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

[Dali]

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.

Hennig, I don't discriminate according to format, being miniature, small, medium of large. Only the picture counts. Sorry but i don't see images screming "APO". I see good pictures or what I consider bad pictures and it has more to do with the photgrapher than the camera / lens.

To expect to be a good photographer and more important to get outstanding pictures, nothing replace practice, not even a $8,000 APO lens which is very close to the bottom of my priority list.

 

[mshchem]

Newer lenses are better than old lenses. I have the latest Nikon F mount 70-200 2.8 with the latest VR. That's an amazing lens, it's practically macro it focuses so close. On the other hand high end expensive optics have always been good. Zeiss, Leith, etc.
300 f 4.5 Nikon was a dog. I had a Nikon AFS 300 f4, the motor went out 3 times, I replaced it once and sold it. I heard back from the dealer.
I bought a 300mm AF f4 Nikkor ED, drop in 39mm filters. Awesome lens.

 

[Henning Serger]

I see good pictures or what I consider bad pictures and it has more to do with the photgrapher than the camera / lens.

To expect to be a good photographer and more important to get outstanding pictures, nothing replace practice, not even a $8,000 APO lens which is very close to the bottom of my priority list.

Well, all that are "Binsenweisheiten" / it is commonplace. No one is denying that the skills of the photographer, his composition and / or his ability to press the shutter in the right / decisive moment are the most important factors for very good photographs. I would be the absolutely last person to deny that (please just look at my signature).
But it is not an "either - or" question! We can have both!
With better optics I can simply add some more quality and aesthetic appeal to my very good compositions or "shot in the right moment" pictures.
And these better lenses are seldomly so expensive as the new Leica APO 2/35.
For example the current Nikkor 1.8/50 AF-S surpasses its forerunners in most parameters, and it cost only 200€.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[George Mann]

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.

I admit that my personal experience has been limited to results obtained from dslr's.

But I have also seen many film scans from these modern, "improved" lenses (including here) that while technically excellent, have repeatedly left me cold.

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.



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

I have to admit that I fail to find the rendition of modern Zeiss lenses (from Contax to ZM) to be my cup of tea.

P.S. Can you tell me what resolution limit of Pan F plus is, and what film stocks currently beat it?

 

[Dali]

Let's continue with "Binsenweisheiten" and ask the real question to posters: After reading Hennig's long plea, who is ready to part with $8,000 to get this lens?

In the end, nothing else matters (especially for Leica!).

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

I guess Leica should be applauded for at least pushing the envelope while also keeping lens size down. As good as the new glass is it makes.a 35mm system huge in most cases. It's too bad they also insist on making lenses few can afford. Personally I sold off my Leica stuff and I'm outfitting my F6 with AF-D lenses. I'm very happy with them. If I want more detail, I use a bigger format.

I wish CV would bring out a new Bessa. I'd consider using those sweet little vintage line lenses they're releasing.

 

[Craig75]

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

Interesting observations Henning. What are the best new manual focus nikons youve seen? I have had my eye on laowa 15mm shift but id like a prime too in 28 to 60mm range - i have always suspected that new optical designs in 35mm could really challenge 120 cameras. Some crazy lenses out there today.

 

[Henning Serger]

I admit that my personal experience has been limited to results obtained from dslr's.

That is why I have asked you. It is the digital rendition of the sensor / software which is responsible for the more 'sterile' look, not the lens. When I put all my old Nikkor lenses on my Nikon DSLRs I also get this more sterile or artificial look (compared to film).

But I have also seen many film scans from these modern, "improved" lenses (including here) that while technically excellent, have repeatedly left me cold.

Here you have the limitations of the scans and the much inferior viewing medium, the computer monitor. That avoids that you can see the full potential of the lens+film combination. When I put my colour or BW slides, which were shot on my modern lenses, on the lighttable, and view them through my excellent slide loupes (or project them), I can enjoy this wonderful three-dimensionality ("3D-pop") of the Zeiss lenses, the Nikkor 2/105 DC or 4/300 AF-S for example.
You cannot see that depth and three-dimensionality on a computer monitor. Monitors have this flat, 'lifeless' character.

