M8 & Summilux 35mm

[RobertW]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

My experience with the 35 Lux illustrated that I need to have the body properly calibrated, otherwise I was getting a very pronounced back focus at 1.4.

 

With the body fixed, the lens still is a bit of a challenge to focus (for the reasons mentioned by others), and I find it much more difficult to focus than the Zeiss Biogon f2 or CV 35mm f1.2.

 

If it weren't for the size and weight, I'd prefer the CV Nokton 1.2 over the Lux.

 

But that's just me.

 

Best

Rob

[Advertisement]

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

[Gentleman Villain]

focus shift or not.....There is no question in my mind that the 35 summilux is one of the best lenses in the lineup. It just blows me away by the way it draws. Perfect contrast and detail. I have an acquaintance that owns the 35 lux and he claims that there is no focus shift. But all of his photographs are slightly back-focused. I don't know if it's operator error or not....but one thing is for certain...the tones on the prints are amazing. He has several other leica lenses and the prints made from them don't compare to the prints made from the 35 lux. Just an amazing lens

[Ozkar]

focus shift or not.....There is no question in my mind that the 35 summilux is one of the best lenses in the lineup. It just blows me away by the way it draws. Perfect contrast and detail. I have an acquaintance that owns the 35 lux and he claims that there is no focus shift. But all of his photographs are slightly back-focused. I don't know if it's operator error or not....but one thing is for certain...the tones on the prints are amazing. He has several other leica lenses and the prints made from them don't compare to the prints made from the 35 lux. Just an amazing lens

 

I couldn't agree more. I have owned an array of M lenses over the past 20 years and the 35 LUX ASPH is special in that it occupies a space somewhere between the old and the new world of Leica lens design. Erwin Putts sums it up so well :

 

"It seems as if the Summilux-M ASPH 35mm is an Summicron-M 35mm with one full stop more. In addition Summilux-M ASPH 35mm has slightly higher micro contrast, less vignetting, better separation of highlight details and the flatter image field than Summicron-M 35mm." * Reproduced from imx.nl/photo

 

My experience supports this in that it is capable of achieving a level or precision in it's rendering akin to the 35 CRON ASPH but it does so with a gentle touch much like the 35 CRON V4.

 

Ozkar

[Ozkar]

If it weren't for the size and weight, I'd prefer the CV Nokton 1.2 over the Lux.

Rob

 

And therein lies the beauty of the 35 LUX ASPH. The size and weight of the 35 LUX ASPH (in black) is not that big a deal relative to a 35 CRON ASPH, for example. But the CV 35/1.2 feels like you're toting a canon around.

 

Ozkar

[wlaidlaw]

And therein lies the beauty of the 35 LUX ASPH. The size and weight of the 35 LUX ASPH (in black) is not that big a deal relative to a 35 CRON ASPH, for example. But the CV 35/1.2 feels like you're toting a canon around.

 

Ozkar

 

CV lenses seem to vary even more than Leica lenses, hardly surprising in view of their price. I was looking for a 35 faster than the excellent 35/2 Biogon I had. I bought a new 35/1.2 Nokton. It had went out of adjustment very quickly (the focus mechanism had slipped relative to the RF cam). My local repairer repaired it for less than the return postage cost to Germany. I decided I still did not like the end results, with lowish contrast and sensitivity to flare. I therefore sold it and started a three month hunt for a really good late 35/1.4 Chrome ASPH Lux. When I found it I sold my 35 Biogon on to a friend. I bought a 35/2.5 Classic Skopar and a JM coded mount, as a small lens to carry when I am on a motorbike. I am not too impressed with the Skopar. Strangely it seems sharper on its original mount, so maybe my particular JM mount is a fraction out of tolerance. The lens mounts a few degrees rotationally differently on the JM mount.

 

Wilson

[dalippe]

For whatever it is worth, I searched for a used chrome or titanium 35 lux after reading the claims on the LUF that these were less susceptible to focus shift. I felt a bit silly since it struck me as almost impossible that this could be the case.

 

I managed to find and buy a titanium 35 lux and it does indeed seem to have little if any focus shift. I'll try to post pictures to demonstrate this sometime in the next week or so.

 

I still have trouble believing the material in the casing matters. Perhaps it is simply the older luxes that are better because the optical elements were manufactured with a slightly different process or at least by different pieces of equipment?

 

David

[dalippe]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi Wilson,

 

The focus shift has me miffed. The lens is not entirely responsible for this phenomena. It is also related to the calibration of your M8's RF. I tried two other samples of the 35 LUX ASPH before settling on mine. The two I rejected were not that bad. It's just that my sample is perfect. Does this suggest that there are two classes of M8 ?? I can't say. But manufacturing tolerances can affect the build/setup of the RF just as much the lens.

Ozkar

 

The camera can't cause focus shift. I assume you mean that it can cause back-focus wide open which exacerbates the problem caused by focus shift.

