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

[mshchem]

I have a beautiful Leica M6ttl and a modern, 20 year old 50 and 35mm asph1 Summicron and a amazingly beautiful 1960'sish ELCAN 90mm Summicron. I never use this stuff. The 35mm films I shoot are mostly Fujichrome in my F5.
I use medium format. For the price of a Leica and lens on the D@$*tal front. You could have a pretty amazing new Nikon D6 and lenses.

I have got a couple amazing shots with my Leica, it's peaceful and unobtrusive. The lenses are sharp wide open and tiny. If I had the money I would go nuts buying M stuff. I think Leica is doing what any good company does, they try to improve on what came before. Doesn't come cheap.
I hope Leica can keep it going, there's still no other 35mm RF that feels as solid and perfect (to me) as a Leica M.

 

[Huss]

Tragically, Zeiss Milvus ZF lenses are all in medium format category in terms of size+weight, killing the primary advantage of 35mm format - portability. 600g+ for a normal f/2 prime... if I am in the mood to lug around a beast like that, I'll grab a 645 camera.

They still have the properly-sized Planars f/1.4 ZF2 for 50 and 80mm, I wonder how much worse they are vs their obese Milvus counterparts.

The 'new' Milvus 50 Makro Planar and 35mm f2 have the exact same optics as the previous ZF.2 generation. But Zeiss' marketing department have put them in a massive shell to make them new and 'impressive' looking.
The size is unnecessary and unwarranted and for me shows that they have lost their way.
I am very happy with my ZF.2 versions.

 

[Henning Serger]

Guilty as charged, I am probably in that group, because I've always believed in enlargement limits for every medium.

And that is generally also correct, as every medium has a certain enlargement limit. Which is of course also very dependent on individual preferences (some are more tolerant concerning quality losses of bigger enlargements than other photographers), on viewing distance of course, and as so often, there are also some special exceptions. Which are for example in our case special films like microfilm based films (like CMS 20 II), which have no real enlargement limit (but that special case is a different topic).

But, the interesting point is that due to the huge progress in film technology and lens design in the last decades, 35mm photography has benefitted in a disproportionately high way from this progress. In relation more than medium and large format. Considering our most used applications.
I want to explain that a bit more in detail:
If we are looking at prints, the huge majority is made in formats up to max. 30x40 centimeter. Prints above that size are a very small niche.
And now let's have a look at the year 1985, one year before T-Max 100 was introduced: When we wanted at that time a 30x40 cm BW print with outstanding detail rendition and extremely fine / invisible grain, we either had to use slow-speed 35mm films like Agfapan 25, Ilford PanF, Panatomic X, or we had to use medium format with FP4, Plus-X, Agfapan 100 if we wanted higher film speed.
But nowadays we can have that quality level with an outstanding 30x40cm print already with medium speed 35mm films like T-Max 100, Delta 100 and Acros 100. And with the right developer even with TMY-2 (which is simply a league of its own concerning detail rendition in the ISO 400/27° BW film class, I love that stuff).
No need to have the neccessary compromises of low speed 35mm film, or the compromises of medium format.

In 1985 FP4, Plus-X, Agfapan 100 in medium format was representative for very high, professional grade picture quality. And if we look today at these pictures, we will certainly confirm that it is still very-high professional quality today.
At that time I was a young pupil making his first big enlargements in his own darkroom. From 35mm. Medium format was just a dream for me. The MF equipment was so expensive that I simply could not afford it at all, not even used equipment.
But with the modern, much improved films, and the modern, much improved lens designs, I can now come very close to that former medium format quality level, but with 35mm film. When I look now at my Delta 100, Acros 100, TMX enlargements on 35mm with my best lenses, and compare them to my 4.5x6 and 6x6 shots made on FP4+ or Fomapan 100, then the quality difference is not so big anymore.
In 2019 we were in China, and one part of the journey were the workshops we offered. My part was BW film and development. As I have said above, I often make blind tests with photographers. Did that in China, too.The participants were photo professors and mostly experienced photographers. Presented them pictures made on 6x6 FP4+ with lenses of older design, and 35mm pictures on Delta 100 made with modern lenses. I only told them that some of the pictures were made on 6x6 120, and the others on 35mm. They should say which is which. Almost all selected the 35mm Delta 100 shots as 6x6 shots, and thought that the FP4+ pictures were made on 35mm. They were quite surprised when I revealed the truth .

