Hi everyone, I an new in this forum and in the Leica world. recently I got an M6-TTL, with summicron 35-Asph, and 75 1.4. Hoever I was tempted to change the cron to a grey lux (1700$). I am very happy with the lux. My impression is that the description of the difference between the two (center vs. equal sides) is accurate. But I have a worry. Under some conditions my lux gives, on the left side of the negative (about 1/12 of its size) a blured, out of focus, less light and significant curve. is that a defect in my sample? (are there such things in the Leica world?). It does not happen under all conditions. from what I so far detected it is probably on f-8, when I focus not very far, and in the outside. is it possible that the hole in the hood lets light come in under some conditions? If it is just a fact about the lux, I can leave with it. but if it is a fact about MY lux, I'd rathere... thank's very much. Rami.

-- Rami Elkonin (rg272@columbia.edu), December 01, 2001

Answers

Not really able to comment specifically, but I can tell you that the 2 35asph 'crons I have had seemed to perform differently (at max. aperture and close up) - could be that I imagined it... Also, check your lens filter (whatever they tell you I reckon multi coating is a must on e.g. B+W filters (some are, some aren't)) and obviously check for any smears etc on the front and back of the glass. (I once had dust on the rear element of an R lens which I didn't notice for c.1 month of using - all the while wondering about the hazy flare (not unattractive actually!) that I was getting.)Hope it sorts itself out for you - my (quite limited) experience of this lens is extremely favourable.

-- steve jones (stephenjjones@btopenworld.com), December 01, 2001.

Rami:

I got a bit confused trying to understand your post -- your title implies the problem is with a 35 asph 'Lux, but the body of your post mentions you have a 35asph 'Cron and a 75 'Lux - or perhaps you have all three... I'll assume you are speaking to problems with your 35 'Lux or 'Cron and not your 75 'Lux as you mention the hole in the hood. If the problem is with your 75, perhaps others are more qualified to answer as I do not own one, but I feel my answer will be correct for that lens as well...

There should be NO blurring in any areas of the field with the 35asph 'Lux or 'Cron that are within the plane of focus in the image. If you are having this problem there is either something wrong with a filter if one is attached; something wrong with the lens, possibly elements out of alignment; or something wrong with the alignment of the film gate in the camera body. If it were the body, the problem would likely show up at all apertures and with your 75 as well. So it seems there is something wrong with your 35 lens OR a filter attached to it. If you are using a filter, test the lens without the filter attached. If that does not solve the problem, then I am sorry to be the bearer of bad news...

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), December 01, 2001.

Jack and Steve, thank you for your answers. I am sorry if I confused any of you. The problem is with my 35 Lux asph, and since I never use a filter for the first week or two of testing a lense, I guess it is with the lense itself. but, it does not always happen. it happens only in very unique circumstances. might it be that it is just what they mean by "the edges in the 35 lux are not as sharp as the center?" It is definitelly on the left side only, so it doesn't make too much of a sense. and again, could it result out of some light that gets thrrough the hole in the hood of the 35 lux, or does it make no sense?

-- Rami (rg272@columbia.edu), December 01, 2001.

The difference between center and edge sharpness is so slight you would need a magnifying glass to tell on fine grain film. That does not sound like the problem.

I have never seen flare caused by the hole in the shade. To satisfy yourself, shoot a roll with the shade completely removed.

My suspicion would lie with the focusing. Have you noticed any slight binding when you slowly focus from near out to infinity? Shoot a roll where you record the lens distance for each shot, startng at close focus and working your way out to infinity. Repeat this a few times on the same roll of film. Check the resultng pictures.

If you can zero in on the problem occurring at a particular distance, take the lens and the photo to whoever you bought it from, or to a qualified repair person, and get it fixed. There is no reason you should be wondering abut your lens performance while you're concentrating on taking pictues.

-- Ken Shipman (kennyshipman@aol.com), December 01, 2001.

Also, try shining a small flashlight at an angle through one side of the lens, while you look from the opposite end. Do this with the aperature wide open (at f/1.4). You'll be amazed at the flaws you can see this way, but not see otherwise. Slight dust particles are not a problem, but you might see something more significant that might cause the problem at only certain focus distances.

-- Ken Shipman (kennyshipman@aol.com), December 01, 2001.

Rami; I´m not an Asph owner; but I´ve been iterested in one for a wile, and never let an oportunity down to check on pictures made with this lenses. Cuba book by David Allan Harvey is a good source of 35 ´lux Asph. images, and I invite you to take a look on pictures on page 12 and 68 and 74 specialy 132 and why not 144.