 

Hi Wilson,

Focus shift is also not specific to the 35 LUX ASPH. There have been plenty of complaints regarding the 50 LUX ASPH and, more recently, one regarding the new 24 LUX ASPH. I tried a 50 LUX ASPH on my older M8 and the focus shift was shocking. I guess if you want to shoot with an f1.4 lens on a digital RF you're going to have to muck about until you get it right. But the end result is well worth a little pain along the way !

Ozkar

 

As the source of said claim about the new 24 lux, I just want to clarify that the focus shift I saw is not as bad as what some claim with the 35 lux. In particular, some 35s are claimed to shift badly enough that when stopping down the sharpness actually deteriorates at the point that is in sharpest focus at f/1.4.

 

What I saw with the 24 I tried (and I think I saw in David Farkas's pictures, although I'm not sure he agrees) is that stopping down to f/2 or f/2.8 does not improve sharpness at points which are at the front edge of the in-focus region at f/1.4. So stopping down doesn't buy you as much room for misfocus as you would like-- if your error is to focus just behind your intended plane then your results at f/2.8 will be no better than at f/1.4.

 

David

[Ozkar]

As the source of said claim about the new 24 lux, I just want to clarify that the focus shift I saw is not as bad as what some claim with the 35 lux. In particular, some 35s are claimed to shift badly enough that when stopping down the sharpness actually deteriorates at the point that is in sharpest focus at f/1.4.

David

 

David,

 

My point was that any f1.4 may be prone to focus shift. I tried a 50 LUX ASPH, for example, that was much worse than any 35 LUX ASPH I have used. The focus shift with your 24/1.4 may be slight, but it's still evident. Perhaps there is a fault with your 24. I suspect not. I have corresponded with Leica in the past on this topic and their advise was that they could not guarantee zero focus shift with any their f1.4 lenses.

 

Ozkar

[dalippe]

David,

 

My point was that any f1.4 may be prone to focus shift. I tried a 50 LUX ASPH, for example, that was much worse than any 35 LUX ASPH I have used. The focus shift with your 24/1.4 may be slight, but it's still evident. Perhaps there is a fault with your 24. I suspect not. I have corresponded with Leica in the past on this topic and their advise was that they could not guarantee zero focus shift with any their f1.4 lenses.

 

Ozkar

 

Absolutely, and I agree with your point. I wasn't trying to correct you at all, but merely to provide more detail. I wouldn't want someone who hadn't read my original message to come away with the wrong impression.

 

David

[egibaud]

I had one for 3 weeks, it was back focusing, I sent it back and tried more they had in stock, same back focusing problem. I now have a 35cron but I wish I had that extra stop.

[wlaidlaw]

For whatever it is worth, I searched for a used chrome or titanium 35 lux after reading the claims on the LUF that these were less susceptible to focus shift. I felt a bit silly since it struck me as almost impossible that this could be the case.

 

I managed to find and buy a titanium 35 lux and it does indeed seem to have little if any focus shift. I'll try to post pictures to demonstrate this sometime in the next week or so.

 

I still have trouble believing the material in the casing matters. Perhaps it is simply the older luxes that are better because the optical elements were manufactured with a slightly different process or at least by different pieces of equipment?

 

David

 

David,

 

If you talk to any instrument maker machinist and ask which material they would rather use for an ultra high precision machining, brass (as used for chrome and titanium finish barrels) or hard aluminium alloy, the answer will always be "brass". I am not going to go into abstruse technicalities of interstitial crystalline inclusions, as it would be of little interest and, as it it 40+ years since I did metallurgy at university, I would probably get it wrong. However if you look at the spirals of metal which come off a piece of metal, when being machined, you will find that the brass scarf comes off in a continuous shiny smooth strip. The alloy spiral is much duller and if looked at with a magnifying glass, has a scaly surface. Brass can be machined with much lower lubricant flows, which also makes for finer tolerances. The same applies but to a much lesser extent, for precision grinding, which is I believe the process Leica now uses for much of the barrel production, other than thread cutting. It may be that the brass body of the 35 Lux was not suitable for manufacture by grinding rather than machining, which may be why they are no longer available. A lot of Leica's metalwork is done in Portugal, at their own plant there. I am guessing that this keeps Solms cleaner. I don't know if this practice will continue, once they move into the new building back at Wetzlar.

 

Wilson

[carstenw]

I had one for 3 weeks, it was back focusing, I sent it back and tried more they had in stock, same back focusing problem. I now have a 35cron but I wish I had that extra stop.

 

Did you have back-focus or focus shift? If only back-focus, then it is possible that your camera needs a minor tweak?

