LEICA APO-Summicron-M 2,0/35mm ASPH is coming

[darkosaric]

It will be 100€ cheaper than 50mm ASPH.
Anyone interested ?

 

[film_man]

Oh man I'd love to. My shopping cart already has a Leica MP, 28/2, 50/2 so I'll just add this. I should be able to complete checkout by the year 2078.

 

[Huss]

It will be 100€ cheaper than 50mm ASPH.
Anyone interested ?

Cheaper than the 50 Asph Summilux?
Or cheaper than the 50mm Apo f2?

 

[ic-racer]

Not interested. I have about ten 35mm lenses already.

 

[Huss]

Not interested. I have about ten 35mm lenses already.

what u got?

 

[DonW]

I'm going to buy two of them. One for my M5 and another for my M4. I hate moving lenses from one camera to the other. Or I could pack both cameras and put a 35 on one and the 50 on the other but that's just looks to 70's with both hanging off my neck.

 

[btaylor]

The Leica Man can!
Impressive, $8k. I am not a dentist, so I will have to pass.
I decided a while ago that photographers today don’t take “better” pictures than they did 50 years ago, so I’ll stick with my old optical relics and save the $7500.

 

[George Mann]

I don't like aspherical lenses.

 

[Dali]

I decided a while ago that photographers today don’t take “better” pictures than they did 50 years ago, so I’ll stick with my old optical relics and save the $7500.

A very good point indeed!

 

[logan2z]

A very good point indeed!

+1

 

[ic-racer]

what u got?

I use my zooms like primes. But, doesn't everybody. The 'zoom' effect is a little cliche.
I have not tested the zooms at 35mm, only at 28mm against my 28mm primes and they fare very well. I will use the black G 28-80 on my F6, it really is an amazing lens.
As crazy as it may seem, that Nikonos lens is one of the best on my list.

Nikkor G 28-80 silver
Nikkor G 28-80 black
Sigma 28-80
Yahsica ML 35-70
Yashica ML 28-80
Yashica ML 35/2.8
Nikkor 35/2
Zeiss 35/2.8
Zeiss 35/1.4
Nikonos 35/2.8

 

[Lachlan Young]

@ic-racer I vaguely recall that the the 35/2.5 Nikonos may have common heritage with the Nikon RF 35/2.5 - which is still an excellent lens today.

From what I've seen of the Apo Summicron 50, while it may hit all sorts of performance benchmarks, it just seems to be lacking a distinctive 'look' on film - something that the Zeiss ZM primes seem to do much better. The later model 35mm Summicron-R also grabbed my attention much more than the much vaunted pre-aspherical M-mount 35mm Summicrons.

 

[davela]

The few APO lenses that I have had experience with, or have seen results from, render color images (on film which is what I mostly use) like no other - very impressive. I think $8000 is a very reasonable price for what this lens is - not inflated. I don't have the money to buy one, but if I did, I would - and in a heart beat.

Voigtlander is offering similar lower cost lenses for those on a budget.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Do ASPH and/or APO lenses even make sense for film shooters?

They make a huge difference in performance with some lens designs - especially on film. The problem is that while asphericals can improve wider aperture MTF performance, it often comes with a distortion cost. What you are paying for with the Apo Summicron is compactness and full performance from wide open - which are often mutually exclusive. What I'm not so keen on is Leica's seeming neutralisation of optical personality with the Apo Summicron - Zeiss make equally high performing lenses, but which display the classic 'Zeiss' look (very, very high MTF at low frequencies). Perhaps this is has to do with the current Leica chief designer coming from Panavision, where the iconic C-Series anamorphics are infamous for having almost overwhelming personality - and where every subsequent lens series has attempted to produce more and more 'neutral' results.

 

[darkosaric]

Cheaper than the 50 Asph Summilux?
Or cheaper than the 50mm Apo f2?

Cheaper than the 50mm Apo f2.
But I already got one Leica lens in 2021 - Gizmon that you recommended, for around 1% f the 35/f2 Apo price .

 

[Henning Serger]

Do ASPH and/or APO lenses even make sense for film shooters?

As someone who is also running an independent photo test lab in which films, sensors and lenses are tested (and some other equipment), I can clearly say "yes". It makes lots of sense.
And as a film photographer you can often even benefit more from modern lens designs than digital photographers.
Because of the following reasons:

1. The resolution of digital sensors is limited by the Nyquist frequency, but film is not. The Nyquist frequency is a physical limit which cannot be surpassed in digital photography. For example the Nyquist frequency of a 36 MP 24x36mm sensor is 102 lp/mm. The Nyquist frequency of a 45 MP 24x36mm sensor is 115 lp/mm.
In reality the real resolution of a lens+sensor combination is mostly 5 - 20% lower than the Nyquist frequency, dependent on camera software and whether an AA filter is used or not.
So even with the best lenses you cannot surpass the Nyquist frequency!!

