Summicron V4 on M9 found to have issues after incorrect initial assessment

[stevencrichton]

EDIT. After being incorrectly told by one repairer that the lens was in spec. It was found by Malcolm Taylor to have issues in the optical path. Therefore the arguments put forward were given on basis of misinformation on my part, from a Scottish camera repairer.

Steven.




Does anyone else with an M9 and a pre-asph summicron 35 find that reali instically the less than flat field and the halo/coma at wide open on the digital sensor, make you feel a little short changed in image quality?

After picking mine up recently, I've been gravitating back to my Voigt 40mm ( a very very good sample ) At f2.8 between them both it seems like the 40mm is like someone has outlined the shape of objects in stone, crisp and defined. The summicron whilst sharp. Is a little uninspiring. Even the zeiss biogon C it was meant to replace seems to blow it out of the water at 2.8.

I don't know if this is coming from a Nikon / Voigt background in Digital (nik) and Voigt (film + M's + bessas) or realistically that this lens these days is overhyped. Much like the lauded nikon 35mm 1.4 AIS ... ( a lens even when focussed on live view looks like someone wiped vaseline on the front of it)

I know that with the high statue leica lenses are held in, it's maybe going to be hard to get a un-biased response in some ways on this one. Although, I'm sure others must have seen this .. My 90mm summicron from the 70's is amazing ... No field curvature obviously makes it perfect for the M9 as does the stunner of an m-hexanon 50mm ( the sensible man's summicron ... you get a lot of motorbike tanks filled with fuel to travel to take pictures in the cost saving)

Heck even my 25mm biogon is a wee stunner... when stopped down a tiny bit..

Anyway to cut a long story short, do people concur that the V4, just really doesn't cut it with the M9 until you hit 5.6 or so?

Steven

 

[mbohara]

The corners are smeared/soft and the contrast is lower when wide open than what you're used to seeing with any modern digital camera. That said, I love its character because I prefer flat raw files and lenses that have different personas at different apertures. My 50 lux ASPH is flawless across the whole frame, predictable, and sharper at all apertures. Sometimes that's good and sometimes that bores the hell out of me (I use these cameras to detox myself from spending 9-5 with a DSLR in my hand). In my opinion, it's easier to add contrast in post than reduce it, particularly with the M9's thin exposure latitude.

Is the v4 worth the money at this point? I'd probably do it again. Keep in mind that one will be tempted to try an ASPH lens at some point though, be blown away by it, then realize that it's just "different" and not necessarily better after a year or so.

 

[stevencrichton]

"The corners are smeared/soft and the contrast is lower when wide open than what you're used to seeing with any modern digital camera."

So I'm correct in what I see. Also if the 35mm biogon and the 40mm voigt don't display this. (40mm blooms at 1.4 and the biogon is outresolving the sensor) I'd also stand by my point it's actually quite a disheartening buy as the character of the lens isn't captured, more the negatives of the lens are captured in better detail than the positives described when on film.

I think I should probably sell it and get a 35mm f2 biogon or a 35mm 1.2 voigt. As they appear to be more practically usable at the F2-5.6 range than I can get to with the V4. I wasn't expecting miracles at F2, but the lack of usable off centre focus control on the M9 is the issue.

 

[eleskin]

Zeiss 55mm f1.8 FE has me questioning ALL of my Summicrons!

Zeiss 55mm f1.8 FE has me questioning ALL of my Summicrons!

Well, I have a Summicron V4 35 and have tested it on the A7r coming to the same conclusion. On my M8, the Summicron is great. Interestng to hear this problem with the M9. I thought the M9's rendering was mushy compared to my M8. I now have the A7r which I purchased for my Noctilux
f1.0 and all M lenses from 35mm and up. The Voigtlander 35mm Nokton is sharper at the corners as well as my 40mm Nokton, which seems to mirror your experience with the M9. However, a friend let me test his Zeiss FE 55mm f 1.8 and I was blown away, me being a Leica shooter since 1989! The Zeiss is really solid with metal construction, and the image quality is breathtaking at all f stops! Some have said it is as good as the APO 50mm Summicron and I believe it! So it seems we are now at a time where the quality gap has narrowed significantly between Leica and other brands, and one has to ask are people paying for a red dot to just show they can do it? In many , not all, cases I sadly say yes.