[dpattinson]

David,

 

If you talk to any instrument maker machinist and ask which material they would rather use for an ultra high precision machining, brass (as used for chrome and titanium finish barrels) or hard aluminium alloy, the answer will always be "brass". I am not going to go into abstruse technicalities of interstitial crystalline inclusions, as it would be of little interest and, as it it 40+ years since I did metallurgy at university, I would probably get it wrong. However if you look at the spirals of metal which come off a piece of metal, when being machined, you will find that the brass scarf comes off in a continuous shiny smooth strip. The alloy spiral is much duller and if looked at with a magnifying glass, has a scaly surface. Brass can be machined with much lower lubricant flows, which also makes for finer tolerances. The same applies but to a much lesser extent, for precision grinding, which is I believe the process Leica now uses for much of the barrel production, other than thread cutting. It may be that the brass body of the 35 Lux was not suitable for manufacture by grinding rather than machining, which may be why they are no longer available. A lot of Leica's metalwork is done in Portugal, at their own plant there. I am guessing that this keeps Solms cleaner. I don't know if this practice will continue, once they move into the new building back at Wetzlar.

 

Wilson

 

When I look at the inside of my black lenses, the focus helix and other moving parts I see are brass. My understanding was that only the outer casing is alloy. How does the outer casing affect focus shift?

[wattsy]

When I look at the inside of my black lenses, the focus helix and other moving parts I see are brass. My understanding was that only the outer casing is alloy. How does the outer casing affect focus shift?

 

Yes, that's exactly what I was thinking. Surely the bits that actually matter in the lens are common to both chrome/brass and black/aluminium?

[wattsy]

Focus shift is also not specific to the 35 LUX ASPH. There have been plenty of complaints regarding the 50 LUX ASPH and, more recently, one regarding the new 24 LUX ASPH. I tried a 50 LUX ASPH on my older M8 and the focus shift was shocking.

 

Are you sure this wasn't just backfocus (which is distinct from focus shift)? My 50 ASPH used to backfocus very noticeably between F1.4-F2.8 (at smaller apertures the DOF kicked in to overcome the backfocus error). Leica eventually fixed it and it is pretty much spot-on at F1.4. I haven't noticed any focus shift as you close down the aperture.

[Philippe D.]

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!

 

No problem with either one of those splendid Summiluxes.

No back focus, no focus shift on M8.

Only the chrome one is quite heavy, but every one know that.

[Jamie Roberts]

I have a chrome Lux 35 ASPH and it's one of my very favourite lenses.

 

On a properly calibrated (at the RF) and aligned (at the sensor I'm talking here) M8, there is no focus degradation whatsoever as you stop down; the tiny bit of focus shift (that does occur) is covered by the focal field; it just shifts.

 

So it's a fabulous lens, but its design will show up any flaws you have in your M8 system (and the tolerances for the film plane of the M8 are tighter than film tolerances).

 

The 50 lux ASPH, if it focus shifts, does so even less than the 35.

 

Both are truly great lenses, but if I had to keep one and sell one, the 50 would go first--it's true the 50 is almost too sharp / too high contrast on the M8, which I know is weird

[wlaidlaw]

Both are truly great lenses, but if I had to keep one and sell one, the 50 would go first--it's true the 50 is almost too sharp / too high contrast on the M8, which I know is weird

 

Jamie,

 

I am delighted to hear you say that. I thought I was just being weird when I thought the 50 was too sharp.

 

I would be interested in buying a Noctilux but I am afraid of coming across the same situation that I did in Ho Chi Minh City a couple of weeks ago. I was looking at some old Leica M's in a second hand shop (much too expensive - about 2 x European prices) The owner, who had been a university professor in pre-communist days and was a Leica enthusiast, said "aren't you worried about walking around with $10,000 of camera and lens?" My wife said "HOW MUCH?" I think finding a Noctilux receipt could now result in a divorce ;-}}

 

Wilson

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[wlaidlaw]

When I look at the inside of my black lenses, the focus helix and other moving parts I see are brass. My understanding was that only the outer casing is alloy. How does the outer casing affect focus shift?

 

Because all the other parts are mounted and located by the outer barrel. I think the front lens elements carrier also is in the same material as the barrel.

 

Wilson

[Jamie Roberts]

Jamie,

 

I am delighted to hear you say that. I thought I was just being weird when I thought the 50 was too sharp.

 

I would be interested in buying a Noctilux but I am afraid of coming across the same situation that I did in Ho Chi Minh City a couple of weeks ago. I was looking at some old Leica M's in a second hand shop (much too expensive - about 2 x European prices) The owner, who had been a university professor in pre-communist days and was a Leica enthusiast, said "aren't you worried about walking around with $10,000 of camera and lens?" My wife said "HOW MUCH?" I think finding a Noctilux receipt could now result in a divorce ;-}}

 

Wilson

 

Wilson--yes, the 50 Lux ASPH's "almost--too-sharp--character" is some combination of the fabulous optical resolution of the lens plus its ability to combine the extreme flare rejection of the Nocti with ridiculously good contrast characteristics--all at f1.4 and across the entire field (well, at least on an M8)!

 

For the right subject though, it would rock. For people at weddings, well.... maybe not; I'd take the 35.

 

The Nocti has the opposite character to the 50 Lux--and yes, these days its probably a marriage breaker for many people!

 

So the 35 ASPH is, for my uses, a near perfect lens on the M8.