35 ´LUX AND ´CRON ASPH´S DIFERENCES IN CONTRUCTIONgreenspun.com : LUSENET : Leica Photography : One Thread |
After reading latest post on 35 pre asph ´cron contruction weakness, and symthoms shared by asph model too; I wander about 35 ´lux asph, does it has a similar economy of construction problem?
-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), December 08, 2001
Escuse me, it should read construction.And what about chrome models; are those stronger made than black versions?
-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), December 08, 2001.
Suffice it to say that I believe none of the modern crop of Leica lenses, including both the ASPH and immediately prior lenses are made as well as the chrome BM lenses from the 1950s-60s or the early black anodized lenses from the mid-late 60s to early 70s. There is no question that as far as mechanical solidity, elegance, and craftsmanship, the older lenses are unsurpassed.However, the newer lenses, particularly the ASPH models, are significantly better optically. To put it in perspective, there has been a general decline in the quality of lens construction throughout the industry. Therefore, Leica lenses are still better made than those of any other manufacturer, but they are not as well made as the earlier Leitz BM lenses.
The current Leica chrome and titanium lenses have barrels made of brass rather than the lighter allows used for the black anodized lenses. These are better made than the black versions, and usually cost a little more. On the downside, because of the brass barrels, the 35/2.0 and 35/1.4 ASPH are significantly heavier. The chrome version of the 90/2.0 Summicron (pre-ASPH) is a monster in weight.
My own experience with Leica's current ASPH black lenses (including 35/1.4 and 24/2.8) is that they are well made but not exquisite, as were the early chrome versions of the 35/2.0 Summicron (8-element) and the early chrome 35/1.4 Summilux (early 60s) from Leitz Canada.
-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), December 08, 2001.
True enough!
-- Emile de Leon (knightpeople@msn.com), December 09, 2001.
...And note the trend toward fewer aperature blades. I think the latest 50 'lux only has 7. With the serious economic factors militating against the traditional Leica standards of manufacturing, we're probably very lucky we can buy any Leica stuff at all!
-- Frank Horn (owlhoot45@hotmail.com), December 09, 2001.
This business about lesser number of aperture blades is cheapskating on Leica's part. If every Voigtlander lens at a quarter of the cost has 10 blades, Leica has no excuse. Isnt the higher blade count instrumental to to the bokeh many like and love here? Will it be lost on a 7 blade leica lens? Maybe worthy of a new thread.
-- Joel Matherson (joel_2000@hotmail.com), December 10, 2001.
My Planar 80mm for the Hasselblad has only 5 blades and has beautiful bokeh, so the number of blades is only a small part of bokeh characteristics. This seems to be another issue over which Japanese collectors obsess for mysterious reasons.
-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), December 10, 2001.
Re: Number of Aperture BladesI must confess, I don't understand what really goes into the decision about how many aperture blades, but it may not just be cost considerations. Leica has not uniformly reduced the number of blades in all of their lenses. For example, the 28/2.0 and 90/2.0-ApoASPH lenses each have 10 blades and a nearly circular aperture. The 24/2.8-ASPH has 8 blades. The older versions of the 50/1.4 had many many blades and a nearly circular opening. Maybe when they incorporated the sliding lenshood and reduced the close-focussing distance from 1.0m to 0.7m it was necessary to reduce the number of blades?
However you may deplore this trend in Leica lenses (and I also don't like the reduction of the angle of barrel twist required to go from infinity to closest focus in some Leica lenses, including the 50/1.4- M), the same trend has occurred in Nikon, Canon, and other manufacturers' lenses. I suspect Leica didn't start this trend.
-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), December 10, 2001.
Guys, I just bought a new 50 summilux and it has 12 aperture blades.Dave
-- David Carson (dave@davidcarson.com), December 10, 2001.
I don't have any reason to believe that more aperture blades are better than fewer. Why do you believe this is so? I would be more inclined to think that the number of blades that Leica uses are at the optimum given all design considerations, since these are arguably the finest lenses made on Earth.
-- Dan Brown (brpatent@swbell.net), December 10, 2001.
we are complety out of topic now, or at least my question was about strength of a lens construction, nothing to do with number of aperture blades. Any way the Hektor 135/4.5 has 15 blades, and it makes a perfect circle difragm from 4.5 to 32, a long focus lens may need it, on the other side the 21/3.4 has only four (4) blades, and in the small apertures (from 8 to 22) the difragm is complety square, but in the wide ones it becomes round, brigth isn´t it?
-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), December 10, 2001.
Hello Roberto,Sounds like you began quite a debate here. I can tell you that the current 35mm summilux ASPH feels like a very well made lens and is very similar to the 1st version in terms of construction. Most current lenses dont have the brass of there older counter parts and a few of my collector friends say, "I'd rather have a lens from the 50's or 60'd becuase many were made by hand". I kmow one thing, Leica sure beats the newer Canon & Nikon systems in terms of quality.
Your friend, Tom
-- Tom Gallagher (tgallagher10@yahoo.com), December 10, 2001.