One big advantage of the newly designed 35mm lenses is that lots of them have a very good performance already at max. aperture. They deliver an optical quality at f1.4, for which the older lenses from the 70ies / 80ies needs to be stopped down to 2.8 to show a similar level of performance. Means that you can use a lower speed, higher quality film instead of a higher speed film with the modern lenses in certain situations.
And if we consider that in medium format 4,5x6 / 6x6 the normal max. aperture for lenses in the mostly used 55-150mm range (35-90mm equivalent in 35mm) is 2.8, but in 35mm it is 1.4 or 1.8, we see that in lots of situations when in medium format an ISO 400/27° film is needed, in 35mm an ISO 100/21° film can be used.
So again 35mm photography has benefitted in a disproportionately high way from technological progress, here modern lens design. Also because we have not seen much new and improved lenses for medium format film cameras in the last 20 years (with the exception of the lenses for the Hasselblad H system).

I enlarge my 35mm pictures regularly to 1.50 meters width. Everytime when I project my slides. The quality with my high-quality projection lenses and the current colour and BW reversal films is simply outstanding. I can goo very close to the screen, can "put my nose" to it, and yet see all the fine details. Tonality and brillance are awesome.
I don't wish for more quality when I see my 35mm slides in projection. I don't miss medium format then.
I do project my medium format slides, too. But definitely not because I would miss some quality in 35mm projection.

As I have said in one of my earlier posts above: My motto is "horses for courses", the right tool for the job.
In some cases I profit from modern film and lens technology in 35mm. And then I use it and enjoy the results.
In other cases there is no special need for it. For example in lots of my landscape photography. Then
- I am using a tripod in most cases anyway
- can therefore use lower- or medium speed films without problems
- have time, no need for fast reactions
- no need for autofocus
- I am using mostly apertures in the f5.6 - 11 range.
So the advantages of modern 35mm photography are not needed for that. And I can fully exploit the format advantage of medium format, which I do .

Resolution of a lens doesn't matter as much if it's used on a low-res film.

Correct. Fortunately we have today very much films with excellent detail rendition which fit the modern high-quality optics perfectly.
But nevertheless you will get visible better quality with a better lens even on a low-resolution film (see below).

I get the concept of total resolution (i.e. 150lp/mm lens with 100lp/mm film gives you less than 100lp/mm), it's a nuance but doesn't change much. I hope this makes sense.

Well the calculation of "system resolution" is more a rule of thumb than a totally precise calculation method "down to 1 lp/mm", but it works quite well:
1/system resolution = 1/lens resolution + 1/film resolution.
So you will benefit from a better lens even when a low resolution film is used - and vice versa.
The recent modern 35mm lenses are so good that most of them are only diffraction limited from about f2.8 on. The diffraction limit of white light at f4 is 400 lp/mm, and about 250 lp/mm at f5.6.
Zeiss achieved 400 lp/mm resolution with their ZM Biogon 2.8/25, on the SPUR Orthopan UR film (which is identical to ADOX CMS 20, the first version).
I have achieved about 240-260 lp/mm at f5.6 with several lenses on ADOX CMS 20 II.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Henning Serger]

Hello Huss,

The 'new' Milvus 50 Makro Planar and 35mm f2 have the exact same optics as the previous ZF.2 generation.

that is not quite true, as the lenses also get the newest and improved coating technology. Which - at least in the case of the 2/50 Makro-Planar - lead to an improved performance concerning flare.
Another advantage is that all Milvus lenses have the same colour transmission = colour rendition (which is excellent). So changing from one Milvus lens to another one means consistent colour rendition, no surprising changes. As a transparency film user I really appreciate that approach, especially as my Nikkor, Sigma and Mamiya lenses don't have that perfect consistency.