P.S. Can you tell me what resolution limit of Pan F plus is, and what film stocks currently beat it?

In my standardized resolution tests with an object contrast of 1:4 (two stops), shot on the Zeiss ZF 2/50 at f5.6, and developed in SPUR HRX, I've got 115-130 lp/mm. I've got the same resolution, but with finer grain, with Acros I and II.
If you want higher resolution than that Delta 100, TMX, ADOX HR-50 / SCALA 50, Agfa Aviphot Pan 80 and of course the resolution-record film ADOX CMS 20 II are the way to go.
And for colour Provia 100F, Velvia 50 and 100.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Henning Serger]

Unfortunately for people like me who don't like geometric distortion, correcting this in normal and short focal length designs seems to have been of relatively low priority.

Well no, that is fortunately not generally the case. You'll find also lenses with very low / minimal / negligible distortion in the group of the modern lens designs (normal or shorter focal lengths; for tele lenses it is generally no issue at all). Just some examples:
- Zeiss Makro-Planar / Milvus 2/50
- Sigma Art 1.4/35
- Sigma Art 1.4/50
- Sigma Art 1.4/28
- Sigma Art 2/24-35 (at 28 and 35mm)
- Nikkor 1.4/28 AF-S
- Sigma Art 1.4/24
- Canon 1.4/24 II
- Tamron SP 1.4/35
This list is not complete, just some examples for SLRs.
And several Leica and Voigtländer lenses for the M mount.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Henning Serger]

Interesting observations Henning. What are the best new manual focus nikons youve seen?

Definitely the Zeiss Milvus and Otus lenses with the ZF mount for Nikon F. The Otus line is per definition Zeiss' aim to build the best technical possible lenses with no compromises in costs, dimensions and weight.
That are by far the best manual focus lenses for Nikon (and Canon EF).
My favourites are the Milvus lenses, because they offer almost the Otus optical quality, but at much lower price, dimensions and weight. And two Milvus lenses - the APO-Sonnar 2/135 and the Planar 1.4/85 - have even about Otus-like optical quality. Zeiss could have branded them as Otus lenses without problems.
And all Milvus lenses are weather-sealed.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[George Mann]

In my standardized resolution tests with an object contrast of 1:4 (two stops), shot on the Zeiss ZF 2/50 at f5.6, and developed in SPUR HRX, I've got 115-130 lp/mm. I've got the same resolution, but with finer grain, with Acros I and II.
If you want higher resolution than that Delta 100, TMX, ADOX HR-50 / SCALA 50, Agfa Aviphot Pan 80 and of course the resolution-record film ADOX CMS 20 II are the way to go.
And for colour Provia 100F, Velvia 50 and 100.

Best regards,
Henning

Huh. I would have thought that Pan F was of higher resolution than Delta/TMX.

And what about Ektachrome E100?

 

[Henning Serger]

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.

Sorry, but that is wrong. I am shooting 4,5x6 as well (Mamiya 645 Pro TL), and with 35mm SLR and the Zeiss lenses I have overall less size and weight. When I go shooting outside with my Mamiya system I always need my bigger photo backpack, for 35mm and Zeiss the smaller one is sufficient.
Besides the aspect that there are much more advantages of 35mm than only size and weight.

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 1.4/50 ZF.2 and 1.4/85 ZF.2 of the "Classic Line" are old designs. The new Milvus 1.4/50 and 1.4/85 are complete new, and much improved designs. The Milvus 1.4/85 is one of the best 35mm lenses ever designed, a really outstanding lens. As I have said above, it is so good that Zeiss could have marketed it in the Otus line as well, without problems.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Henning Serger]

Well, once upon a time I bought several Zeiss ZF.2 lenses to potentially replace my Nikon lenses. This was before the Otus/Milvus age. One of these was the 50mm f/1.4 Planar as a replacement for the Nikkor AF-D 50mm f/1.4. Build quality was excellent, but long story short it was no better optically than the Nikkor.