 

[uhoh7]

Results with the A7r, while interesting in themselves, will have no bearing on how the lens works with the M9, or the A7 for that matter.

That the lens is not sharp across the frame on the M9 until 5.6, since it's true of many lenses 35 and wider.

The sony 1.75 stack over the sensor simply precludes great edges on most RF lenses 35 and wider.

The results with the FE 55 are great because the powerful processor knows the lens.

In general you need two extra stops to get crisp edges with the A7s, compared to the M9. If you are lucky. 🙂

 

[f16sunshine]

I think I should probably sell it and get a 35mm f2 biogon or a 35mm 1.2 voigt. As they appear to be more practically usable at the F2-5.6 range than I can get to with the V4. I wasn't expecting miracles at F2, but the lack of usable off centre focus control on the M9 is the issue.

I would not say the Biogon is better as Image "quality" is subjective (Sometimes I like soft corners and vignetting).

The Biogon is more accurate and true to the live scene being captured.
Distortion is better controlled as well.
It's a fantastic lens but it does not handle as nicely as the Summicron.
The Nokton f1.2 is a specialty lens. It's just too big to lug around as a daily user.

The Hype of the v4 Summicron is not it's perfection but rather it's overall signature.
If you are going for perfection choose the Biogon or Summicron asph.

Cheers!

 

[stevencrichton]

Leica in terms of absolute image quality over the film days has no edge, which is a shame. The game realistically in these days of Zeiss and others making stunning lenses for all platforms comes down to who has best balance between their sensor tech, the firmware to process it and best optimisation of the sensor resolution vs the final output resolution.

Leica yes have the resolution (no AA, but so do others), but the advantages in the platforms' precision it gave with film, flatness etc has gone.. sensors are so perfect by design it's negated. Also they neither develop their sensors or the hardware level software. Only partials in the post capture rendering to DNG and the microlenses.

Half the reason Nikon's legacy glass is so good is that it's telecentric by design. So the good lenses that were direct leica competitors stand up. Which I saw for myself on the D800. The 28mm AIS could still run with any newly computed lens.

Don't get me wrong I made the jump away from the DSLR full frame thing for 2 major reasons, size ( I ride a motorcycle and space is limited also gear must be robust) and a need for less MP but still FF. The M9 meets those criteria perfectly. Just a shame the legacy of "affordable" lenses simply cannot meet the performance of this.

Also yes I love OOF, I love character that has a slightly less than clinical look, but I also like to know that if I place a person on a stage in the third for an engaging composition I can have them in focus at F2 as that's all I can use.

 

[stevencrichton]

Andy,

Do you have biogon? If so would you be able to send me a DNG file to have a look at at all?

Also that 1.2 is tiny .... ever tried a Nikon 35mm 1.4 AF, the modern eqv? your shoulder would scream!

My reasoning with the 1.2 as well is that although not amazing at 1.2, by f2 it's very well controlled, therefore no doubt much more usable than the v4 at similar apertures.

I'd love to always have "that look" but in practical terms especially when dealing with a paying client I'd rather nail "that shot"

 

[f16sunshine]

Hi Steven

I no longer have Biogon or Digital M but could dig up an old DNG off my archive drive. I'll PM you when I have something ready.
Cheers!

 

[stevencrichton]

That would be great. Thanks.

I suppose I should maybe consider putting the feelers out for the summicron going for sale. I doubt a v4 boxed will be too hard to sell 😀

 

[__--]

After shooting mainly with the Summicron-28, in January I tried the Summicron-35v4 on the M9. Although not into detailed testing, I like the character of this lens on the M9, as I did on film, and shot my Chiang Tung Days (Burma) book project with it, from which the following is my favorite picture:



M9 | Summicron-35v4 | ISO 640 | f4.0 | 1/125 sec

Chiang Tung


—Mitch/Potomac, MD
Tristes Tropiques
Direct download link for PDF file of book project

 

[lawrence]

There's a reason that Leica introduced the 35mm ASPH, which is that it's technically superior to the v4 in every department. That said, the v4 is still a lovely lens if you're aware of its shortcomings, the most serious being that at f2 it's a bit of a joke.

