Does Leica Lens Sample Variation Exist?

[JBA]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Look at it this way - Leica specifically engraves 2 small digits on the focusing ring of all their M telephotos (maybe not the Summarits - I don't know) and 50mm lenses. The digits specify the EXACT focal length of that EXACT lens - e.g. "05" on a 90mm lenses means actualy focal length 90.5mm. "12" on a 50mm means 51.2mm actual focal length.

 

If there was not a variation, they wouldn't need the numbers.

 

Neither my black paint 90 AA Summicron nor silver 50 Summicron, both latest versions, have this number engraved anywhere on them. I've only seen these numbers on older lenses.

[Advertisement]

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

[Guest leica_mage]

Look at it this way - Leica specifically engraves 2 small digits on the focusing ring of all their M telephotos (maybe not the Summarits - I don't know) and 50mm lenses. The digits specify the EXACT focal length of that EXACT lens - e.g. "05" on a 90mm lenses means actualy focal length 90.5mm. "12" on a 50mm means 51.2mm actual focal length.

 

If there was not a variation, they wouldn't need the numbers.

Thanks, I know the practice, and in fact only "22" is used on their 50mm Summicrons (52.2mm). Here we are referring to actual, verified sample variation in the 35mm Aspherics. Anyone else stumble on discernible difference in performance?

[Guest leica_mage]

Neither my black paint 90 AA Summicron nor silver 50 Summicron, both latest versions, have this number engraved anywhere on them. I've only seen these numbers on older lenses.

Look exactly past the 'm' on the feet/metre scale, to the right. You'll see the number there.

[georg]

Sample variation always exists!

But Leica guarantees a certain standard and controls this standard for EVERY single lens, somebody mentioned the two digits measuring the exact focal length, that's just one sign of this control - they compensate these variations. Failures can always happen, but a underperforming Leica-lens is broken and gets repaired - it's not just a "bad example".

 

I never saw sample variation myself with Leica or (real) Zeiss-lenses (only mechanical variations, the focus friction is hand adjusted to a certain "taste").

 

Vignetting or flare isn't even a typical sign of sample variation! It's decentration, causing uneven sharpness, CA...

 

The 35Asph and 28Asph for the M are simply the best 28/35mm-lenses in the world, period! They vignette a little bit more, because they are no strong retrofocus-designs.

You're unhappy with the results? Send it to Solms! Still unhappy? You'll have to stop using these focal lenthes at all...

[JBA]

Look exactly past the 'm' on the feet/metre scale, to the right. You'll see the number there.

 

Indeed, there it is. 10 on the 90 and, as you mentioned above, 22 on the 50. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

[Guest leica_mage]

Vignetting or flare isn't even a typical sign of sample variation! It's decentration, causing uneven sharpness, CA...

Perhaps!

 

You're unhappy with the results? Send it to Solms! Still unhappy? You'll have to stop using these focal lenthes at all...

Nobody's unhappy. I have been using these and other lenses continuously for three years now. In my experience, the 35/2 ASPH is the greatest 35 ever computed.

 

I am simply asking. There isn't a single consistent thread on this issue anywhere. Just the occasional report here and there of sample variation, especially with the 35 and 28 ASPHs. I just wanted to bring these accounts together foreasy reference - like the three accounts above that are free from theorising, constituting first-hand accounts of identifiable differences.

 

Thanks for your input.

[JBA]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Failures can always happen, but a underperforming Leica-lens is broken and gets repaired - it's not just a "bad example".

 

I rented a 50 Summilux Asph from Leica in Tokyo because I'd read all the raves about this lens, but the sample I got (a rental lens) had more resistance toward the closer end when turning the focusing ring. Out of the more than half dozen rolls I shot with that lens, not a single shot was in focus, including shots taken at hyperfocal, which made any judgment about sharpness meaningless.

 

Either they used a sub-par lens for rental purposes or somebody who used it before me dropped it or knocked it against something and never mentioned it to them. When I mentioned this problem, the rep didn't seem interested at all, so I never found out what the problem was and didn't get to try a different sample.

 

Clearly, this is an extreme example of sample variation, and the showroom should have had some way of testing the lens for damage after each rental, since renting required an insurance deposit. This is a lens that should have been checked and sent for repair but was not. Needless to say, I didn't buy one, but it's a shame I still don't know how a good example of the 50 Summilux Asph performs.

 

End rant.

[lct]

...Just the occasional report here and there of sample variation, especially with the... 28 ASPHs....

Sorry to repeat my question but have you got any link about this?

[JBA]

In my experience, the 35/2 ASPH is the greatest 35 ever computed.

 

The first M lens I bought and the only one I used for the first 3 or 4 months as an M user. It still takes my breath away.

[Guest leica_mage]

Sorry to repeat my question but have you got any link about this?

Sorry lct, but I've got them buried all over the place.

 

One chap has this to say.

 

And one practising photographer came to this conclusion, and his work bears it out.

 

Now these are not constatations of sample variation at all - as far as the 28/2 ASPH is concerned, it just lacks the sparkle of the 35/2 ASPH. But I digress...

[peter_n]

Your first link is interesting in that no less an authority than Tom A chimes in and agrees with the OP. I tend to trust Tom's judgement (mostly). It isn't right to make generalizations from samples of one, but in the three posts you quote in your post #17 above all the preferred samples were brass lenses. Unfortunately, that reinforces what I think is an internet myth that the silver lenses are "better" than the black ones.

 

To digress also with respect to the 28, I have and mostly use a 24, 35 and 75 combo. The 24 is an unbelievable lens and I have three very strong 35s so I rarely if ever use a 28. You are not going to like this but a few years ago I bought a Konica Hexanon 28 and will not sell it. It is truly an incredible lens.