But Zeiss' marketing department have put them in a massive shell to make them new and 'impressive' looking.

The Milvus lenses have all new and improved barrels / mechanics, for more robustness, and with inner dust and water protection (sealing). Also a seal at the lens mount.
The rubberized focus ring was a request from photographers who are using their lenses in the cold, and prefer operation without gloves.

The size is unnecessary and unwarranted and for me shows that they have lost their way.
I am very happy with my ZF.2 versions.

Size and weight are in line (partly even less) compared to the other modern highest-quality lenses for 35mm from Sigma (Art series), Pentax (HD FA series), Tokina (Opera) and Tamron (1.4/35).
And also lots of the new highest-quality mirrorless lenses for 35mm are in that size and weight range. For example the new Nikkor Z 1.8/50 is significantly longer than the ZF Makro-Planar 2/50 Milvus.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

Henning, your posts are always entertaining to read. Your industry insights and your enthusiasm for film and for photography in general is contagious! I am sensing a potential Youtube star!



... or one can say it's a disease and the industry is ill and in denial. Their market keeps shrinking (because smartphones) and they're frantically reacting to "more sharpness" signal at expense of everything else, probably because they're not getting any other inputs. The way I see it, their offerings get heavier, more expensive and less useful, reducing their market even further. If Sigma/Tamron/Zeiss/Nikon want me to lug around a 600g prime, they have to pay me, not charge me.

Thank god for Voigtlander.

Pentax just updated their very compact 43/31/77mm FA Limiteds with newer coatings. These are an excellent match with the LX. Unfortunately their digital cameras are hobbled by terrible AF and their newer primes are rebranded. I"m not the first to say I wish they'd re-release a film camera. I'm sure Cosina would work with them.

 

[Huss]

I am briefly tempted by the Leica 50 Apo Summicron whenever I see a used one at a decent price.
But then I google pics taken by it on film, and frankly see zero advantage or difference when using this lens on film. Which is what I would be doing.
Which makes me happy as I should not even be thinking about buying the lens!

Same thing with the new 35mm Apo Summicron. A waste on film.

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

I am briefly tempted by the Leica 50 Apo Summicron whenever I see a used one at a decent price.
But then I google pics taken by it on film, and frankly see zero advantage or difference when using this lens on film. Which is what I would be doing.
Which makes me happy as I should not even be thinking about buying the lens!

Same thing with the new 35mm Apo Summicron. A waste on film.

I scan film 5 days a week, sometimes to very high resolution. I can't tell the difference between someone using a Nikon lens from the 90s, a Canon L lens, a Leica lens, a Zeiss lens...once you got to the 90s level of pro glass on 35mm you really have to split hairs and bring perfect technique to the table. Lens tests are one thing, people out shooting in the world is a whole other thing. That's pretty much why I pick gear based on other factors, such as my enjoyment of the rendering, the camera I can put it on, the focal length, etc...

Once you get to 120 I can see when someone has a Mamiya C330 or Yashica 124G vs a Rollei. I can also differentiate between someone using a C series Hasselblad lens and a T* coated version. After that period they're all pretty good, though you can generally tell a Mamiya 80/2.8 from a Hasselblad H 80/2.8 by the detail wide open and contrast. My favorites in 120 are of course my dearly missed Schneiders from the Rollei system. However the bigger negatives from a 6x7 camera such as the Mamiya 7 give them a run for their money, though of course 1 stop slower (or more).

In large format I notice the technique challenges before anything else. Usually some amount of shake or slight misfocus. High resolution scanning reveals a lot.

Back to the APO Summicrons, yeah I don't see the advantage. If you handed someone a lowly 50mm 2.0 ZM Planar and some Ektar 100 they'd come back and tell you that this lens is wildly sharp. Why should you then tell them to spend much more on a newer APO Summicon? Even on the digital bodies they don't make a camera with a high enough resolution sensor for it to make sense. If you must have a Leica, who ever said the Summilux was soft? Plus you get 1.4 and a few thousand bucks. Then you have the APO Voigtlanders... You could applaud Leica for pushing the envelope I guess but I'd appreciate it if they pushed the envelope of value down so more people can use their great products.

