Old 10-20-2016   #121
stompyq
Registered User
 
stompyq is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
in·no·vate
ˈinəˌvāt/Submit
verb
make changes in something established, especially by introducing new methods, ideas, or products.

introduce (something new, especially a product).


They are the first to market with it ...implementing a device that has been improved upon. Sure, whoever manufactured the EVF innovated, but Leica's implementation was innovative as well.
Now your clutching at straws...
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-20-2016   #122
Viktor Sebastian
~
 
Viktor Sebastian is offline
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Iceland
Posts: 330
Well the original doesn't sell for exactly cheap.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Leica-Summar...c=1&rmvSB=true

S
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-20-2016   #123
NeonKnight
Registered User
 
NeonKnight is offline
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Des Moines, IA
Posts: 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ko.Fe. View Post
Bad lens for Leica, in terms of IQ, according to picture samples:
http://uk.leica-camera.com/Photograp...m-f-5.6/Images
The sample pictures seem artificial. Will wait to see how things look on film.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-20-2016   #124
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 7,702
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeonKnight View Post
The sample pictures seem artificial. Will wait to see how things look on film.
Yeah, I'm wondering how this is optimized for digital, apart from having the coding on the lens mount.
It seems that this may really be a lens that shines on film.

But looking at the examples from it posted so far, I would very strongly recommend the LOMO Minitar 32 f2.8. It is much smaller, has the look, is a fraction of the cost and is great on film. It is a solid little nugget of glass and brass. And it is two stops faster...
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-20-2016   #125
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 46
Posts: 19,953
Quote:
Originally Posted by stompyq View Post
Now your clutching at straws...
Likewise Pramodh.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-20-2016   #126
jenhao
Registered User
 
jenhao is offline
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daryl J. View Post
I'm an odd duck: I want vignetting. I want lens flare. But I also want high quality materials and degree of finish as I hate dropping hundreds of dollars on glass that's flimsy. $6-700 purchased 5-6 times vs $2.4K purchased once? To me it makes some sense.
Yes, you are an odd duck. Same here - I am, too. I like character lenses that are well-made (built to last decades!) and compact. There are plenty of modern lenses with mind-blowing microcontrast and super accurate reproduction, but plastic construction and boring in how they draw. I'll pass, but that's just me. I'm much more interested in "new old" lenses.

Mark
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-21-2016   #127
GarageBoy
Registered User
 
GarageBoy is offline
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 772
It's a cool reissue
I don't know why people are complaining about the price vs speed, no one says anything about the Hologon
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-21-2016   #128
sepiareverb
genius and moron
 
sepiareverb's Avatar
 
sepiareverb is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: St Johnsbury VT
Posts: 8,298
I am quite happy to see this, and hope it is the start of more "re-issues". Seems like getting the remastered version of some old album from the 70s with better low end and nicer packaging. Costs more than the original, but has fewer scratches...
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-21-2016   #129
michaelwj
----------------
 
michaelwj's Avatar
 
michaelwj is offline
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Brisbane AUS
Posts: 2,106
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarageBoy View Post
It's a cool reissue
I don't know why people are complaining about the price vs speed, no one says anything about the Hologon
The Hologon is 16mm. The other options are the WATE at f/4 and many thousands, or the Cv 15mm at f/5.6. It's not like there is a 16/2 in M mount. 28mm is far more pedestrian so it seems a bit more out of kilter with the (modern) market.

This lens would look the part on a chrome M-A, a pity the M2 doesn't have 28mm framelines. On the Leica site it looks like it's being eaten by the bulk of the digital M. It really makes the body look overweight.
__________________
Cheers,
Michael
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-21-2016   #130
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 46
Posts: 19,953
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelwj View Post
On the Leica site it looks like it's being eaten by the bulk of the digital M. It really makes the body look overweight.
Come on man....
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-21-2016   #131
GarageBoy
Registered User
 
GarageBoy is offline
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 772
Right and the 16mm hologon was a reissue of the 15mm (kinda)

One buys this lens for its character and look - I don't feel it's fair to dismiss it because it's slow for its price (Leica tax not withstanding)
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-21-2016   #132
sepiareverb
genius and moron
 
sepiareverb's Avatar
 
sepiareverb is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: St Johnsbury VT
Posts: 8,298
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelwj View Post
On the Leica site it looks like it's being eaten by the bulk of the digital M. It really makes the body look overweight.
Does this fashion sense disallow using the 45 pancake lens on a D5 as well? Or the 21 Summilux on a CL?