The new Milvus lenses are quite different, and much better than the older versions. Most of the new Milvus lenses are completely new designs. There are only the 2/35, 2/50 Makro-Planar and 2/135 APO-Sonnar which were transferred from the former line to Milvus, but with an improvement in coatings.
These lenses were so good (especially the Makro-Planar and absolutely the APO-Sonnar) that a new design was not necessary. And the 2/50 and 2/135 also are new designs (2008 and 2013).
The new Milvus lenses are all significantly better compared to their Nikon counterparts.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Henning Serger]

Well, I have not used most of those but I think it depends on how you define low/minimal/negligible. I have read that type of description many times and found it to be significant enough to be unacceptable given the price point. Interestingly one of the best I have used in 24mm focal length is the Canon TSE II.

Well, my definition is based on my daily shooting experience. And I prefer lenses with the lowest possible distortion (like you).
Negligible: Less than 0.5% distortion. You cannot see that in the picture.
Minimal: Less than 1% distortion. You can only see that when long, straight lines are at the near border of the longer side of the picture. But even then it is not really disturbing. If you just put the straight line a little lower (e.g. with buildings, change the framing a little bit) the distortion vanishes and is not relevant anymore.
Low: Less than 1.5%. That is irrelevant for all situations without long lines at the near borders. For architecture shoots you have to be a bit more careful with the framing, placing the long lines about 1/4 of the vertical height below the border.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Henning Serger]

Huh. I would have thought that Pan F was of higher resolution than Delta/TMX.

PanF+ has a bit finer grain compared to Delta 100, but Delta 100 has much higher resolution and better sharpness. TMX has both finer grain and higher resolution than PanF+. The more modern / advanced emulsion technology of the Delta and TMX with their optimised surface/volume ratio makes the decisive difference.

And what about Ektachrome E100?

Is comparable in resolution to PanF+, but has finer grain.
The new E100 has a bit less resolution than the former E100G. And less resolution and less sharpness compared to Provia 100F and the Velvias.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Henning Serger]

Hello Mark,

I guess Leica should be applauded for at least pushing the envelope while also keeping lens size down.

I agree. And we just have to consider that this new APO lens has not the "average enthusiast" as a target market, but those limited number of photographers who want just the best optics technically possible, and in a very small and compact size.
And concerning the price it should also be considered that these lenses are designed to serve for many decades. Even the next generation(s) will be able to use them. Leica lenses are very sustainable products.
Not as my former cheap third party lenses, which have started to "falling apart" just after 20 years of very cautious and careful use.......

It's too bad they also insist on making lenses few can afford.

Well, that is a bit unfair, as Leica has meanwhile introduced a whole line of affordable lenses: the Summarit M line. Very compact lenses all with a f2.4 max aperture.
In general I find it quite amazing how Leica has increased the whole M camera line with different cameras and even much different lenses to cater to quite different customer groups (including film photographers; the demand for Leica M film cameras is by the way strongly increasing and meanwhile so high, that Leica's film M production is running at full capacity, and nevertheless demand is surpassing supply).
If someone would have told us 20 years ago, that the M system would have this great variety in 2021, we probably would have said he is totally crazy.......

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Henning Serger]

Sorry I wasn't implying they're equal. What I meant to say that if I'm packing a bag with photo equipment, I might as well reach for a medium format camera. IMO the purpose of 35mm equipment is to hang on a shoulder invisibly and not even owning a backpack

O.k., no problem.
My photography is mostly based on 'photo projects', so I often take a whole day for certain project. And then I have of course more equipment (several lenses, often also several camera bodies) with me.
But it is also no problem going for a photowalk in the parks nearby just with my FM or FE2, equipped only with the 2/50 Zeiss, and having the camera and lens hanging on my neck and under the coat / jacket. The ZF 2/50 is compact enough for that.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Henning Serger]

My Nikon kit consists of the 28mm f/2.8 AI-S and 50mm f/1.8 AI-S Japanese pancake. They are both compact and weight nothing. I'm having a hard time wishing for more as far as image quality is concerned.