 

[logan2z]

I'd appreciate it if they pushed the envelope of value down so more people can use their great products.

They did it with the Summarits - nobody bought them. Apparently, most people don't want a less expensive Leica product since they assume that means it is cheaply made and performs poorly.

 

[logan2z]

Back to the APO Summicrons, yeah I don't see the advantage.

You might change your mind if you head on over to the Leica User's Forum and see the stunning pics of dog poop or pet chickens.

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

They did it with the Summarits - nobody bought them. Apparently, most people don't want a less expensive Leica product since they assume that means it is cheaply made and performs poorly.

C'mon. Those Summarits were all 2.4! At the time they were competing with some excellent Zeiss glass, pretty decent Voigtlander, and used Leica lenses from their whole history. A $2000 2.4 50mm lens vs a $700ish 50/2 Planar with a stellar reputation...I can do the math there. Now if all the Summarits cost around $1200, you might convince someone picking up a used M6 or M4 at the time it would be worth having some good Leica glass...but in true Leica fashion, they over reach on price. It can't just be expensive, it has to be stupid expensive. Does Nikon make an F6 for $2700? Well our MP that we ripped the meter out of and sealed up the battery chamber is gonna be $5200. Now as Henning said they sell every single one they make apparently so what do they care? I don't. The M4 is a fantastic value, as is the M4P, M4-2, etc... Plus now you can have a compact 50/1.2 with a pretty stellar reputation. I'd think about switching but honestly the AF-D lenses are about as good as the vintage line CV lenses that I like so much, and they cost so little...

 

[Tim Gray]

You might change your mind if you head on over to the Leica User's Forum and see the stunning pics of dog poop or pet chickens.

That thread is something, isn’t it?

 

[logan2z]

That thread is something, isn’t it?

It certainly is

 

[logan2z]

C'mon. Those Summarits were all 2.4! At the time they were competing with some excellent Zeiss glass, pretty decent Voigtlander, and used Leica lenses from their whole history. A $2000 2.4 50mm lens vs a $700ish 50/2 Planar with a stellar reputation...I can do the math there. Now if all the Summarits cost around $1200, you might convince someone picking up a used M6 or M4 at the time it would be worth having some good Leica glass...but in true Leica fashion, they over reach on price. It can't just be expensive, it has to be stupid expensive. Does Nikon make an F6 for $2700? Well our MP that we ripped the meter out of and sealed up the battery chamber is gonna be $5200. Now as Henning said they sell every single one they make apparently so what do they care? I don't. The M4 is a fantastic value, as is the M4P, M4-2, etc... Plus now you can have a compact 50/1.2 with a pretty stellar reputation. I'd think about switching but honestly the AF-D lenses are about as good as the vintage line CV lenses that I like so much, and they cost so little...

As I said earlier, the 50mm definitely overreached in terms of price. It wasn't that far off a Summicron v5. The 35mm was a better deal and a great lens. The 75mm was excellent too.

I'm pretty sure we'll never see a new $700 lens with the Leica name on it.

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

As I said earlier, the 50mm definitely overreached in terms of price. It wasn't that far off a Summicron v5. The 35mm was a better deal and a great lens. The 75mm was excellent too.

I'm pretty sure we'll never see a new $700 lens with the Leica name on it.

No, but if they want me to consider a $2000 lens it better at least be 2.0 otherwise what's the point? People tend to leave the ground and float in the clouds when we talk Leica and prices but I could pick up some pretty sweet AF glass for that price. 2 or maybe 3 used Sigma ART lenses for my Nikon...if I liked carrying cinderblocks around.

 

[Lachlan Young]

... or one can say it's a disease and the industry is ill and in denial. Their market keeps shrinking (because smartphones) and they're frantically reacting to "more sharpness" signal at expense of everything else, probably because they're not getting any other inputs. The way I see it, their offerings get heavier, more expensive and less useful, reducing their market even further. If Sigma/Tamron/Zeiss/Nikon want me to lug around a 600g prime, they have to pay me, not charge me.