Come to think of it, the summilux on a CL might be really nice...
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-21-2016   #133
Daryl J.
Registered User
 
Daryl J. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 377
Given the number of responses here in a relatively short time frame, methinks Leica may be on to something good with this lens.

Now maybe the 1.5/50 Summarit can be reissued with that oh-too-soft-but-fascinating wide open look but with glass and coatings that hold up to fumble fingered camerapeople and their lens cleaner.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-21-2016   #134
unixrevolution
Registered User
 
unixrevolution's Avatar
 
unixrevolution is offline
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Waldorf, MD
Age: 36
Posts: 874
I can't imagine why I wouldn't want an MS Optics 28mm f/4 Perar instead. Almost guaranteed to be cheaper, and it's both faster and smaller, physically.
__________________
Please, call me Erik.
Find me on: Flickr | PentaxForums | Large Format Photography Forum

"I decided to stop collecting cameras and become a photographer."
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-21-2016   #135
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
 
Calzone's Avatar
 
Calzone is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hell Gate, Madhattan
Age: 61
Posts: 10,026
I just got the e-mail blast from Leica. The lens is kinda cool, the hood is made of one solid chunk of brass.

Advertised as being the smallest M-lens.

I own a rare black version of the Canon 28/3.5. I do like this lens a lot for street, the slight vignetting, the retro center sharpness with the softness in the corners, and the low contrast. I have to check tonight if my lens is smaller than 2 Cm in length to see if the Leica 28/5.6 is smaller.

I do love that my Canon only has the distance scale marked in feet. I do use this lens stopped down to either F5.6 or F8.0 and use it as a point and shoot. Currently I have it mounted on a MD2 with a Zeiss 25/28 VF'er.

Anyways lots of fun.

Cal
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-21-2016   #136
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 46
Posts: 19,953
If I had expendable cash and lived in a sun soaked region with narrow roads, I'd have this and a M-D.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-21-2016   #137
Erik van Straten
Registered User
 
Erik van Straten's Avatar
 
Erik van Straten is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 8,546
I have a nice Color-Skopar 28mm f/3.5 from Voigtländer in black paint made from solid brass (LTM). The same lens was also available in chrome on brass. With an adapter the lens can be used on an M-Leica. A great alternative in my opinion. A wonderful performer.

Erik.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-21-2016   #138
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 46
Posts: 19,953
I don't think anyone thinks this is the only 28mm you would own. If you want practical, I think it goes without saying that there are better alternatives to this lens.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-21-2016   #139
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 7,702
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erik van Straten View Post
I have a nice Color-Skopar 28mm f/3.5 from Voigtländer in black paint made from solid brass (LTM). The same lens was also available in chrome on brass. With an adapter the lens can be used on an M-Leica. A great alternative in my opinion. A wonderful performer.

Erik.
I have that same lens, and it is fantastic.

But that is the problem. It doesn't vignette like my LOMO Minitar and it does not have the correct name on the label.
So it is missing the two key ingredients - 'character' and branding that the Leica lens brings to the table.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-21-2016   #140
Archlich
Registered User
 
Archlich is offline
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,300
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erik van Straten View Post
I have a nice Color-Skopar 28mm f/3.5 from Voigtländer in black paint made from solid brass (LTM). The same lens was also available in chrome on brass. With an adapter the lens can be used on an M-Leica. A great alternative in my opinion. A wonderful performer.

Erik.
I find it weirdly amusing considering the 28 Skopar and the beautiful optional hammertone-finished LH-1 hood are actually modeled after the 28/5.6 Summaron and its SOOBK hood.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-21-2016   #141
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
 
Calzone's Avatar
 
Calzone is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hell Gate, Madhattan
Age: 61
Posts: 10,026
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
I don't think anyone thinks this is the only 28mm you would own. If you want practical, I think it goes without saying that there are better alternatives to this lens.
John,

As you know 28mm FOV is mucho important to me and my photography. I have a 28 Cron which serves me well, and a Nikkon 28/1.4 AF-D that is just plain crazy lens, but sometimes you have to love a lens because of character and imperfections.

