New Leica Summaron-M 28mm f/5.6 lens?

jsrockit said:
I don't think anyone thinks this is the only 28mm you would own. If you want practical, I think it goes without saying that there are better alternatives to this lens.
Click to expand...

John,

As you know 28mm FOV is mucho important to me and my photography. I have a 28 Cron which serves me well, and a Nikkon 28/1.4 AF-D that is just plain crazy lens, but sometimes you have to love a lens because of character and imperfections.

When I shot an early chrome Canon Serenar 28/3.5 on a Leica IIIG I actually did a lot of photography with that rig, and I made great images. Sometimes less is more.

Anyways who says photography has to be practical? In fact it is kinda dumb how I spend almost all of my disposable income on photography.

Cal
 
Cal, I love this lens for some damn reason... it is weirdly appealing, but ultimately not practical because I'd have to buy a digital Leica again and 28mm isn't my favorite. The Q would be more practical hahaha.
 
I dunno, I thought this could be a great lens, until I saw the sample images. Massive vignetting, massive flaring, edge bleeding, super soft ... this looks more like lomography than a $2,500 lens to me! If that's a look you are after, why not rub a bit of vaseline on a much cheaper random lens? 😀 And the lens hood is like 10x larger than the lens itself, which makes the whole point of owning the lens (tiny) pointless.
 
jsrockit said:
Cal, I love this lens for some damn reason... it is weirdly appealing, but ultimately not practical because I'd have to buy a digital Leica again and 28mm isn't my favorite. The Q would be more practical hahaha.
Click to expand...

John,

I already have a similar lens that is mucho retro, single coated, that really isn't practical, but is a lot of fun. like my Monochrom, warts and all, I still love it.

This new Leica 28 would be too much of a good thing.

Cal
 
Those demo pics on the Leica site look so bad..its almost like a hatchet job was intended on that lens..
I look forward to seeing better high reso pics of this lens in action at f8 and deeper..
 
Emile de Leon said:
Those demo pics on the Leica site look so bad..its almost like a hatchet job was intended on that lens..
I look forward to seeing better high reso pics of this lens in action at f8 and deeper..
Click to expand...


If it looks bad at low rez, how can high rez samples make it look better?
If it looks this bad at 5.6 (according to the samples), you think it would completely change stopping down 1 stop to f8?

I'm wondering if these are real 'untouched' samples or heavily pp'd do emphasize vignetting etc.
 
giganova said:
I dunno, I thought this could be a great lens, until I saw the sample images. Massive vignetting, massive flaring, edge bleeding, super soft ... this looks more like lomography than a $2,500 lens to me! If that's a look you are after, why not rub a bit of vaseline on a much cheaper random lens? 😀 And the lens hood is like 10x larger than the lens itself, which makes the whole point of owning the lens (tiny) pointless.
Click to expand...

Because sometimes, a lens just looks cool on a camera... 😉 and I have other equipment for when being practical (and no, I'm not buying it...but it is just funny to keep seeing people talk practicality with regard to Leica).

OH AND... why not search Daniel Flaschar's photography in general and you may see that these photos represent his style more than the lens.
 
sepiareverb said:
Does this fashion sense disallow using the 45 pancake lens on a D5 as well? Or the 21 Summilux on a CL? 😱

Come to think of it, the summilux on a CL might be really nice...
Click to expand...

I wasn't really talking about fashion, just that there's really less point making the lens so small when the body is so big. It would make more sense on a barnack.

But now that you mention it, yes. 😀
 
michaelwj said:
I wasn't really talking about fashion, just that there's really less point making the lens so small when the body is so big. It would make more sense on a barnack.

But now that you mention it, yes. 😀
Click to expand...

I've never considered the M bodies big, even the 240 is smaller than any Nikon.

I think the point is what the lens does, which is a way of drawing opposite the current crop from Leica. For all the gripes they must read here and elsewhere about how awful nearly everything they do now is, and how the current offerings are so far removed from their classic line, it seems like their nod to the classic line might be better received. No, it doesn't cost $175 like it did in 1958, but neither does anything else. I like this move into the archives, and hope it continues.
 
I just checked the Flickr page for the original Summaron 28mm 5.6
And the new one does perform like the old one, so that is how it is, and how it is meant to be.
Now, is it expensive? Well, I checked ebay for the old one. The hood is about $600!!! The lens is over $1000.

So if this new lens is $2000-$2500 it is not so bad, relatively speaking, as it is a brand spanking new lens, now with better coatings. Not an old one that most probably has significant wear etc.

Can't believe I'm defending it now...
 
If it looks bad at low rez, how can high rez samples make it look better?
If it looks this bad at 5.6 (according to the samples), you think it would completely change stopping down 1 stop to f8?
Click to expand...
I think tests need to be done on a tripod as its supposed to be a very high resolution lens..and of a very detailed static subject..as the old one looks great in this regard...
Who knows...maybe the old one is better..
Stopping down will bring the corners in..I hope..
 
giganova said:
It's $2,500 at the Leica stores -- pretty expensive for such a low performer (f/5.6!), if you ask me.
Click to expand...


The Zeiss Otus 28mm lens is $5000. And they don't even sell those in swanky high end stores like the Leica stores! Instead they're sold at places where they also sell things called Sonys and Fujis. Gross!

The Leica 28mm is a bargain compared to that lens.
 
No doubt.

Who needs an f5.6 lens these days with the light gathering capability of today's sensors?

Freakin f5.6 bokeh fetishistas.

I'm better and more practical since I stick to f8 lenses (insert quote about f8 from famous photographer here). I'll save money and it's all about the picture and dentists can buy these and what were Leica people thinking?

F5.6, psssh, so silly.
 
sepiareverb said:
I've never considered the M bodies big, even the 240 is smaller than any Nikon.

I think the point is what the lens does, which is a way of drawing opposite the current crop from Leica. For all the gripes they must read here and elsewhere about how awful nearly everything they do now is, and how the current offerings are so far removed from their classic line, it seems like their nod to the classic line might be better received. No, it doesn't cost $175 like it did in 1958, but neither does anything else. I like this move into the archives, and hope it continues.
Click to expand...

This is the comical image I was referring to. It looks like the body has eaten the back half of the lens 🙂

Now about your other comment, I also hope they continue this trend. But I hope that they add some more useful features to them while they're at it. Why can't they make this lens focus to 0.7m? That would make it so much more useful. And don't get me started on E34 filter threads! What's wrong with E39?

In no particular order, I'd like:
1. pre-asph summilux 35mm that focuses to 0.7m
That's all. 😀
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Godfrey
Brick Wall - (the modern) Summaron-M 28mm f/5.6
Replies
5
Views
881
Richard G
Richard G
Godfrey
Sunset Light, Sign - (the modern) Summaron-M 28mm f/5.6
Replies
0
Views
564
Godfrey
Godfrey
Godfrey
Sunset Light, Trees - (the modern) Summaron-M 28mm f/5.6
Replies
0
Views
558
Godfrey
Godfrey
Godfrey
Picket Fence — (the modern) Summaron-M 28mm f/5.6
Replies
17
Views
1K
Godfrey
Godfrey
Godfrey
Ready for Tea — (the modern) Summaron-M 28mm f/5.6
Replies
1
Views
662
robert blu
robert blu
Back
Top Bottom