[New test photos released] Leica Summicron 35/2 Eight Element copy made in China

[aizan]

Whenever I read that a lens is "sterile and clinical," I think "Niiiiicccceee!"

 

[froyd]

I don't know why the terms, "sterile" and "clinical" keep on being used for modern lenses. Why the pejoratives?

Does anyone say "sloppy", "hazy" or "fuzzy" for vintage lenses that render low-contrast or soft wide-open? Or "distorted" when demonstrating extreme curvature of field?

Sterile and Clinical are not pejoratives per se. Actually, in COVID-19 times, they are aspirational!

 

[froyd]

Whenever I read that a lens is "sterile and clinical," I think "Niiiiicccceee!"

....and, if you can be happy with that, it has the potential of being much more economical and easier to match look across FL.

 

[Ed Schwartzreic]

Here is a comparison of the original 8-element wide open and the replica, looking for field curvature. Focus in on the green sign. Areas at the sides / corners are not sharp in the original.


orig at f2 by woodswoman57, on Flickr
Here is the same scene with the replica, which shows much more sharpness in the designated side / corner areas.

replica at f2 by woodswoman57, on Flickr

Therefore, it seems that the original 8-element does not share the same degree of field curvature.

 

[teddy]

I don't know why the terms, "sterile" and "clinical" keep on being used for modern lenses. Why the pejoratives?

Does anyone say "sloppy", "hazy" or "fuzzy" for vintage lenses that render low-contrast or soft wide-open? Or "distorted" when demonstrating extreme curvature of field?

Ha ha, yeah - well, character. Depending on what one likes in the image quality department. Over the years, I have come down to my own conclusion that I prefer a balance of character and a clean perfect image. The newer lenses have a "perfect" look. Flat field, ultra high contrast, sharp corners, etc etc. That is why I find that the Leica lenses from the 50's to the 70's have a great balance in all these areas. The 90's up until now have brought more perfection in all these areas but something is missing I feel. It's like this: for super clean and high contrast landscapes I take out my Summicron R 50/2 Type II. On digital it's my Fujinon 35/14 R or the 18-55 zoom. The images they produce are perfect. With people, and most things that I want a certain "look", warmth or particular character I take out my 50 Cron Collapsible, DR, 35/2. The lens with most magic is my Summaron 35/2.8 - colour or b&w. 90/2 type 1. Leica Elmarit 90/2.8 is a great balance between both worlds. So it the Cron (1968) - a great lens. The Voigt 35/2.5, 21/4 are great lenses but don't know where to place them yet, I haven't used enough but they are sharp. The CV 35/2.5 has a particular smoothness in b&w - this lens is a keeper and I can't tell you why yet. Oh, man... GAS GAS GAS...
The focus now is on the Replica - no love for my Voigt lenses.

Funny... My MOST used lenses because of this character balance on digital and film are: OM Zuiko 24/2.8, Cron 50/2 R, Elmarit R 90/2.8. The OM Zuiko 24/2.8 is almost glued to the Sony a7. It is such a versitile looking lens and the image is punchy, nice DoF for most things. Not a perfect lens, but has something about it. Each to their own.

 

[teddy]

Here is a comparison of the original 8-element wide open and the replica, looking for field curvature. Focus in on the green sign. Areas at the sides / corners are not sharp in the original.


orig at f2 by woodswoman57, on Flickr
Here is the same scene with the replica, which shows much more sharpness in the designated side / corner areas.

replica at f2 by woodswoman57, on Flickr

Therefore, it seems that the original 8-element does not share the same degree of field curvature.

Wow this is interesting - has the Replica been corrected more for corners, I think so. I will stick this on a Sony digital, both the original and the Replica to see how they compare, not ideal but will give us an idea too.

 

[D&A]

Ed, very much appreciate all the time and effort you and others have put into comparative shots between the original 8 element (which I used to own) and the replica. This last pair of images you posted though call something else into question. Its not just the background right and left sides that are noticeably sharper in the replica but virtually everywhere one looks, including the entire area just behind the sign that you focused on. It appears (at least initially) that there might have been mis-focusing with the original 8 element as though it was front focused a bit and thus everything beyond the sign is much softer in terms of sharpness (and contrast too) when compared to the replica. I don't recall this pronounced a difference in previous comparisons. Thanks again!