Note; I am NOT putting under discusion the work of DAH, but the image quality given by what I suposse is a 35/1.4 asph.

Image on page 12; (A man with hat in a blue shirt out of focus in the center of the frame in the fore ground some very rustic houses and a man walking with a girl in red shoes, this is just to make sure we talk about the same frame); center of the picture in the fore ground, perfect sharpness and contrast, on the left side of the frame the ceiling of the house is blure as well as the grass on the floor, on the rigth side down to the corner the grass is in much near perfect focus.

Page 68 (men playing a ball game); now we talk about the tan wall; left side is perfect to the very corner, rigth is very fussy.

Page 74 (three women an old man and a dog) here every thing is as usual with normal out of focus areas, but the rigth bottom corner I see some fussyness like in a regular ´cron at 2.8.

Page 132 (two men and a horse over grass under a blue sky) Here check the grass from center to corners; I don´t need to say any thing.

Page 144 ( some fishermen with a blue sea as foreground) Sharpness of waves on the left side are sharp almost to the corner, on the rigth side is not.

On the other side we have picture of page 164 (a kid in the first plane a church and another kid on a horse in the foreground) here I see what a 35/1.4 Leica Summilux Aspheric; is suposed to be.

What I think can be, is 1)Problems with mecanics in the focusing sytem of DAH lens, 2)film flatness problem, 3)DAH´s hands shakes wile exposing.

Please share coments asph owners.

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), December 01, 2001.

The occurance you are describing is very strange and illogical. If the lens' optical axis is somehow not perpendicular to the film plane it is possible to have only one side appear defocused, as there is more DOF in front of the focus point than behind; however it should be more apparent at closer distances and wider apertures where DOF is least. You need to shoot a flat subject with crisp detail, such as a brick wall, with the camera on a tripod and oriented as close to parallel as humanly possible. Armed with those images it will be impossible for a respectable, knowledgeable dealer or repairperson to deny what's happening or pass it off as "pilot error".

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

did you see the pictures Jay?; in june/99 NG Magazine you can check it too, just want your opinion.

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), December 01, 2001.

Thanks all for your answers. Since I submitted the message I developed some more roles, and did some more negative scannings. As to Jay's "illogical" claim, I guess what you mean is that it makes no sense that the problem shows up at f-8 and not at f-1.4, right? unfortunatelly by now I have at least one picture in f-1.4 and with the problem. again, allong with many pictures in which the problem did not occure. and this is what I do not understand. I don't know what is the mistake that I might be doing, if it is me who is doing a mistake, (after all it is people, not machines which are logical or illogical). What I get on the (far) left side is much less focus, much less light, details... and some rounded apparence. can it be that I do not load the film correctly? (I am very new in the Leica world, but as I said, I did not have such problems at all with the perfect edge to edge crom 35, or with the amazing 75 1.4). but then, wouldn't it happen in all the pictures? as to Ken's remark that the difference between edge and center is so fine it requires very fine grained film and magnifying glasses, well I use Konica 50 ASA, and scan the negatives in 4000 DPI on Nikon Coolscan 4000, and print the pictures to 11`x8`. is that enough to get a "normal" center/edge difference? And a last question. if it is a problem, can such problems be fixed? or can it be a defect in the glass? I am very sceptical about the chances that the gray marked dealer I have been buying it from, will be happy to help me. thanks again for all the advice, and I will apreciate any further comments.

-- rami (rg272@columbia.edu), December 01, 2001.

Rami, can you post your sample pictures here, it is hard to see what problem you encounter without seeing the pictures

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), December 01, 2001.

Rami,

And what if your neg is not perfectly flat in your scanner carrier?

Please double check your negs with high magnification loupe, or even with a small microscope, and tell us...

-- Jacques (jacquesbalthazar@hotmail.com), December 02, 2001.

Perhaps your grey market dealer supplies you with a substitute for some hours and enables you to carry out side by side comparisons with the lenses.

If you are new to the LEICA: a common mistake with RF shooting is to have something in front of you which you do not really see in the viewfinder because of the paralax between finder- and lensaxis. Of course you could see the effect of a finger in front of the lens easily and it would look different from the effect you described. If your dealer is in town, show it to him. He might have an answer.

Just a thought.

Best wishes

-- K. G. Wolf (k.g.wolf@web.de), December 02, 2001.