When I shot an early chrome Canon Serenar 28/3.5 on a Leica IIIG I actually did a lot of photography with that rig, and I made great images. Sometimes less is more.

Anyways who says photography has to be practical? In fact it is kinda dumb how I spend almost all of my disposable income on photography.

Cal
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-21-2016   #142
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 46
Posts: 19,953
Cal, I love this lens for some damn reason... it is weirdly appealing, but ultimately not practical because I'd have to buy a digital Leica again and 28mm isn't my favorite. The Q would be more practical hahaha.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-21-2016   #143
giganova
Registered User
 
giganova is offline
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 1,429
I dunno, I thought this could be a great lens, until I saw the sample images. Massive vignetting, massive flaring, edge bleeding, super soft ... this looks more like lomography than a $2,500 lens to me! If that's a look you are after, why not rub a bit of vaseline on a much cheaper random lens? And the lens hood is like 10x larger than the lens itself, which makes the whole point of owning the lens (tiny) pointless.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-21-2016   #144
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
 
Calzone's Avatar
 
Calzone is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hell Gate, Madhattan
Age: 61
Posts: 10,026
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
Cal, I love this lens for some damn reason... it is weirdly appealing, but ultimately not practical because I'd have to buy a digital Leica again and 28mm isn't my favorite. The Q would be more practical hahaha.
John,

I already have a similar lens that is mucho retro, single coated, that really isn't practical, but is a lot of fun. like my Monochrom, warts and all, I still love it.

This new Leica 28 would be too much of a good thing.

Cal
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-21-2016   #145
Emile de Leon
Registered User
 
Emile de Leon is offline
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,000
Those demo pics on the Leica site look so bad..its almost like a hatchet job was intended on that lens..
I look forward to seeing better high reso pics of this lens in action at f8 and deeper..
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-21-2016   #146
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 7,702
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emile de Leon View Post
Those demo pics on the Leica site look so bad..its almost like a hatchet job was intended on that lens..
I look forward to seeing better high reso pics of this lens in action at f8 and deeper..

If it looks bad at low rez, how can high rez samples make it look better?
If it looks this bad at 5.6 (according to the samples), you think it would completely change stopping down 1 stop to f8?

I'm wondering if these are real 'untouched' samples or heavily pp'd do emphasize vignetting etc.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-21-2016   #147
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 46
Posts: 19,953
Quote:
Originally Posted by giganova View Post
I dunno, I thought this could be a great lens, until I saw the sample images. Massive vignetting, massive flaring, edge bleeding, super soft ... this looks more like lomography than a $2,500 lens to me! If that's a look you are after, why not rub a bit of vaseline on a much cheaper random lens? And the lens hood is like 10x larger than the lens itself, which makes the whole point of owning the lens (tiny) pointless.
Because sometimes, a lens just looks cool on a camera... and I have other equipment for when being practical (and no, I'm not buying it...but it is just funny to keep seeing people talk practicality with regard to Leica).

OH AND... why not search Daniel Flaschar's photography in general and you may see that these photos represent his style more than the lens.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-21-2016   #148
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 7,702
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
Because sometimes, a lens just looks cool on a camera...
it is a very pretty lens.


But it looks much better on a real M camera than on a digi M camera.

I have a feeling it would work much better on film too.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-21-2016   #149
michaelwj
----------------
 
michaelwj's Avatar
 
michaelwj is offline
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Brisbane AUS
Posts: 2,106
Quote:
Originally Posted by sepiareverb View Post
Does this fashion sense disallow using the 45 pancake lens on a D5 as well? Or the 21 Summilux on a CL?

Come to think of it, the summilux on a CL might be really nice...
I wasn't really talking about fashion, just that there's really less point making the lens so small when the body is so big. It would make more sense on a barnack.

But now that you mention it, yes.
__________________
Cheers,
Michael
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-21-2016   #150
sepiareverb
genius and moron
 
sepiareverb's Avatar
 
sepiareverb is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: St Johnsbury VT
Posts: 8,298
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelwj View Post
I wasn't really talking about fashion, just that there's really less point making the lens so small when the body is so big. It would make more sense on a barnack.

But now that you mention it, yes.
I've never considered the M bodies big, even the 240 is smaller than any Nikon.

