Trouble with Leica Flagship Summicron?

[Bob]

Moderator's note:
Folks, sorry to say we do not read EVERY post on EVERY thread.
This thread has gotten out of hand and I have warned once.
Obviously my gentle warning has gone unheeded so I have cleaned up the thread a bit and handed out infractions.
Please, I HATE taking administrative actions such as these and would sincerely rather that everyone play nice and not be irritating, insulting, or worse.
It is not fun for those involved and really it is not fun for the moderators either.
If necessary, and if I see this sort of thing continue, I will be handing out bans based on the severity of the infraction.
Carry on (politely)
-bob

 

[Guy Mancuso]

+1. Thanks Bob

 

[glenerrolrd]

Hi Roger,

Since the site you quote is out of reach for me since I refuse to pay for such, I do not have full knowledge of the entire story.

Let me ask you to check the very same site if any similar problems had been reported for Coastal Optics 60/4. If the answer is no then whatever claim you make about that tester is groundless.

I (and many others) would rather believe Leica than some pay site which also said that the MM was a crap product.

Vivek

Forgive me but I don t believe you are following my logic . I don t care at all about DL conclusions or his outrageous blog headlines. What I follow are the detail tests and the illustrations he provides . I draw my own conclusions from what his tests show and from other "what I consider to be reliable sources" . DL does a good job of documenting his assumptions and often provides plausible mitigating circumstances (like a bad copy of the lens).

My personal experience has been that ...while I don t always agree with Lloyd s conclusions ..I often learn things that are relevant to my photography . He simply tests beyond what I have time for . But I do consider him to be a reliable source and I can review the details if I choose .

Leica on the other hand has generally not been forthcoming with really most of the issues I have encountered . I don t consider this as a lacking of integrity ...but they just don t provide us with that information . They react to warranty requests and sometimes to forum chatter . I can cite a dozen examples but that just further inflame the discussion . My only point here is that ..I would place little faith in the fact that Leica has not made a public statement .

As I stated before ......my conclusions were as follows :

1. DL has found a problem with flare in his copy of the APO50 and it would look from the examples to be a weakness in the lens he tested .

2. The OP has discussed this with Leica and reported that they have acknowledged the issue to him . Have and will fix 50APO that demonstrate the issue on a case by case basis . They did not consider this to be "normal " for the 50APO.

3. Flare has not been a significant issue for my personal photographic needs and I would not expect this to be an issue for me . (as it has not been for many other users ) .

4. If I notice I am getting more flare than I expected I will request that Leica check my lens .

This seems like a reasonable perspective on the whole ..your situation and conclusions may be different .

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Too bad mods don't seem to care.

Jeff

You want this job. Long hours , no pay and clean up people's messes. Or worse try to make people respectful. Which BTW you could take a lesson on.

 

[Jeff S]

You want this job. Long hours , no pay and clean up people's messes. Or worse try to make people respectful. Which BTW you could take a lesson on.

I made the comment before I saw Double Negative's inappropriate photo taken down...finally. He doesn't deserve respect with antics like that. And I thanked Bob for his above response and action.

I already have a job with no pay, long hours and lots of messes to clean up. But thanks for the offer to take on another one.

Jeff

 

[algrove]

I am going to be selling one of these soon since I cannot induce CVF and feel I have been slighted by Karbe and company.

 

[Jeff S]

Humor alert...

Will that leave you with one or two?

Jeff

 

[Vivek]

Vivek

Forgive me but I don t believe you are following my logic .

Correct.

As i pointed out, DL (one of the early reviewers) did not find a problem (hotspotting) with a similarly priced lens (CO 60/4), AFAIK.

The few who posted here who own and use the lens is brushed aside as not testing it thoroughly.

I do not see any logic at all in the recommendation that 50 some $ is worth to read a pay site (DL or similar other) before buying Leica equipment.

Yeah, checking any lens for faults is a good thing and any responsible buyer would do that regardless of any paysite reviews.

 

[glenerrolrd]

Correct.

As i pointed out, DL (one of the early reviewers) did not find a problem (hotspotting) with a similarly priced lens (CO 60/4), AFAIK.

The few who posted here who own and use the lens is brushed aside as not testing it thoroughly.

I do not see any logic at all in the recommendation that 50 some $ is worth to read a pay site (DL or similar other) before buying Leica equipment.

Yeah, checking any lens for faults is a good thing and any responsible buyer would do that regardless of any paysite reviews.

Vivek

It is becoming more difficult to have a civil conversation with you on anything .

Since you don t feel that $50 is a wise investment ...you may not have been able to actually read DL tests . I have personally seen him identify issues that others have swore just were not present in Leica equipment . This doesn t mean that I am brushing aside anyones experience (and I strongly object to you characterizing my post as doing so ). If you haven t read the test in question ...stop acting like your opinion on DL actually matters .

In the article DL pointed out that he never expected to even need to test for veiled flaring .its not something that he usually encounters . But on his particular favorite illustration of the tree with the star burst sun in the background he got some . So he investigated and went back to many of the other lenses ..Leica ,zeiss and others to test . In his tests he found some but the 50APO was more prone to demonstrate it . It happened I have seen the test shots ...its there in the illustrations .

This in no way means that every lens does this (he had a sample of one ) or that others don t have lenses that never demonstrate it . In my case (and I can speak for myself ) ..I would never see this . I might get a few frames with flare out of a 1000 much less than the number I personally blow .

But then the OP followed up (and I have no reason to doubt his integrity but I also realize that "facts " passed thru several people can be misunderstood or even biased ) .......he posted that Leica acknowledged the issue and that they would handle repairs if and when a customer sent in the lens . I mean that sounds pretty good rather than the "we have never seen this ever answer that we sometimes get from any of the camera vendors ".

