The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Trouble with Leica Flagship Summicron?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Double Negative

Not Available
Seems there *may* be some issues with the lens; either (multiple) copies of the lens in the field or an actual design problem - which manifests itself as mild, but noticeable veiling flare to full-on, multi-ring flare.

I've emailed some contacts at Leica to see if they have any comment...

Trouble with Leica Flagship Summicron?
 

Jeff S

New member
This LUF post articulates some other possible explanations for various flaring effects.

I also think that it would be appropriate for the OP to mention LUF (or other sources) in the article. I'm sure Leica has gotten feedback and is aware of the discussions.

Jeff
 
V

Vivek

Guest
This LUF post articulates some other possible explanations for various flaring effects.

I also think that it would be appropriate for the OP to mention LUF (or other sources) in the article. I'm sure Leica has gotten feedback and is aware of the discussions.

Jeff
That post, IMO, is a bit misleading. There are few modern examples of lenses with a concave rear element for some optical corrections ( I also happen to have a museum sample of a Zeiss UV-Planar from the 70's that has a similar concave rear element), while some do show hot spot problems (Fuji 60mm macro at close up magnifications), generally the positives outweigh a few minor issues.

Trying to keep the size minimal adds to this and there will be some compromises.
 

Jeff S

New member
He gives examples and pics using other lenses with this concave characteristic, but this isn't the only flare condition he mentions. So I certainly wouldn't call the entire post misleading; rather it suggests different subsets of flare situations, for which there might be a plausible explanation not discussed elsewhere.

I certainly don't have the technical knowledge to debate it; just pointing out another possible cause not cited by the OP. In any event, I was more generally referring to the entire thread, and suggesting that the OP should give credit where it's due.

Jeff
 

Double Negative

Not Available
I'm sorry, give credit to who? LOL. I'm not even on that site. If anything, Lloyd Chambers discovered this starting back in April (to the best of my knowledge). But since the details are behind a paywall/commercial site, I can't provide a direct link to the content.
 

Double Negative

Not Available
Ironically, Puts had this to say;

"...The SCR, while in itself a high contrast lens, has a certain propensity to flare. The ASCR50 on the other hand is not only flare-free, but does suppress the internal reflections and the veiling glare on small areas totally. This behavior is not only the result of the mechanical mount and its internal baffling structures, but mainly to the reduction of residual aberrations..."
 

Jeff S

New member
So your findings that more and more people are reporting issues in the last three months come from Lloyd Chambers' site? My suggestion was to mention LUF "or other sources". I just think that citing references is good form. YMMV.

Jeff
 

Double Negative

Not Available
I put a link to digilloyd, though you won't see much.

I'm also in contact with Leica now about the situation.

...I'm sure Leica has gotten feedback and is aware of the discussions.
For the record, they have not and are not. But they are now (see above).
 

Jeff S

New member
For the record, they have not and are not. But they are now (see above).
Well, the OP who started the thread on LUF about 3 weeks ago has sent his lens to Solms with his examples, and others have followed suit.

Beyond that, some Leica staff follow LUF posts on service related concerns, as they post comments from time to time. Stefan Daniel himself posted on the forum in response to the M8 LCD screen problems.

Just because your Leica contact indicated no familiarity with the issue doesn't mean that others aren't involved. Especially on their 'flagship' lens.

Jeff
 

Bob

Administrator
Staff member
Holy smokes kids.
What happens at LUF maybe ought to stay at LUF.
Post observations, measurements, samples, facts, and let those boast for you.
:worthless:
 

Double Negative

Not Available
One going theory is reflections off of the sensor and convex lens elements are at fault. It would be interesting to see this tested with a film body, which would help to rule that out.

I can make all my lenses do that...
I'll try with a 50 apo today if the sun comes out.
I do believe there's more to it than those samples indicate... Just going by those alone, sure - I do believe I can make several do that also.

But I'd certainly like to see what your results are!
 
V

Vivek

Guest
One going theory is reflections off of the sensor and convex lens elements are at fault. It would be interesting to see this tested with a film body, which would help to rule that .
Film is not shiny?

That speculation is in the wrong direction.
 

Steen

Senior Subscriber Member

I can make all my lenses do that... (...)

hm, not quite that easy for me
here's such an example with a totally different optic



©lick for actual pixels (10.2 Mb)


© • Nikon D800E • AF-S Nikkor 1.8/28mm G • 1/250 sec. at f/8 ISO 100 • Capture NX 2.4.2
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top