 

[Roma]

Alex Webb doesn't seem to mind using older 35s on his M9s.

 

[stevencrichton]

Lawrence,

If I could afford an ASPH I'd be over the moon. I sold one of my motorbikes just to fund the v4. I think I'll take the realistic approach on the M9 and go with Zeiss for < 50mm as the price vs performance etc is within my reach. Also I've never had a client say "do you use leica lenses" or "that bokeh is slightly less creamy"

I think my thinking was that if these lenses were as amazing as every article states, that the f2 would have been more usable when required and would have allowed me to loose the biogon C and the 40mm voigt, to have a single sharp and low light capable lens.

 

[stevencrichton]

Roma,

Most of his pictures are not at f2 -> 5.6 that's pretty clear to see.

At those kind of apertures the lens is fine with me too... As I've repeated throughout the thread from wide open to middling apertures is the issue. As seen here at f5.6 I'm getting great results ... not 3 times the biogon c in character, which is the comparative price I paid for the bigon. Also those 2 at 2.8, not wide wide open.. the biogon will outpace the sensors resolution.

 

[stevencrichton]

Whereas this is f2.8 on the 40mm Voigt.. A scene where bokeh is a consideration on either lens as there is nothing to throw out.

It's a fine example of a working lens.. I got the shot, its sharp even with the point of focus not being 100% centred. On the summicron at 2.8 his face would have succumb to smearing and field curvature throwing it out.

 

[geotrupede]

For me it is good.
If you look for resolution f5.6 or f8. if you look for nice out of focus then f2.
Colours are nice and lens is very small, which makes it a practical and light companion.
If you look for killer out of focus then you may want to try the Cosina 35 1.2 old or new edition. Issue with that is the weight and the size...
G

 

[lawrence]

I think my thinking was that if these lenses were as amazing as every article states, that the f2 would have been more usable when required and would have allowed me to loose the biogon C and the 40mm voigt, to have a single sharp and low light capable lens.

I have the v4, ASPH and both Biogons and I've tested them against each other. The C Biogon is stupendously sharp at all apertures and right across the frame, however it has a slightly narrower field than the others (I'd guess that it's about 37mm). The f2 Biogon is no slouch and an obvious choice if you need the extra stop. The ASPH is slightly sharper in the corners at wide apertures than the f2 Biogon but there's not much in it.

As mentioned, the v4 is a lovely little lens but at f2 it has field curvature (the plane of maximum sharpness extends further back at the edges), low contrast and loads of vignetting.

The problem with info on the internet is that it's very often inaccurate and the only solution is to try things yourself, which I agree can be rather time consuming and expensive. Even the highly respected Erwin Puts got it wrong as far as these lenses goes, claiming that the f2 Biogon is similar to the v4 when it's actually far superior and not that much different to the ASPH (in fact the Biogon seems to have less distortion at the edges but this is splitting hairs).

Edit: By the way, you should probably steer well clear of another mythologised 35mm lens and that's the pre-ASPH Summilux. If you think the v4 is a bit wacky wait till you try that at wider apertures!

 

[ChrisLivsey]

Let's not forget most of us are talking about one sample of each lens and while we can agree, usually, on general characteristics statements on sharpness etc can vary between samples. I was happy with my Biogon then it went to Zeiss for focus lubrication and returned stated as re-collimated now I am ecstatic.
For my money the single sharp low weight sharp lens is the 40mm voigtlander SC but heck why restrict yourself to one lens.

 

[bonatto]

Just out of curiosity, lots of references to the voigtlamder 40mm, does it compare favorably to the 35mm.

The 35mm c-biogon is certainly up there with some of the best optics. ASPH is terrific, but expensive and has a distinct signature, much different than 30 year old optics. Maybe give the canon 35f2 a shot? Never tried it, but read good things about it. No clue how it fairs on a digital sensor. Only focuses down to 1m.

One other option, also well regarded and with modern coatings is the 35mm hexanon f2.