Both are indeed very good lenses. And 20 years ago I had a very similar assessment, being very satiesfied with these lenses (only difference that I have the long-barrel version of the 1.8/50 AI-S). But after testing better lenses in my test lab and out in the fields in my daily photography, and seeing the differences and improvements, I started to realize that I benefit significantly in many different ways from these improvements. There is a German saying: "Das Bessere ist der Feind des Guten." The direct crappy translation is: "The better is the enemy of the good."

I don't like the feel of aperture/focus rings though. The internet says "AI-S lenes are build like tanks" but they feel cheaper than anything else I own (Hasselblad/Zeiss CF, M-lenses from Leica, Voigtlander and Zeiss, Fuji digital X-lenses and Canon L-lenses).

From my own experience I can at least confirm that the AI-S Nikkors keep on working after decades of use. And compared to lots of Canon FD lenses of that era (with the exception of the top lenses of the FD line), I would rank the Nikkors indeed higher in terms of build quality. But if I compare my AI-S Nikkors today to the Zeiss ZF / Milvus lenses, then the Zeiss build quality is far superior, they are in a different league.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

Hello Mark,



I agree. And we just have to consider that this new APO lens has not the "average enthusiast" as a target market, but those limited number of photographers who want just the best optics technically possible, and in a very small and compact size.
And concerning the price it should also be considered that these lenses are designed to serve for many decades. Even the next generation(s) will be able to use them. Leica lenses are very sustainable products.
Not as my former cheap third party lenses, which have started to "falling apart" just after 20 years of very cautious and careful use.......



Well, that is a bit unfair, as Leica has meanwhile introduced a whole line of affordable lenses: the Summarit M line. Very compact lenses all with a f2.4 max aperture.
In general I find it quite amazing how Leica has increased the whole M camera line with different cameras and even much different lenses to cater to quite different customer groups (including film photographers; the demand for Leica M film cameras is by the way strongly increasing and meanwhile so high, that Leica's film M production is running at full capacity, and nevertheless demand is surpassing supply).
If someone would have told us 20 years ago, that the M system would have this great variety in 2021, we probably would have said he is totally crazy.......

Best regards,
Henning

From the looks of it, all the Summarits have been discontinued. This makes sense as the 50/2.4 was around $2000. That’s not affordable by any standard, especially if you just objectively look at it as a slow 50/2.4. During my time at B&H in the used department, we saw plenty of Leica lenses and cameras much younger than 20 years needing service. These problems went up exponentially as you got into the modern stuff. The S lenses had a notorious AF system that would just fail without warning. These lenses were also extremely expensive, and the high cost did nothing to bolster reliability. The M gear is simpler, less to go wrong. It makes sense that it holds up for a long time. I’m still not paying $2000 for a 50mm 2.4.

I’m not some Leica hater. Their M line is really cool, and I think they’ve nailed it with the M10. Love their commitment to film. However their service and support for US customers is abysmal and their products cost too much.

When their ultra basic M-A costs as much as a new F6, I’ll be impressed. Until then if I want a Leica I’ll find another good M4 and use the excellent new Voigtlander lenses.

Your preferences for the highest technical image quality is obviously very strong and that’s fine, but you do come off as beating a dead horse a bit. If someone enjoys shooting Tri-X with a 50 year old lens they’re not going to suddenly decide that Adox CMS 20 is a better choice because the resolution is higher. Furthermore the resolution of your lens or film have so little to do with the creation of a successful portfolio of images that it’s hardly worth discussing.

 

[Henning Serger]

Hello Mark,

you are unfortunately both misinterpreting what I have written and you are making insinuations:

Your preferences for the highest technical image quality is obviously very strong and that’s fine, but you do come off as beating a dead horse a bit. If someone enjoys shooting Tri-X with a 50 year old lens they’re not going to suddenly decide that Adox CMS 20 is a better choice because the resolution is higher.