[Guest leica_mage]

... in the three posts you quote in your post #17 above all the preferred samples were brass lenses. Unfortunately, that reinforces what I think is an internet myth that the silver lenses are "better" than the black ones.

Well, optically they're not - they're exactly the same. In terms of build, they can withstand more, but are often of sloppier mechanics than than the balck anodised (e.g. my SC 35/2 ASPH aperture ring is more 'rattly' than the BA one I owned before that, which was 'tight and crisp'...)

 

The 24 is an unbelievable lens ...

It is an incredible optic - vastly superior to the 28/2!

 

You are not going to like this but a few years ago I bought a Konica Hexanon 28 and will not sell it. It is truly an incredible lens.

I don't mind it at all - in fact you've got me intrigued. I always pick out the best (but generally never found Japanese optics to my liking - with a very few exceptions)!

[lct]

...Now these are not constatations of sample variation at all - as far as the 28/2 ASPH is concerned...

We agree on this my friend.

[Guest leica_mage]

Anyone else experience evident sample variation in the 35mm ASPHs?

[Guest jimmy pro]

Listen mate, get off my back. You didn't have a concrete answer for me, based on personal experience; that's fine, I didn't hassle you for it. Now shove off. I see from your other posts that this is the way you move here. Well I'm not interested in that kind of exchange, so just drop it.

 

I'm looking forward to hearing from anyone else with personal experience.

 

Well I never made any attack against you, so I think your rude response is un called for. All I wanted to know was why you came on asking for reports of defective lenses. If I had made such a question I would of been immediately accused of trolling for negatives against Leica. I'm not now or was I accuseing you of that. I just would like to know what your intentions are for asking, and what the answers will mean to you once you get the info your looking for. I don't think that's an unfair question.

[Guest leica_mage]

Well I never made any attack against you, so I think your rude response is un called for. All I wanted to know was why you came on asking for reports of defective lenses. If I had made such a question I would of been immediately accused of trolling for negatives against Leica. I'm not now or was I accuseing you of that. I just would like to know what your intentions are for asking, and what the answers will mean to you once you get the info your looking for. I don't think that's an unfair question.

 

Answer at post # 26 above:

 

I am simply asking. There isn't a single consistent thread on this issue anywhere. Just the occasional report here and there of sample variation, especially with the 35 and 28 ASPHs. I just wanted to bring these accounts together foreasy reference - like the three accounts above that are free from theorising, constituting first-hand accounts of identifiable differences.

 

You don't need to know why; if you can contribute the the knowledge base, fine; if not, don't take it to heart. People can ask, without having to explain their motives, O.K.?

 

I've been more than not rude, in at least offering an explanation - which you missed -, whereas I don't owe one.

 

Now do get off my back. This is not the first incidence of unhelpful posts on your part here.

[lct]

...It is an incredible optic - vastly superior to the 28/2!...

I seem to recall 2 years ago when you suggested that the 28/2 is a clinical lens. So now it is outperformed by the 28/2.8 IV and the 24/2.8 is vastly superior to it. Looks like the 28/2 is not your Walhalla definitely.

 

(source: Leica)

[Guest jimmy pro]

People can ask, without having to explain their motives, O.K.?

 

Sure, absolutely. No rule against having no reason at all for starting a thread.

 

I've been more than not rude

 

Maybe where you are "get off my back" isn't rude. It's an international forum after all. Sorry if I didn't allow for the customs and etiquette of wherever you come from.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[gyoung]

Folks,

 

All manufactured goods, including lenses are built, adjusted and tested to within certain tolerances. Getting two lenses that are absolutely identical is a pipe dream.

 

I've had two 35 Cron ASPH's - one silver non-coded and the other a 2008 black one from new stock. My older silver 'cron was significantly sharper than my new version. If I hadn't had the older lens to compare to though I would have been 100% happy with it; I ended up sending back my new coded lens for refund.

 

I've had extensive Nikon lenses and even between copies of up to $5000 lenses my friends and I have noticed sample variations. Some significant with pro lenses.

 

For Leica money there definitely should NEVER be lemons released out of QA. Sample variations should similarly be very minor at these prices. If my new out of box Noctilux was anything to go by before being adjusted by DAG (best $100 upgrade I've ever had), Leica QA definitely took a dive last year at least.

 

The more you pay the less variation there will be but I doubt it will ever be non existant.

At the School of Art & Design where I worked for a long while we had about a dozen Rolleicords, very little variation in quality from the Xenars, indeed nothing that subjective tests would show.

We also had about the same number of Yachicamats and Yashica 635 TLR's, The 'Mats varied a lot and the 635s even more, indeed some of them were so bad as to be almost useless to me, who likes a sharp picture

 

Gerry

[Guest leica_mage]

I seem to recall 2 years ago when you suggested that the 28/2 is a clinical lens. So now it is outperformed by the 28/2.8 IV and the 24/2.8 is vastly superior to it. Looks like the 28/2 is not your Walhalla definitely.

lct, the 28/2's signature is not my cup of tea, never has been. Eavis is no idiot when he observes that it tends to muddy shadows, whereas the 32/ASPH illuminates them. I always knew it was outperformed by the 24.2.8 ASPH (and I'm not talking about charts, I'm not interested in charts) and I also prefer the 28/2.8 ASPH, whose grittiness has personality. I simply find the 28/2 lacking in personality with respect to the kind of tonality I seek, best exemplified by three lenses: the 35/2 ASPH, the 50/1.4 ASPH and the 24/2.8 ASPH. As I don't like the 24mm FOV, that leaves me with two lenses to absolutely revel in. But I'd really not like to veer off topic. Sample variation experience with your 35 ASPHs, anyone?