None of us are perfect in this process ..but I actually shoot over 20K images a year with my digital M s ...I read all the tests and it just helps me better understand what might be happening in my images .

I would have appreciated a nice clean flow through this thread that provide real contributions ..verse petty disagreements .

Bob Guy ..happy to do my time in the penalty box for arguing "balls and strikes " .

Vivek

I did find a nice feature on the forum which allows you to block all posts from those you feel are just taking up air space . Please include my name on it and you will feel a lot better .

Roger

 

[AreBee]

Vivek,

As i pointed out, DL (one of the early reviewers) did not find a problem (hotspotting) with a similarly priced lens (CO 60/4), AFAIK.

Correct.

Not all content on Lloyd's website requires subscription to view. His review of the Coastal Optics 60mm f/4 is freely available to view. Refer here for the review, and here for the page of the review that relates to the hot spot issue.

 

[Double Negative]

There certainly is a lot of line noise in this thread. I wish people that didn't actually have anything valuable to contribute would just stay out of it.

Whether people want to believe it or not, there are 50 APOs out there that have physical issues. Leica is (now) aware of it, knows what the problem is and will fix/replace those sent in for service. 'Nuf said.

 

[Vivek]

Vivek,



Correct.

Not all content on Lloyd's website requires subscription to view. His review of the Coastal Optics 60mm f/4 is freely available to view. Refer here for the review, and here for the page of the review that relates to the hot spot issue.

Rob, Please read the 2nd link you posted and that shows how "thorough" the testings were.

FWIW, that lens has a Macro designation.

Here is an identification of the problem and a prescription as to how to overcome it: CoastalOpt 60 mm hotspot issue

How ingenious is that?

My question as to whether the testers who produced hotspots used the lens hood still remains. I purposely invoked the CO 60/4 because there are certain similarities in the lens designs. Also the Savazzi link should be taken in to account and the solution he prescribes ought to be tried for the 50 AA as well.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

To be honest I never met a OEM to have a 100 percent production perfection in a single lens line. There always seems to be some issue. I have been through several Nikon, canon, phase lenses in the past where one performed better than another one. Leica is no exception and actually could be worse given most things are hand assembled and could very well be human error. Leica cameras for instance since entering digital have had some or more issues than normal. I had the M8 with not only one but 2 sudden death syndromes in two different bodies, I lived on loaners for months. Anything is possible and flare is certainly a possibility and as Bob stated above in a post many things can affect that. It's not out of the realm of things when reports are pretty evident. I read DLs as well on the public side on it. Regardless what one thinks of him and his reviews it was pretty dang evident it flared a lot. Is it in every lens, maybe not but stranger things have happened. Defending Leica does no one any good and without formal complaints and open talk than that lovely M8 would have never been fixed and just the IR bleed alone would have never made it to the engineers to figure out at least a fix for it. Folks need to get past the I spent a lot of money on this and its perfect. This is digital folks any nothing about it is perfect., lets be clear on that . It's still a emerging technology.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

I made the comment before I saw Double Negative's inappropriate photo taken down...finally. He doesn't deserve respect with antics like that. And I thanked Bob for his above response and action.

I already have a job with no pay, long hours and lots of messes to clean up. But thanks for the offer to take on another one.

Jeff

Two negatives don't make a positive.

Also if that is your life than that is even more of a dumb comment to make .

Let me be even be more perfectly clear. This is maybe the only photo forum that has REAL moderation than any other one out there and with that comes even more moderation on dumb and useless comments. This works both ways my friend. The more you dish other members the more moderation we will put on you. There is no free lunch here and you can't have your cake and eat it too. You piss me off or another mod. Your taking you nuts in your own hands. If you don't like that kind of moderation than this may not be the place for you . And let me give you a slight clue here calling out a moderators job here gets you no respect at all. Period

You got a issue with the way we handle things report to moderators button is your friend not posting some comment about our jobs in public.

Now that is my way to moderate this place.:wtf:

 

[Guy Mancuso]

If that sounds pissy well it is. I'm tired of these kool aid arguments.

 

[Double Negative]

To be honest I never met a OEM to have a 100 percent production perfection in a single lens line...

(snipped for brevity)

Couldn't agree more, Guy. I've never met an OEM to have 100% perfection in anything. The reasonable expectation is that everything you buy is (near) perfect. But the realistic expectation should be that that's not always going to be the case. In the end, it's how they deal with it that matters. If they make it right by you, you're a winner.

 

[Jeff S]

Two wrongs indeed don't make a right, Guy. Yet you respond with your own public insults. Thank you for modeling respectful behavior.

My volunteer efforts involve life and death matters; this is mere internet discussion.

I trust that this will be deleted, probably generate another classy retort, and result in my permanent exit. I'll save you the trouble.

Jeff

 

[Double Negative]

Jeff, give it a rest already, huh? Or start your own thread for this stuff.

 

[Double Negative]

As for pay sites, which admittedly is somewhat off-topic... The value derived is a personal thing. There is no right or wrong. You are free to choose - whether you subscribe or not. You shouldn't take anything you read (especially on the Internet, LOL) literally, at least without some thought and questioning in your own mind. But additional data points when trying to arrive at an (expensive) decision are never a bad thing. If the subscription fee saves you from making a costly mistake, I'd say it was worthwhile.

I said, "I'll never subscribe to Reid Reviews!" Yet I did, for two years. It was interesting reading, I enjoyed his methodology and breadth of articles. I took his content, along with everything else "out there" and made up my OWN mind in the end. All pieces of the puzzle. I stopped my subscription simply because the Flash interface is just bollocks.

 

[Vivek]

One has to appreciate the difficulty with subscription test sites and the "free flow" of discussion here.

Love La vida loca because it is open.