I have never said or suggested that someone who likes using Tri-X (or any other film) should replace it by ADOX CMS 20 II because of the higher resolution! Both are very different tools for different purposes. My motto has always been "horses for courses". If I want a more grainy look because I think it supports the message of my picture, I will take a grainy film for that. Simple and easy.
I use lots of different films with very different characteristics. From several manufacturers.
I always take the best film for my needs, for my purpose, for the choosen subject. That will be for example sometimes TMY-2, sometimes HP5+, sometimes Delta 100, Portra 160, E100, Provia 100F, Velvia 50, Scala 50, HR-50, X-Tra 400..........and lots of others. And sometimes CMS 20 II, when I need its strengths.

And I have never understood this very one-sided fanboy behaviour with "I shoot only brand XY" and "fuck competitor Z". Why should I limit my creative choices? Makes no sense at all.

Furthermore the resolution of your lens or film have so little to do with the creation of a successful portfolio of images that it’s hardly worth discussing.

Again an insinuation. I have never ever said that resolution is the most important quality factor. Not at all. Please read my signature.
Resolution is just one parameter which can be important for certain subjects, to underline and emphasize the look and message of the picture. And it gives the solid basis for big(er) enlargements, like slide projection and big(er) optical prints.

But what I find very strange in lots of forum discussions is that this statement "resolution does not matter" is always only said when the topic is higher-quality 35mm film work.
The same people who say it does not matter in these threads are later the same guys praising medium or large format for its high resolution in other threads. And are contradicting themselves.
They should at least be consequent and consistent in their argumentation.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Craig75]

Your preferences for the highest technical image quality is obviously very strong and that’s fine, but you do come off as beating a dead horse a bit. If someone enjoys shooting Tri-X with a 50 year old lens they’re not going to suddenly decide that Adox CMS 20 is a better choice because the resolution is higher. Furthermore the resolution of your lens or film have so little to do with the creation of a successful portfolio of images that it’s hardly worth discussing.

He hasnt said any of that. That's all just out of your mindgarden.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Just in case. We have sub-forum for RF. Those lenses are not for typical SLR mass produce.

 

[film_man]

I’m a bit surprised to hear this about AI-S lenses but I don’t have extensive experience. My first Nikkor was the 35mm f/1.4 AI-S and it felt very solid. Not quite Leica feel but very good. However this is the only AI-S lens I’ve owned. I eventually sold it for the AF-D 35mm f/2. That was obviously a step down build-wise, but a step up optically and in the end that’s what matters most to me. I then tried the Zeiss ZF2 35mm f/2, which is beautifully built and a better performer at wider apertures. But I never shoot at wide apertures anyway so that feature is generally lost on me - and it distorts more than the lowly AF-D Nikkor so I went back to using the Nikkor.

The AI stuff is solid but not particularly refined. I really dislike the aperture rings, they are generally stiff and require two fingers to turn them. Also, all the ones I've owned (10 AI lenses or more) have this annoying feature of the aperture ring moving a tiny bit further than the widest aperture and they all had a bit of play. Contrast that to the Zeiss ZF equivalents, much smoother focus, nice and smooth aperture rings I can turn with one finger. Anything else in Leica land (from Leica, Zeiss and Voigtlander) is butter smooth. My beat-up 1960s (or 50s?) Takumar 55/2 has a smoother aperture ring with no play.

On the plus side the AI stuff is pretty compact for what it is, the size and weight of Zeiss SLR stuff is almost comical nowadays.

I'm just talking mechanicals, optical quality is as good (or bad) as any!

 

[logan2z]

From the looks of it, all the Summarits have been discontinued.

Yes, the entire Summarit range was discontinued several months ago. The 35/2.4 was my first Leica lens and it's been a good performer. I do, however, think the 50mm was priced too close to the Summicron for it to make much sense.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

But what I find very strange in lots of forum discussions is that this statement "resolution does not matter" is always only said when the topic is higher-quality 35mm film work.

Henning,

I for one am always interested to read your insights into high quality small format work. I've tended towards larger formats but do use 35mm as you're aware.

Tom