Dave (D&A)

 

[aizan]

I never gave much thought to field curvature outside of macro.

What happens when you stop the lens down a bit? Does it flatten out? I hardly ever shoot anything at moderate distances with the lens wide open.

 

[teddy]

Ed, very much appreciate all the time and effort you and others have put into comparative shots between the original 8 element (which I used to own) and the replica. This last pair of images you posted though call something else into question. Its not just the background right and left sides that are noticeably sharper in the replica but virtually everywhere one looks, including the entire area just behind the sign that you focused on. It appears (at least initially) that there might have been mis-focusing with the original 8 element as though it was front focused a bit and thus everything beyond the sign is much softer in terms of sharpness (and contrast too) when compared to the replica. I don't recall this pronounced a difference in previous comparisons. Thanks again!

Dave (D&A)

I just went outside and I can confirm with my own test shots (which were rushed) and I'm not posting here until I get a consistent shot with a tripod, that the Replica has increased contrast and "sharpness" in the corners due to an improved curvature of field, however - I believe these are all compromises folks. Improve here, but you get a shift somewhere else. In terms of contrast, there is an improvement to the Original Summicron 35/2. There is nothing wrong with these compromises. Essentialy, the Summcron "signiture" is the same. You can confirm this with the MTF charts posted by Kevin:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/kevin_will_not_die/49515158143/in/faves-7898932@N08/

 

[kiemchacsu]

since you highly appreciate the 35/2,8 summaron but at the same time find the replica interesting,
would you sell your summaron eventually to stick with the replica?
the reason i asked because now i have a 35/2,8 35/2 v4 and upcoming replica (well i hope kevin didnot forget me); i wonder what should i do with 3 similar focal length lenses.

Ha ha, yeah - well, character. Depending on what one likes in the image quality department. Over the years, I have come down to my own conclusion that I prefer a balance of character and a clean perfect image. The newer lenses have a "perfect" look. Flat field, ultra high contrast, sharp corners, etc etc. That is why I find that the Leica lenses from the 50's to the 70's have a great balance in all these areas. The 90's up until now have brought more perfection in all these areas but something is missing I feel. It's like this: for super clean and high contrast landscapes I take out my Summicron R 50/2 Type II. On digital it's my Fujinon 35/14 R or the 18-55 zoom. The images they produce are perfect. With people, and most things that I want a certain "look", warmth or particular character I take out my 50 Cron Collapsible, DR, 35/2. The lens with most magic is my Summaron 35/2.8 - colour or b&w. 90/2 type 1. Leica Elmarit 90/2.8 is a great balance between both worlds. So it the Cron (1968) - a great lens. The Voigt 35/2.5, 21/4 are great lenses but don't know where to place them yet, I haven't used enough but they are sharp. The CV 35/2.5 has a particular smoothness in b&w - this lens is a keeper and I can't tell you why yet. Oh, man... GAS GAS GAS...
The focus now is on the Replica - no love for my Voigt lenses.

Funny... My MOST used lenses because of this character balance on digital and film are: OM Zuiko 24/2.8, Cron 50/2 R, Elmarit R 90/2.8. The OM Zuiko 24/2.8 is almost glued to the Sony a7. It is such a versitile looking lens and the image is punchy, nice DoF for most things. Not a perfect lens, but has something about it. Each to their own.

 

[jonmanjiro]

I never gave much thought to field curvature outside of macro.

What happens when you stop the lens down a bit? Does it flatten out? I hardly ever shoot anything at moderate distances with the lens wide open.

The sample pics I posted previously taken at infinity are stopped down to f8 iirc. They look fine to me. Stopping down the lens increases DOF and basically covers up the field curvature, so its something you're really only going to notice when shooting at or near wide open in certain situations.

 

[teddy]

since you highly appreciate the 35/2,8 summaron but at the same time find the replica interesting,
would you sell your summaron eventually to stick with the replica?
the reason i asked because now i have a 35/2,8 35/2 v4 and upcoming replica (well i hope kevin didnot forget me); i wonder what should i do with 3 similar focal length lenses.

