35 Lux ASPH pre-FLE hood question

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 minutes ago, pgk said:

Sample size? Low sample numbers may simply show results of aspheric lens variation and have nothing to do with material/finish used.

Not a matter of finish but date AFAIK. Early vs late copies. I don't own the lens though. I went for the FLE but i don't like it much TBH.

[pgk]

Mine is from 2001 so close to halfway through the production period. Not particularly late. I may just be lucky with a well within spec aspheric surface. All that said, I could conjecture that the FLE might have been introduced when the production of the aspheric surface was re-evaluated and improved due to progress in the molding process? We are unlikely to find out easily.

[wattsy]

As I wrote in my comment yesterday, I bought one of these lenses brand new around 2008 (it was after the release of the M8). Len at RG Lewis specifically ordered it for me from Leica UK as one that had been checked for focus (there was a problem at that time with some lenses coming from the factory backfocussing on the M8 – a separate issue from the focus shift). This lens was well calibrated to be in focus at around F2 but still noticeably focus shifted when stopped down to F5.6. As I said earlier, I accept that there will be some sample variation with some lenses showing more acute focus shift than others but I can't buy into the idea that the titanium ones (or later ones) are intrinsically different in this regard.

[wattsy]

11 hours ago, lct said:

• 1994 Summilux 35/1.4 asph (Black): Focus shift at f/4 & f/5.6.

• 1996 Summilux 35/1.4 asph (Titanium): No Focus shift.

Source: J.M. Sepulchre
 

All you are doing is promulgating the long standing internet wisdom that the titanium version doesn't show focus shift (I have also heard similar claims about the silver chrome version – again based on a sample of one).😂 

[pgk]

1 hour ago, wattsy said:

Len at RG Lewis specifically ordered it for me from Leica UK.....

Wow. He must have been getting on by then. In the '80s he managed a branch somewhere east of HH but I can't remember where.

[lct]

10 hours ago, wattsy said:

All you are doing is promulgating the long standing internet wisdom that the titanium version doesn't show focus shift (I have also heard similar claims about the silver chrome version – again based on a sample of one).😂 

As i suggested above, this has nothing to do with titanium or the internet. It is just a matter of early vs late variants of the lens. Don't ask me more, i cannot speak for the good J.M. Sepulchre who left us a couple years ago.

[wattsy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

12 hours ago, pgk said:

Wow. He must have been getting on by then. In the '80s he managed a branch somewhere east of HH but I can't remember where.

I don’t think he was ancient. Early 70s, possibly. He also worked out of Richard Caplan’s for a while after RG Lewis closed (I’m guessing around 2012). 

Edited May 30 by wattsy

[wattsy]

3 hours ago, lct said:

As i suggested above, this has nothing to do with titanium or the internet. It is just a matter of early vs late variants of the lens. Don't ask me more, i cannot speak for the good J.M. Sepulchre who left us a couple years ago.

You are not reading what I wrote. I don’t dispute JM’s findings (how could I? - I wasn’t there), I’m just saying it isn’t a matter of early vs late variants either. My circa 2008 example of the lens, whilst superb in many respects, showed a not insignificant amount of focus shift. I wish it didn’t because I could have saved some money later on by not buying the FLE version. 

Edited May 30 by wattsy

[lct]

1 hour ago, wattsy said:

You are not reading what I wrote. I don’t dispute JM’s findings (how could I? - I wasn’t there), I’m just saying it isn’t a matter of early vs late variants either. My circa 2008 example of the lens, whilst superb in many respects, showed a not insignificant amount of focus shift. I wish it didn’t because I could have saved some money later on by not buying the FLE version. 

My dealer is confirming my point. You were probably unlucky with your 2008 copy, he says, or it was not calibrated for f/2. Seems like i will order one from 1997 and see what happens. Thanks for sharing anyway.

[FrozenInTime]

13 hours ago, lct said:

My dealer is confirming my point. You were probably unlucky with your 2008 copy, he says, or it was not calibrated for f/2. Seems like i will order one from 1997 and see what happens. Thanks for sharing anyway.

I don’t recall  any focus shift issues with mine - my first ever bought new Leica lens, way back in 1997 #36708xx.

Now I have doubts, and should test it and look for unseen issues 🤫 Perhaps I lucked out or only shot at f/1.4 and f/5.6

Found the many hoods comparison photo:

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!

[lct]

7 hours ago, FrozenInTime said:

I don’t recall  any focus shift issues with mine - my first ever bought new Leica lens, way back in 1997 #36708xx [...]

The 1997 copy i just ordered is # 3811*** and comes with 6-bit coding. Coding has been added by a previous owner i guess. Will work the same as your copy hopefully. Thank you for sharing.

 

[lct]

Just received the 1997 copy referred to above. No visible focus shift at 1m, 2m and 10m so far but i did not try the lens at infinity yet. I will keep you updated for those interested.

[lct]

Just to conclude (sorry for the OT) i see no significant focus shift out of the new-to-me 1997 Summilux 35 pre-FLE, at least from f/2 to f/5.6. At f/1.4 the result look a bit softer than with the FLE. Not sure if it is focus shift but gives pre-FLE outputs more gentleness than FLE's. Couple of jpeg snaps below, handheld at f/1.4 and f/4. No significant difference at infinity.  
• M11, Lux 35/1.4 asph pre-FLE, f/1.4, 1m FD
• M11, Lux 35/1.4 asph pre-FLE, f/4, 1m FD
• M11, Lux 35/1.4 asph pre-FLE, f/1.4, 10m FD
• M11, Lux 35/1.4 asph pre-FLE, f/4, 10m FD