Or that modern lens design/ manufacturing has made it relatively easy to design a very high quality wide aperture prime, if size is not a limiting factor & wafer thin profit margins are acceptable. If you look at the number of people willing to put camera-structure-straining adapted PL mount lenses on various small cameras in the belief it'll let them pretend to be a 'cinematographer' as a manifestation of their midlife crisis/ corporate ennui, it's not a big step to see that any reasonable lens manufacturer realised there was a ready and willing market for oversize primes. It's also become much cheaper to make classic lens designs too - thus if your brand's aimed appeal is to the high end of the market, the drive to add more & more 'complications' (in the horological sense) become imperative - aka the highest possible performance in the smallest possible enclosure.

 

[Huss]

They did it with the Summarits - nobody bought them. Apparently, most people don't want a less expensive Leica product since they assume that means it is cheaply made and performs poorly.

Problem with the Summarits was they weren't cheap enough compared to the Summicron. The Summicron 50 v5 was only a few hundred dollars more, and with that you got f2 and a much higher level of fit and finish.
And you could buy a used/like new Summicron V5 for less than a new Summarit 50.
As a previous owner of the new Summarit lenses I can say from experience that while optically they were superb, mechanically they definitely did not match Leica's build and material quality of their regular line lenses.
They don't even match Voigtlander's latest M mount releases in build/fit and finish.

 

[logan2z]

Problem with the Summarits was they weren't cheap enough compared to the Summicron. The Summicron 50 v5 was only a few hundred dollars more, and with that you got f2 and a much higher level of fit and finish.
And you could buy a used/like new Summicron V5 for less than a new Summarit 50.
As a previous owner of the new Summarit lenses I can say from experience that while optically they were superb, mechanically they definitely did not match Leica's build and material quality of their regular line lenses.
They don't even match Voigtlander's latest M mount releases in build/fit and finish.

Right, I said the same thing about the Summarit 50 vs the Summicron a couple of times in this thread. The 35mm was a better deal than the 50, IMHO.

Owning both the 35mm Summarit and 50mm Summicron, I'd have to agree that the Summarits don't feel quite as well built. They're certainly not bad but they don't have the same feel as Leica's more expensive lenses.

 

[film_man]

No, but if they want me to consider a $2000 lens it better at least be 2.0 otherwise what's the point? People tend to leave the ground and float in the clouds when we talk Leica and prices but I could pick up some pretty sweet AF glass for that price. 2 or maybe 3 used Sigma ART lenses for my Nikon...if I liked carrying cinderblocks around.

The Leica does not have to be x times better optically because for the price you are also getting a lens that is x times smaller. As you say, Sigma ART lenses are great but are cinderblocks. That in itself has a price. Maybe not for everyone but for those buying a Leica lens it does have quite a bit.

I think a lot of people bypass the size issues because they compare Leica lenses when used on mirrorless cameras or coming from an SLR perspective. The size of a lens on an M body is not just a handling issue, the lens intrudes into the viewfinder. The CV 35/1.2 is a fantastic lens for little money yet not only is it heavy, it blocks a fair bit of the finder. Some, like myself, find that very annoying so that has a "price" when selecting what lens to buy. Leica makes smaller lenses than anyone else for a given f-stop. We could argue about diminishing returns but that is a relative thing for each individual, a bit like paying 10/20/30k extra for a car to shave a fraction or two of a second in acceleration.

 

[Dali]

film_man, I agree, having a lens blocking the viewfinder is a nonsense. But paying an indecent amount of money to get a lens not intruding in the VF is also a nonsense.

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

The Leica does not have to be x times better optically because for the price you are also getting a lens that is x times smaller. As you say, Sigma ART lenses are great but are cinderblocks. That in itself has a price. Maybe not for everyone but for those buying a Leica lens it does have quite a bit.

