28 by hansvons

[hansvons]

1 hour ago, Al Brown said:

Valid point. Next step could/should be a solid set of SMALL AND COMPACT M LENSES, the kind this system was made for (Elmarit-M 28mm f/2.8 ASPH, I am looking at you) and the kind so many users are after. But then again, you cannot sell those expensively so prolly not gonna happen...

Absolutely. The current and brilliant 35mm Summicron ASPH is already at the edge of compactness. The APO is already too large for a proper 35mm M lens. That‘s why the Steel Rim reissue is so attractive and why a KoB reissue would be meaningful (basically the same lens but very different at f/2).

Only lenses tagged as reissues allow for both quirks and high prices. Regular M lenses, on the other hand, try to keep up with today‘s lens performance in their particular small form factor. While I can understand that from a brand perspective (Leica is mired in the past but also understands themselves as innovative) the M system isn’t about performance but user experience. With the M11 and 60MP Leica already somewhat missed that. 

Edited April 28 by hansvons

[pgk]

18 hours ago, costa43 said:

Hi there, did DAG mention anything positive or negative about the internal build quality of the LLL lenses by any chance? I’m assuming it’s top notch but would be great to hear it from an expert.

Not LLL, but a few years ago I sent a 'cheap' (~£200) Chinese built 35/2 to Malcolm Taylor to see if it could be adjusted. Answer - no, it was well enough built but apparently relied on tolerances rather than having any adjustability, and my copy was slightly 'out'. It appears that no maker is immune from the costs involved with making photographic lenses and cheap lenses are cheap for a reason and whilst you can be lucky, if you are not you are stuck with the performance level the lens has.

[pgk]

3 hours ago, hansvons said:

..... (Leica is mired in the past but also understands themselves as innovative) the M system isn’t about performance but user experience. With the M11 and 60MP Leica already somewhat missed that. 

Thanks. Leica please note. Today is about user experience because manufacturers don't make poor cameras or lenses because in such a competitive market they won't sell (caveats on price unfortunately). A simple ~25MPixel M refined to its very basics would offer a unique user experience. Add in diminutive, fabulous quality, neither too fast nor too slow, lenses (some with old fashioned 'character') and you have a product which will offer a real photographic alternative and as such retain a small but adequate customer base. 60MPixels is too much of a niche for most users.

Edited April 28 by pgk
typo

[costa43]

I agree that the user experience is key and I think the lower resolution is the sweet spot for a number of reasons but the problem is that Leica want to sell us more cameras, I wonder how many would trade an M11 in for a 24mp M...

[FrozenInTime]

59 minutes ago, costa43 said:

I agree that the user experience is key and I think the lower resolution is the sweet spot for a number of reasons but the problem is that Leica want to sell us more cameras, I wonder how many would trade an M11 in for a 24mp M...

How many M10 and M10-R/M users skipped the M11 and Q3 as 60M pixels were not needed, added unnecessary cost … and then kicked off with software freezes. Another group, with some overlap, is alienated after the shutdown of the TL and CL lines.

These are the groups that that may opt not to continue with M digital if Leica is not careful.

Edited April 28 by FrozenInTime

[costa43]

29 minutes ago, FrozenInTime said:

How many M10 and M10-R/M users skipped the M11 and Q3 as 60M pixels were not needed, added unnecessary cost … and then kicked off with software freezes. Another group, with some overlap, is alienated after the shutdown of the TL and CL lines.

These are the groups that that may opt not to continue with M digital if Leica is not careful.

Yes for sure, I just cannot see Leica releasing the next M at 24mp and charging close to 10k for it. I think an ‘S’ model that priorities speed will work better like we have in the SL line. It could even be an ‘entry level’ option at a lower cost. The M price is getting silly now. I think a different price tier and a more stripped back experience would be well received alongside the standard offering.

[pippy]

2 hours ago, costa43 said:

...I think a different price tier and a more stripped back experience would be well received alongside the standard offering...

There are precedents for such behaviour in the M line from Leica.

In the M9 days they brought out the M-E Typ-220  and when the M240 was the main current M Leica first brought out the M Typ-262 and, a few years later, the M-E Typ-262. According to 'the www' the price of the latter was some 23% below that of the M-262 (which was already priced lower than the 'mainstream' M-240).

Pigs Might Yet Fly!......😸......

Philip.

[costa43]

7 minutes ago, pippy said:

There are precedents for such behaviour in the M line from Leica.

In the M9 days they brought out the M-E Typ-220  and when the M240 was the main current M Leica first brought out the M Typ-262 and, a few years later, the M-E Typ-262. According to 'the www' the price of the latter was some 23% below that of the M-262 (which was already priced lower than the 'mainstream' M-240).

Pigs Might Yet Fly!......😸......

Philip.

Hi Philip, I remember these models. They were essentially the same camera though with some build variances to 'cheapen' them. It's funny as the black M11/M11-P has inherited the cheaper top plate of the M Typ-262. I think a lower cost model based on the same camera is not as good an idea as Leica for many people does have a status thing attached to it.  A seperate line with different strengths (speed mainly) might be interesting though. My bet is definitely on the pigs remaining firmly glued to the ground though!

Edited April 28 by costa43

[lct]

The M1 was less expensive than the M2 too. First RF sans RF in Leica history if memory serves.

[ELAN]

13 hours ago, hansvons said:

Precisely. Purely from a marketing perspective and if I were Leica, I‘d reissue the 35mm V4 King of Bokeh Summicron. Not because it’s so brilliant; because it’s the Summicron of all Summicrons and it‘s indeed a nice everyday lens.

Agreed.  The charm of the 35 Summicron v4 is its compact size, ergonomics and how wonderfully it balances on the the M, especially the silver chrome version.  The bokeh is indeed nothing special although I do find it pleasing at f/2.8-f/5.6 at focus distance < 2m.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[vha]

I would like to have a 50mm tessar lens in a rigid housing (or non collapsable if you like)

As fare as i know the internet is yet not done arguing if elmar equals a true tessar, because of the iris placement

But i like a good tessar, but not the aperture ring on the Elmar-m or the performance of the 60s one.

shortly summarised a tessar lens design, compact enough, rigid so it does not harm the shutter of my M10M, and enough eye candy so  buy it.