[New test photos released] Leica Summicron 35/2 Eight Element copy made in China
- Thread starter KEVIN-XU 愛 forever
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 5K
- Views 351K
teddy
Jose Morales
Well Steve, with my eyeballs, the Replica vignetting is slightly less than the Original, but essentially the same in character... Or in other words - a none issue. Anyway, I use vignette to my advantage.
Here's a few more random snaps with the replica Summicron. IQ is really impressive IMO. As is the build quality. Leaps and bounds better than other small production outfits, such as MS Optics, no comparison at all really. This lens could have been (re)released by Leica and we'd all be amazed they did it.
Erik van Straten
Veteran
Great shots, Jon, I particulary like his one. Great bokeh!
What a lens.
Erik.
What a lens.
Erik.
Strong endorsement!
Looking forward to the release of the LTM - hopefully with 0.7m close focus. 🙂
raid
Dad Photographer
I am hoping to soon receive the order form with payment instructions for the lens.
teddy
Jose Morales
The lens is very well made. I'm hoping to reveal some tests shots with Adox CMS 20ii as soon as I can.
Range-rover
Veteran
Okay I just purchased a Leica M2, and I find this lens very interesting, any prices
set yet and how to order it.
set yet and how to order it.
D
Deleted member 65559
Guest
Range-rover, this thread began last summer. In early December pre-order sign-up was announced for the first batch of lenses. The entire batch with flint glass was spoken for by mid December. As you can imagine, with the global pandemic, production ceased for months. The pre-order included both domestic and international buyers, and currently only a handful of international buyers have received their lens. It was said that once the first batch is complete, a second batch offer would be announced. I would go ahead and buy another lens for the time being....
There was a special price of $500-ish USD offered to the pre-order group for supporting the project. A price for subsequent production has not been announced.
There was a special price of $500-ish USD offered to the pre-order group for supporting the project. A price for subsequent production has not been announced.
"Okay, campers, rise and shine, and don't forget your booties 'cause it's cooooold out there today."
Just beautiful, amazing!!! Amazing craftmanship! Extremely happy - now off to shoot!!!
Thank you Kevin and the Light Lens Lab Team! Thank you!
Lovely gear pOrn pics, Jose!
I'm curious to know if the replica lens and the original have the same (or similar) amount of field curvature (focus in the corners is further toward infinity than the focus point in the center). The replica does this, as does the W-Nikkor to a lesser extent. Would be interesting to see how this compares with the original. If you get a chance, could you do a comparison (preferably using a tripod to keep framing consistent)?
teddy
Jose Morales
Yeah, sure. Just by looking at everyones photos the field curvature looks a little different than the original. Specially evident in the corners. Like, there is more light coming through the corners, and affecting the "resolving power" of the corners, but yeah this will be interestin to look into.
nickthetasmaniac
Veteran
With respect, the ZM is a Zeiss product, not a Cosina product.
gavinlg
Veteran
Zeiss designed maybe, but Cosina does make them.
nickthetasmaniac
Veteran
I know Cosina makes them, under contract for Zeiss. That doesn’t make them a Cosina product.
gavinlg
Veteran
Indeed, they're distinctly Zeiss formulas.
Ed Schwartzreic
Well-known
When I tested the replica prototype against the original 8-element, I did look at field curvature, but only wide open, focused at infinity, how closer details at the corners appeared. It has always been my understanding that lens designers in the '50's thru 70's, if a bit of field curvature allowed them to optimize other lens aberrations, that they brought the corners closer - not the other way around. In such a test, I saw no difference between the two lenses.
That does not mean there is / was no field curvature, only that the two lenses were similar.
The fact that the replica shows a subtly brighter image, including at the corners, is not the same as the field curvature there being different. IMO it only represents that the T-stop of this f/2 replica is more like f/1.8 than f/2.0, due to slightly larger lens elements.
That does not mean there is / was no field curvature, only that the two lenses were similar.
The fact that the replica shows a subtly brighter image, including at the corners, is not the same as the field curvature there being different. IMO it only represents that the T-stop of this f/2 replica is more like f/1.8 than f/2.0, due to slightly larger lens elements.
Depending on the optical design, field curvature can certainly go either way, Ed. I remember having a lively discussion with Miyazaki-san of MS Optics one time about the W-Nikkor 35/1.8's plane of best focus with its corners pulled back towards infinity. That was a major geek out lol. His MS-MODE-S 50mm f1.3 has pretty amazing field curvature in the other direction. He's a big fan of using those kinds of "defects" to create lenses with character. In the pics below, you can see the top right corner of the replica lens is sharp at what would effectively be infinity, even though the focus is @ 1.05m ish. This certainly doesn't detract from the replica lens in normal use though. And it would be interesting to see if the original lens does the same thing.
Point of focus here is approx. 1.05m (MFD of the W-Nikkor) (edit: iirc the focus point was actually about 1.2 - 1.3m)
Top right corners @ f2 (top - replica on the left, Summicron on the right, bottom - Ultron on the left, W-Nikkor on the right)
Top right corners @ f4 (top - replica on the left, Summicron on the right, bottom - Ultron on the left, W-Nikkor on the right)
Ed Schwartzreic
Well-known
Quite interesting, jonmanjiro. Of course, field curvature can go both ways, but I was putting forth what I had learned quite awhile ago, of lens designers using field curvature as suited for the intended use of the lens. In the case of a fast 50mm or a 35mm, years ago such lenses were designed to be used for reportage more than scenics, with the main subject being in the center and most of the other associated material surrounding it and closer to the camera.
Later today, when the light is lower, I will shoot both the replica prototype and my original 8-element wide open, with the intent to document field curvature in the, let's call it convex rather than concave, direction.
Later today, when the light is lower, I will shoot both the replica prototype and my original 8-element wide open, with the intent to document field curvature in the, let's call it convex rather than concave, direction.
james.liam
Well-known
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?
Huss
Veteran
When those classic lenses were new, photogs in the know called them sterile and longed for the days of pinhole photography.
😀
Similar threads
- Article