I think a lot of people bypass the size issues because they compare Leica lenses when used on mirrorless cameras or coming from an SLR perspective. The size of a lens on an M body is not just a handling issue, the lens intrudes into the viewfinder. The CV 35/1.2 is a fantastic lens for little money yet not only is it heavy, it blocks a fair bit of the finder. Some, like myself, find that very annoying so that has a "price" when selecting what lens to buy. Leica makes smaller lenses than anyone else for a given f-stop. We could argue about diminishing returns but that is a relative thing for each individual, a bit like paying 10/20/30k extra for a car to shave a fraction or two of a second in acceleration.

The older ones were huge but I think the current one may not block your VF: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod...nder_ba355a_nokton_35mm_f_1_2_aspherical.html

Even the 50mm is quite squat: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod...nder_ba348a_nokton_50mm_f_1_2_aspherical.html

It's wild what CV is putting out these days. Why in the heck did they kill their film camera line??? There would never be a better time for a Bessa. I agree they could have upped the build quality and charged about double the price. But if they would have held out until now people would be buying them. Especially with their current lens line up which puts the ZM Zeiss line up to shame (with the exception of the best 35/1.4 ever made, the current Distagon...also way too big, but gobsmackingly good).

 

[film_man]

film_man, I agree, having a lens blocking the viewfinder is a nonsense. But paying an indecent amount of money to get a lens not intruding in the VF is also a nonsense.

It is all relative. Some people (in this forum, just look at some of the threads) think anyone buying anything pricier than a $50 50/1.8 is just self gratifying nonsense for posers. $5-10k for a lens is a lot for you and me but there are plenty of people with Ferraris and Rolexes.

 

[Dali]

It is all relative. Some people (in this forum, just look at some of the threads) think anyone buying anything pricier than a $50 50/1.8 is just self gratifying nonsense for posers. $5-10k for a lens is a lot for you and me but there are plenty of people with Ferraris and Rolexes.

It is not really what I mean. To me, a RF lens blocking the view is a nonsense, whatever the price (people complain about SLR finder not showing the whole negative but when it comes to RF, it looks almost normal NOT to see part of the image. Go figure...). It should be a basic feature. Asking me to pay (much) more to get what should come first, no way.

 

[Huss]

.. Especially with their current lens line up which puts the ZM Zeiss line up to shame (with the exception of the best 35/1.4 ever made, the current Distagon...also way too big, but gobsmackingly good).

I have the ZM 35 1.4 but I cannot remember the last time I used it. The image quality is fantastic, but the lens takes up just over 1/4 of the VF image, the aperture stops are very harsh/clicky (if that makes sense), and the focus ring feels like Zeiss uses molasses to lube the helicoils. It's a weird feeling - smooth but heavy and sticky. The latest Voigtlanders are so much better mechanically (the newest CV lens I have is the 40mm 1.2 which is superb), and the Leica Summicron Asph 35mm f2 mechanically feels worth the extra cost over the Zeiss.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Why in the heck did they kill their film camera line???

Copal killed it by stopping making shutters.

 

[film_man]

It is not really what I mean. To me, a RF lens blocking the view is a nonsense, whatever the price (people complain about SLR finder not showing the whole negative but when it comes to RF, it looks almost normal NOT to see part of the image. Go figure...). It should be a basic feature. Asking me to pay (much) more to get what should come first, no way.

Finder blockage is as much a basic feature as a 100% SLR viewfinder or a smooth focusing lens or wide open corner performance or anything else really, the whole contraption is a compromise just like any other man made object. There is an easy way to not have finder blockage, just move the finder further out. But then you make the camera bigger and have more parallax issues. Alternatively you make the lens smaller. But you are still limited by focal length and aperture. The aperture is physically focal length / f-stop. So then the glass need to do what it needs to do. You can make the lens smaller by then you have more vignetting. Or you use more expensive glass and better construction. Etc etc

By the way this is an excellent video talking about lens features and why things are expensive, it is about cine but the principles are the same. Basically, if anyone thinks Leica stuff is pricey well...cine.

What Makes Cinema Lenses So Special!? | DEEP DIVE on Arri Signature Primes - YouTube