I think the point is what the lens does, which is a way of drawing opposite the current crop from Leica. For all the gripes they must read here and elsewhere about how awful nearly everything they do now is, and how the current offerings are so far removed from their classic line, it seems like their nod to the classic line might be better received. No, it doesn't cost $175 like it did in 1958, but neither does anything else. I like this move into the archives, and hope it continues.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-21-2016   #151
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 7,702
I just checked the Flickr page for the original Summaron 28mm 5.6
And the new one does perform like the old one, so that is how it is, and how it is meant to be.
Now, is it expensive? Well, I checked ebay for the old one. The hood is about $600!!! The lens is over $1000.

So if this new lens is $2000-$2500 it is not so bad, relatively speaking, as it is a brand spanking new lens, now with better coatings. Not an old one that most probably has significant wear etc.

Can't believe I'm defending it now...
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-21-2016   #152
Emile de Leon
Registered User
 
Emile de Leon is offline
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,000
Quote:
If it looks bad at low rez, how can high rez samples make it look better?
If it looks this bad at 5.6 (according to the samples), you think it would completely change stopping down 1 stop to f8?
I think tests need to be done on a tripod as its supposed to be a very high resolution lens..and of a very detailed static subject..as the old one looks great in this regard...
Who knows...maybe the old one is better..
Stopping down will bring the corners in..I hope..
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-21-2016   #153
giganova
Registered User
 
giganova is offline
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 1,429
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huss View Post
So if this new lens is $2000-$2500 it is not so bad
It's $2,500 at the Leica stores -- pretty expensive for such a low performer (f/5.6!), if you ask me.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-21-2016   #154
Talus
pan sin sal
 
Talus is offline
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Connecticut / Honduras
Posts: 294
There's a lot of glass that I'd want before a f/5.6. Different strokes for different folks though.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-21-2016   #155
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 7,702
Quote:
Originally Posted by giganova View Post
It's $2,500 at the Leica stores -- pretty expensive for such a low performer (f/5.6!), if you ask me.

The Zeiss Otus 28mm lens is $5000. And they don't even sell those in swanky high end stores like the Leica stores! Instead they're sold at places where they also sell things called Sonys and Fujis. Gross!

The Leica 28mm is a bargain compared to that lens.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-22-2016   #156
ruby.monkey
Registered User
 
ruby.monkey is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: The Garden of England
Age: 49
Posts: 4,577
I am offended that this lens, that I won't buy anyway, was announced by a company over which I have no control whatsoever. Offended, I tell you.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-22-2016   #157
Talus
pan sin sal
 
Talus is offline
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Connecticut / Honduras
Posts: 294
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruby.monkey View Post
I am offended that this lens, that I won't buy anyway, was announced by a company over which I have no control whatsoever. Offended, I tell you.


Doubly offended.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-22-2016   #158
uhoh7
Registered User
 
uhoh7 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,810
It's an outrage
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-22-2016   #159
MikeL
Go Fish
 
MikeL's Avatar
 
MikeL is offline
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,191
No doubt.

Who needs an f5.6 lens these days with the light gathering capability of today's sensors?

Freakin f5.6 bokeh fetishistas.

I'm better and more practical since I stick to f8 lenses (insert quote about f8 from famous photographer here). I'll save money and it's all about the picture and dentists can buy these and what were Leica people thinking?

F5.6, psssh, so silly.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-22-2016   #160
michaelwj
----------------
 
michaelwj's Avatar
 
michaelwj is offline
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Brisbane AUS
Posts: 2,106
Quote:
Originally Posted by sepiareverb View Post
I've never considered the M bodies big, even the 240 is smaller than any Nikon.

I think the point is what the lens does, which is a way of drawing opposite the current crop from Leica. For all the gripes they must read here and elsewhere about how awful nearly everything they do now is, and how the current offerings are so far removed from their classic line, it seems like their nod to the classic line might be better received. No, it doesn't cost $175 like it did in 1958, but neither does anything else. I like this move into the archives, and hope it continues.
This is the comical image I was referring to. It looks like the body has eaten the back half of the lens

Now about your other comment, I also hope they continue this trend. But I hope that they add some more useful features to them while they're at it. Why can't they make this lens focus to 0.7m? That would make it so much more useful. And don't get me started on E34 filter threads! What's wrong with E39?

In no particular order, I'd like:
1. pre-asph summilux 35mm that focuses to 0.7m
That's all.
__________________
Cheers,
Michael
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:25.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.