Just wander if any of you have had any experience with a "bad" leica lens, any age, M or R.

-- R Watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), June 01, 2001

Answers

Depends on what you would consider bad. How about a lens where a large percentage tended to develope element seperation, would that qualify? Some of the early 21mm f4.0 lenses were nothing to brag about.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), June 01, 2001.

Since I'm still new to Leica, I can't comment on Leica lenses based on my very limited personal experience with them, but I would like to share the following interesting excerpts from two books.

On page 57 of Ghester Sartorius's Identifying Leica Lenses: The Complete Pocket Guide to Buying and Selling Leica Lenses Like an Expert, this is what is said about the Super-Angulon 21mm f/4:

In the Leitz 11/34 price list of April, 1960, the super- Angulon 21mm f/4 is described as follows: "A truly special lens with an extremely wide field of vision. It is suitable for architectural photography both indoors and outdoors as well as for industrial use, advertising, reportage, landscapes and wherever the widest angle possible is necessary." In reality, this lens, derived from the wide- angle Angulon made by Jos Schneider, did not yield excellent results because of the particularly evident vignetting when used with color film.

On page 13 of Ivan Matanle's Collecting and Using Classic Cameras, this is what is said about the the Hektor 50mm f/2.5 lens:

Some Leica Model A cameras were fitted with the 50mm f/2.5 Hektor, a combination much sought after by collectors, and therefore likely to cost more than twice the price of a similar camera with Elmar, but best avoided by anyone actually planning to take photographs, since the f/2.5 Hektor is a poor lens by almost any standard.

-- Hoyin Lee (leehoyin@hutchcity.com), June 01, 2001.

This is a very tricky question because "bad" is a subjective term, and Leica has a long history. A lens could be considered "bad" because it hasn't held up well with decades of age (fogging, haze, coating breakdown, etc.), or because it may have been damaged or improperly serviced at some point, or simply because its performance doesn't compare favorably with modern lenses. I can't think of any Leica lens that was "bad" in its time, in the way certain lenses from some other brands were considered "dogs" even when they were new.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), June 01, 2001.

Compared to the 21mm Zeiss Biogon from the same era, the 21 f4.0 was an inferior product. As a matter of fact, most of the early Zeiss designs outperformed the Leica lenses from that same time period, but I guess it wouldn't be fair to label the Leica lenses "bad" even if they weren't the best. Has Leica made mistakes in their lens construction and manufacturing over the years? Yes, without a doubt. Maybe your question is really "has Leica produced any lenses that were total dogs in their time compared to what else was on the market?"

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), June 02, 2001.

I recall reading some where that Capa and others of that time used Leica bodies with Nikon lenses - or was it the other way round? ;-)

If they did, maybe because the Leica lenses of that time weren't so hot?

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), June 02, 2001.

rob, I belive they used leica bodies with nikon lenses, because they prefered the higher contrast of nikkorīs on those days. This doesnīt pretend to be a tricky question, thatīs because the term bad is "", there are lots of personal reasons why a lens can be a "bad" one, just want to know them. For example Andrew some early summicrons were prone to develop cementing cracking, and the 50/2.5 suposely was a good design but with a higher quality control than what leitz could compromise in those days. I also have read something about the first and second 28/2.8 M designs, being the first better than the second. Or the 35/1.4 non asph with itīs weak widest aperture and the same history on the 21/3.4, and 50/3.5 Elmar although itīs quality in the rest of apertures. Any way whatīs a bad lens for you.

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), June 02, 2001.

And then just to throw in a wrench, there's the question of intended/desired use. I believe it was on this board that someone suggested that the 21/4's curvature of field, especially at close range, was advantageous in "real world" situations where the foreground was both important and nearer than the main subject, a situation which the 21/4 handled, but the flatter-field 21/3.4 didn't as well.

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), June 04, 2001.

I used to have that lens (21/4)but changed it for a newer (21/3.4), after time using the new one I miss the back ligth capabilities of the old one, with the 3.4 I got 1/2 stop and a shade, but still donīt know what Iīve lost. You know, would be so helpful if leica give information in detail, about the caracteristic of their lenses, with photographs so we could visualise curvature of field, caracteristics at diferent distances, ilumination, etc.; for example 35/1.4 and 35/2 asph are quite diferent in their fingerprint but leica doesnīt tell us about it.

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), June 04, 2001.

I understand that a number of Leica R users consider the 24/2.8 Elmarit to be inferior to other R lenses. It is supposed to be a Minolta lens that is overdue for redesign. Whether it is assembled, coated and/or tested at the Leica plant I wouldn't know. I bought one of these (used) before I was aware of the adverse opinions. I haven't noticed anything "bad" about it but I haven't had the chance to compare it with the 28/2.8, which does seem to be altogether more highly regarded.

Regards, Ray Moth

-- Ray Moth (ray_moth@yahoo.com), June 05, 2001.

I've experienced bad examples (second hand) of some lenses (75/1.4, 90/2, collapsible 50 Summicron, 135/2.8) on account of faulty focussing. I've no idea what people have done to them. They look ok, but maybe they took them apart and had trouble getting them together again. Test shots in the shop (tripod, slow film) with a known good body was all that I needed to identify them.

I recommend testing before any purchase.

-- john stockdale (jjss@bigpond.net.au), June 05, 2001.

I do not think myself and from what I have read that Leica have ever produced a bad lens when it was available new. Some lenses get long in the tooth so get a little outclassed. The real problem with the Super-Angulon versus Biogon argument is getting objective facts. The Biogon was indeed famous and was a pioneer - also of course, the Super-Angulon is a Schneider not Leitz design...

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), June 05, 2001.

I read that the reason Capa and others used Nikon or sometmes Canon lenses with Leica bodies in the 50s had very little to do with performance. It was because they were cheaper. The Allies deemed Leica's patent post WWII was unenforceable, which then spurred Japanese manufacturers to copy the German designs and put them on the market at a fraction of the cost.

-- David Killick (Dalex@inet.net.nz), June 07, 2001.