Hi there, nope. I consider the Summaron 35/2.8 a special lens. It is high contrast in the centre, lower contrast corners because of veiling flare. But there's detail on the corners and what I consider a bit of astigmatism perhaps but it's as sharp as the Summicron and probably the Aspherical Cron but I don't own that, it doesn't interest me. At close up, the Summaron has a clarity that is special. It is my favourite lens and I would have all 3, I just love the 35mm angle. ;D

P.S - I also have a Rollei Distagon 35/2.8, a great lens, lovely colour. I've had a OM Zuiko 35/2.8 - it was fine but boring. Clarity at infinity was ho hum. Close up was good. I've had a Jupiter 12 which left a bad taste in my mouth. If I can stumble upon a late Elmarit R 35/2.8 I would get that and my world is almost complete - I think...

 

[Shoom]

Here is a comparison of the original 8-element wide open and the replica, looking for field curvature. Focus in on the green sign. Areas at the sides / corners are not sharp in the original.


orig at f2 by woodswoman57, on Flickr
Here is the same scene with the replica, which shows much more sharpness in the designated side / corner areas.

replica at f2 by woodswoman57, on Flickr

Therefore, it seems that the original 8-element does not share the same degree of field curvature.

I don't quite know about that, I'm seeing sharpening of the very extreme left corners on the original as well.

 

[jonmanjiro]

I don't quite know about that, I'm seeing sharpening of the very extreme left corners on the original as well.

Let's take a closer look. Similar but not identical there. Interesting comparison shots from Ed. Would be interesting to see some snaps taken on a tripod to remove framing differences.

 

[teddy]

I'll check with the tripod tomorrow morning.

 

[Erik van Straten]

I consider the Summaron 35/2.8 a special lens. It is high contrast in the centre, lower contrast corners because of veiling flare.

The Summaron 35mm f/3.5 and the Elmar 35mm f/3.5 are also very fine lenses. I consider the Summicron 8 elements not nearly as good as those, it flares easily and has a low contrast. But I understand that many people like the lens, just for that!


Erik.

 

[teddy]

The Summaron 35mm f/3.5 and the Elmar 35mm f/3.5 are also very fine lenses. I consider the Summicron 8 elements not nearly as good as those, it flares easily and has a low contrast. But I understand that many people like the lens, just for that!


Erik.

The Summaron 35/3.5 will be my next lens when I stumble upon it Erik, specially for my iiiF or iiiC. I've just bought this, need to give the wife some confidence that I will not "stumble" upon another lens too soon.

 

[Emile de Leon]

35mm Summaron f3.5

 

[teddy]

35/2 Replica Summicron Field Curvature vs the Leitz Summicron 35/2 Type 1.
Focusing was done on a Tripod to a wooden red paintet arrow on a stake in the centre about 2 metres away.

Replica Summicron: Sony a7 with contrast adjustments. Testing Field Curvature on a Tripod. At F2, the Replica Field Curvature has a deeper, steeper roll off from the corners. There is more contrast but veiling flare and coma is essentialy the same as the original. The white balance is cooler.

Original Summicron: Sony a7 with contrast adjustments. Testing Field Curvature on a Tripod. At F2, The original Field Curvature has a shallower, smoother more extended roll off from the corners. There is less contrast but veiling flare and coma is essentialy the same as the Replica. The white balance is warmer.

My conclusion I would assume is that the Replica's steeper roll off of the depth of field due to Lens Field Curvature has been adjusted to increase corner sharpness which would be a alternative compromise and a discretion by the designer.

 

[james.liam]

The original Field Curvature has a shallower, smoother more extended roll off from the corners. There is less contrast but veiling flare and coma is essentialy the same as the Replica. The white balance is warmer.

My conclusion I would assume is that the Replica's steeper roll off of the depth of field due to Lens Field Curvature has been adjusted to increase corner sharpness which would be a alternative compromise and a discretion by the designer.

Then it really isn't a replica. More of an homage.
Second round (if there is one), won't have elements of flint glass so it will be even less of a 'replica'.
Add multicoating and it's a whole other creature.