But there are several high-quality films which offer higher resolutions than 100 lp/mm and 115 lp/mm at lower medium to higher medium and high object contrast details. And with the modern lens designs you can fully use / exploit these excellent high resolution values!
Just to list the most important of them: ADOX CMS 20 II, ADOX HR-50 and SCALA 50, TMX, Delta 100, Acros 100 I/II, Agfa Aviphot Pan 80, Velvia 50, Velvia 100, Provia 100F, Provia 400X, Fujicolor C200, Superia X-Tra 400, Portra 160, E100.

2. One of the major and most significant advantage and improvement with the latest, modern lens designs is the much improved performance at open aperture and at 1-2 stopped down aperture. And the progress made in this area is really huge and easily visible.
Most of these modern and improved lenses can be used without any problems at open aperture, with already very good sharpness and contrast. Stopped down only one stop the performance is even better with "very little more to wish for". And with an only two stops down aperture you often already have a perfect performance (lots of the new lenses are only diffraction limited).
And all that means in real shooting conditions:
Because of these much better performance at wider opened apertures you can now use a better, lower-speed film instead of a higher speed film. You can often use ISO 25/15° or 50/18° instead of ISO 100/21°.
Or instead of using ISO 400/27° you can go down to ISO 100/21° and can benefit from the much better detail rendition of the lower-speed films.

I am organising film photographer meetings on a regular basis (well, before the pandemic of course, and hopefully after it again). And in these meetings I also show the photographers comparison test pictures in blind tests. And in lots of these tests the shots made with the modern lenses on high-quality low- to medium speed 35mm films (tabular grain type) were considered superior to medium format shots made with older lens designs on medium speed and higher speed films with classic emulsion types.

The design progress in lens design of the last 30 years is by far one of the best things that happened to film photographers.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Dali]

The design progress in lens design of the last 30 years is by far one of the best things that happened to film photographers.

It is the best thing happening for brands to encourage photographers to buy new gear. It might be an optical engineer's praradise but I don't think it translate in better photography (unless we limit photography to brick walls and USAF charts)..

 

[Colin Corneau]

I'm running behind here....so there was an ASPH 35 'Cron. Now there's an APO one..??

 

[George Mann]

1. The resolution of digital sensors is limited by the Nyquist frequency, but film is not. The Nyquist frequency is a physical limit which cannot be surpassed in digital photography. For example the Nyquist frequency of a 36 MP 24x36mm sensor is 102 lp/mm. The Nyquist frequency of a 45 MP 24x36mm sensor is 115 lp/mm.
In reality the real resolution of a lens+sensor combination is mostly 5 - 20% lower than the Nyquist frequency, dependent on camera software and whether an AA filter is used or not.
So even with the best lenses you cannot surpass the Nyquist frequency!!

Indeed!

But there are several high-quality films which offer higher resolutions than 100 lp/mm and 115 lp/mm at lower medium to higher medium and high object contrast details. And with the modern lens designs you can fully use / exploit these excellent high resolution values!
Just to list the most important of them: ADOX CMS 20 II, ADOX HR-50 and SCALA 50, TMX, Delta 100, Acros 100 I/II, Agfa Aviphot Pan 80, Velvia 50, Velvia 100, Provia 100F, Provia 400X, Fujicolor C200, Superia X-Tra 400, Portra 160, E100.

Isn't Pan F plus (50) pretty high as well?

2. One of the major and most significant advantage and improvement with the latest, modern lens designs is the much improved performance at open aperture and at 1-2 stopped down aperture. And the progress made in this area is really huge and easily visible.
Most of these modern and improved lenses can be used without any problems at open aperture, with already very good sharpness and contrast. Stopped down only one stop the performance is even better with "very little more to wish for". And with an only two stops down aperture you often already have a perfect performance (lots of the new lenses are only diffraction limited).
And all that means in real shooting conditions:
Because of these much better performance at wider opened apertures you can now use a better, lower-speed film instead of a higher speed film. You can often use ISO 25/15° or 50/18° instead of ISO 100/21°.
Or instead of using ISO 400/27° you can go down to ISO 100/21° and can benefit from the much better detail rendition of the lower-speed films.

As we marvel at their technical abilities, some of us can't help but to be disappointed by their rather sterile renditions.

The design progress in lens design of the last 30 years is by far one of the best things that happened to film photographers.

Best regards,
Henning

Yes, but I still largely prefer the look of my (now ancient h.c. auto) Nikkor 50mm F2 at its optimal apertures over all others, and my Nikkor 28mm F3.5 Ai performs surprisingly well wide open on film, while providing a warm and natural looking rendition.

Are there any modern lenses that actually render pleasant images?

 

[BradS]

It will be 100€ cheaper than 50mm ASPH.
Anyone interested ?