Hi everyone and thanks again, I have been trying to send some samples of the problem to the forum, if I got the procedure of submitting a picture right, I guess they will be posted soon. I have been in touch with the dealer, and apparently there is a chance that I will be able to exchange the lense to another tomorrow, which if it will take place I guess will be the best solution. (minor worry: when I had a lense problem in Nikon, I found out that all the line had the same defect, and I had to wait for a new delivery. I really don't know if such things could be the case with Leica.) I will keep you posted on that issue. as to the scanner question- No, it is not the scanner. it is seen on the negative. besides, the coolscan 4000 works very smoothly, and never gives any problems, and the pictures with the problem happened to be in the middle of the cut, not at the end. so no, that is not the problem. I have a question to r Watson and Ken. you say it might be a problem with the focusing mechanism. but in the damaged pictures most of the picture is in very good to perfect focus. non of you suspect any problem with the glass elements themeselves. (or the aspherical coating). doesn't it make sense? thanks.

-- rami (rg272@columbia.edu), December 02, 2001.

Yes. What I really meant, but didn't say very well, was that I suspected alignment of one or more elements, which might not show up except at certain focus distances. Also, have you looked through the lens with a flashlight? The thought there is that there might be a fat internal grease or oil residue that comes into play at certain focus distances or certain lighting. Last, have you looked carefully at the aperature while closing down and opening up several times. I wonder if a sticky blade might foul the image the way you describe. In any case, a replacemet lens or repair seems in order.

-- Ken Shipman (kennyshipman@aol.com), December 02, 2001.

Well Rami one thing is true, we all want to see your problem pictures; and if problem is in 1/12 of the entire frame, I can think in some flare problem, (do you use your lens shade') but flare doesn´t blure nor out of focus or any curvature of field from that, only parasit ligth; i belive it may be something like what i´ve seen in DAH pictures, but again we ned to see your pictures, probably to discover how higly critic you are my friend.

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

Rami,

I don't want to sound like the voice of doom but the last time I encountered a problem like yours was with a Leica Mini Zoom and the cause of it was fungus growing across the lens from one side. The blurring was most noticeable in back-lit conditions. Nasty! :-(

-- Ray Moth (ray_moth@yahoo.com), December 03, 2001.

Hello everybody,

I recently purchased this lens and am waiting to see a roll of kodachrome 64. I will post the results here. My friend Roberto mentioned the David Alan Harvey photos to me and I had a look but find it difficult to make any comments because we don't have the luxury of looking at the original slides. I would have to agree with what everyone else has said. If this is truly happening it is probably not a characteristic of the lens.

Regards, Tom Gallagher

-- Tom Gallagher (tgallagher10@yahoo.com), December 03, 2001.

Hi everyone and thanks again, to the optimists as well as to the pesimists ("fungus..."), I have done some deconstructions, of nearly everything but the body of the camera itself. My results are nearly all optimistic. I might have had a bad coincidence and there might be no one cause of the "left side" issue. From the total of 7 picture I have by now with "the" problem, 3 were in fact left cut of the negative, and when I reversed the scanning direction I got a slight difference in the size of the blured area, so I assume it might be a scanner issue (thank you Jacques). three others could be explained in other ways, two of which might be depth of field issue, one might be a slight movement on the right side's axis (that is to say I don't know what is the problem but I guess, as r watson suggested about DAH, it is possible), so the movement would be most noticable on the left side, I guess. and then there is the last picture, which is the one that nothing of that seem to explain, the one that started all my worries, but on the other hand if it is only one there might be some explanation, I don't think it was my finger or other blocking object, though. (with this one picture I went, in my deconstructive mission, as far as to go to the original location and to check, following Woody Allen's "deconstructing Harry", whether the object itself is out of focus. it is not). I will try to submit a link to that picture, following the kind explanation of the procedure by members of the discussion group. and I hope I am not being over optimistic, but at this point I am more sure than not that the lense is OK. In all the experiments that I did today, again, following good advice of you, I did not get any blured areas, shooting at 1.4, as well as on smaller appertures, objects with clear delineations, and flat objects. as you all guess, I will spend the next few days again in using film in the worng way, namely not for shooting good pictues, but for trying to see what's going on on the left of the picture. thanks for all, and I will try to submit THE picture soon. serously, without your advice I would never have had the chance to understand what was going on and hopefully, to feel confident about the 35lux. After all I upgraded to Leica, since I did not want anything to block a good picture, unless I do. thanks,

-- rami (rg272@columbia.edu), December 04, 2001.