It lists for $8200....so no, I'm definitely not interested....not even at 1/8 the price would I be interested.
$8000 for a small format, RF lens is absurd beyond all comprehension.

 

[mshchem]

People tend to forget that the US dollar, and most currency, (I can't think of one that's not) are purely fiat. If you look at the USD in the early 70's being pegged to Gold at $35/oz. Leicas are cheaper than ever.
Cameras aren't expensive, money is worthless, and wages, definitely haven't kept up.
Oh well I can watch TV on my phone, that's all that really matters

 

[Henning Serger]

It is the best thing happening for brands to encourage photographers to buy new gear. It might be an optical engineer's praradise but I don't think it translate in better photography (unless we limit photography to brick walls and USAF charts)..

Well, if you don't think that optical improvements which result in better image quality are a value a photographer is benefitting from, then you should be consequent and not only reject improved lens designs, but also reject other options which offer improved picture quality like medium and large format.
With this mind-set you will be certainly satisfied with 8x11mm miniature format, or 18x24mm half-frame, or pinhole photography. Fine for you if you are satiesfied with it. Nothing wrong with that.

But other photographers have other needs and requirements.
I am a photographer for several decades. I have used (and tested in my test lab) dozens of different lenses over these decades. And the modern lens designs have not only improved the technical quality of my pictures, but also very often the aesthetical quality as well. Because the modern lenses I have chosen also offer improved separation of sharp-to-unsharp details, improved three-dimensionality ("3D-pop"), more pleasing bokeh and much nicer colour rendition (a very nice feature the modern Zeiss ZF / ZE / Milvus lenses offer for example).
And the modern lenses have also often increased the creative options: Lots of the shots I've made with my Nikkor 4/300 AF-S would have been impossible with my older Nikkor 4,5/300. And my Nikkor 2/105 DC is not only optically superior to my old 2.5/105 AI-S, but offers with its unique control over spherical abberration lots of additional creative possibilities for wonderful pictures.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[halfaman]

Leica plays in the luxury market since many years, like Ferrari or Patek Phillipe. Photographic considerations are not the main driving factors for the potencial buyers, although they are great instruments for sure.

 

[Henning Serger]

@Henning Serger @Lachlan Young thank you, gentlemen. You're not making it easy for me to fight off GAS, but it's nice to know there's room for (technical) improvement. It is somewhat easier with a rangefinder though, as I lack the patience for nailing focus at apertures bigger than f/2.8 so I'll be happy with my Summarit f/2.5 for a while.

To clarify: the APO line enables ASPH performance in a more compact package with less distortion? I've seen wide open shots from Leica's ASPH lenses and having a hard time wishing for more.

You're welcome.
Concerning your question: Compactness without loosing optical performance can be achieved by using (an) aspheric element(s). To describe it in very simplified words: With one aspheric element you can replace 2-3 normal elements, but keeping the performance. That allows a more compact construction.
Concerning distortion: There are several design options to reduce it. But often you have to make compromises on other parameters to keep distortion on very low levels, especially with wide angle lenses.
In general it is easier to keep distortion on low(er) levels with lenses with f2 open aperture compared to lenses with wider max. apertures like f1.4 or f1.2.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Henning Serger]

Isn't Pan F plus (50) pretty high as well?

Yes, it is of course. My list above was not meant to be a fully complete list. I have just given some examples.

As we marvel at their technical abilities, some of us can't help but to be disappointed by their rather sterile renditions.

Which of the modern lenses have you tested on film, and in real side-by-side tests to equivalent older designs?
I ask because none of the modern lenses I have tested have shown a "sterile" look on film. Just the opposite! The results have been much more pleasing (reasons see my answer below).

What I have experienced is a more "sterile" look in digital imaging, and the extent being dependent on the camera/sensor and software used. And then it happened both with older and newer lens designs.

Yes, but I still largely prefer the look of my (now ancient h.c. auto) Nikkor 50mm F2 at its optimal apertures over all others, and my Nikkor 28mm F3.5 Ai performs surprisingly well wide open on film, while providing a warm and natural looking rendition.

I use my older 50mm Nikkors very seldom nowadays. Mostly I am using now the Zeiss ZF 2/50, because it produces much more pleasing images with
- much better colour rendition
- much better bokeh
- much better three-dimensional impression
- improved separation of sharp-to-unsharp areas
- better sharpness and resolution at f2 and f2.8
- better contrast over all apertures
- more even performance over the whole frame (better performance outside the middle and at the borders)
- better build quality.

Are there any modern lenses that actually render pleasant images?

All of the modern lenses I use render images in a more pleasent way than my older lenses. That is why I am using them.
Look at the advantages and improvements I have listed above for the Zeiss ZF 2/50. That are typical advantages and improvements I see on about all of my modern lenses compared to my older ones.
Of course with some lenses some parameters are more distinct than others.

Best regards,
Henning