This may be a silly question, but is there variation in the quality or characteristics of lenses of the same model and year of production? For example, will every 35 mm sumicron-M ASPM made this year be identical to one another, or are there differences from lens to lens? Here is my story: I transitioned into M photography several years ago w/ the purchase of a M6, a 35 mm summicron and a 50 mm summicron, all new and all very good. Recently, I purchased a 35 summicron ASPH, and before shooting any film through the lens, sold the old 35 mm summicron on ebay. I then shot several rolss through the new ASPH summicron at a wedding and the clarity and the color of the resulting photos do not appear to be as good as the old lens. This may be a fluke, and I have a few more rolls at the developer to see if it was me or the lens. I am thinking that maybe I got a dog of a lens. Is that possible?

-- Stephen York (S.G.York@worldnet.att.net), October 09, 2001

Answers

Unless you made the prints yourself with your normal setup, it's just as likely that you got a great lens and a dog of a printer. That's a much bigger variable than the lens is likely to be. And if you're getting machine prints, so far your experience means exactly nothing.

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), October 09, 2001.

Stephen:

In the 'old' days, there was a significant amount of variation from batch to batch for most lens manufacturers. These days, with automated manufacturing, the variation should be much smaller or insignificant. However, you might have a sample that needs to be readjusted to specifications. If it is a new lens then send it back to Leica for service under warranty. If it is a used lens, then you have a choice - you can send it one of several Leica techs who repair lenses.

-- Muhammad Chishty (applemac97@aol.com), October 09, 2001.

It is possible indeed. One aquiantance went through several 35/1.4 Asph lenses until he found one he liked. Either I am not as fussy or just plain lucky. Mine was sweet right out of the box.

Cheers,

-- John Collier (jbcollier@powersurfr.com), October 09, 2001.

My first reaction is the same as Michael's - you probably got a bad batch of processing. However, anomolies do present themselves and you could have an inferior Leica lens - but I think it is unlikely.

As a belated point for future reference, I would advise that you NEVER sell a proven performer UNTIL its replacement actually proves itself superior... And I believe this to be especially true with Leica lenses!

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), October 09, 2001.

It's really about preference, and, despite what people will tell you, it may have more to do with what you like than any kind of quantifiable standard. I happen to prefer a 35mm lens I have on another camera to my 35/2ASPH, but I got vilified on some list for saying that. If you prefer the other lens, buy another one and ignore this nonsense about how you have to like something that some other other person prefers.

In the end, it's about your photographs and not which lens someone else thinks is better.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), October 09, 2001.

I've learned to never be disappointed in a lens based on my first efforts with it. There are too many variables. Even a flat light could make an ASPH or any other lens look humdrum on the first try. Try another day, with another film, and another subject, before you reject the lens.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), October 10, 2001.

Geez, I love this forum.

Great questions -- great answers and information!

Thanks again, one and all.

-- Steve Hoffman (shoffman2@socal.rr.com), October 10, 2001.

Two more aquaintances and these are in any case "absolutely" up to date.

In general, on M 50, 90 and 135 mm lenses there is always that little 90°-placed number on the focusing ring behind feet/meter marks. It is there for identification of exact "focal length grouping". Example: on a 2/50, 00 means the exact focal length is 50.0 mm, 10 is 51.0 mm, 11 is 51.1 mm, 16 is 51.6 mm, and 22 is 52.2 mm. That is only important for a service technician.

Worse IMO is the following -- as an example of what has apparently all happened in one and the same year (about six months ago). The square lens hood for several 2/35 ASPHs "cocks slightly" somewhat assymetrically because it ends up appearing to have been turned too far clockwise. I'd call that a minor mistake in production. It had no result on hood function but just didn't look good (for the money I paid). I just traded it in for a new hood (in the store I bought it in).

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), October 10, 2001.

It occurs to me that maybe your rangefinder is out of whack? Or the new lens has been dropped during shipping? From what I've heard the 35/2 asph is comparable to the 1.4 asph, so it would surprise me if the performance - especially in colour, which is where Leica lenses really shine - on a good condition lens is poor.

Of course it may be that you just don't like the asph look, as Jeff rightly says that's OK. But the asphs generally have astounding clarity and resolution.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), October 10, 2001.

I prefer the original - maybe my original was good and the APSH I tried was bad, but you can only deal with the data you have.....I would never buy a lens without trying it now, unless second hand.

-- Richard (richard@designblue.co.uk), October 10, 2001.

Stephen, Perhaps as an indication of Leica quality control,Leica should consider supplying individual sets of lens tests with each lens whilst concurrently indicating the parameters they work with. note:MTF specs. are supplied with French made Kinoptik prime lenses.I note these are objective measurements and Leica and ors. may argue that subjective Leica ingredients cannot be measured.I also note the color quality of a few of my Leica lenses is beautiful and may be more difficult to quantify however, in this day and age reputation is very important and Leica should consider every modern means to continue and to consolidate its reputation.

-- Sheridan Zantis (albada60@hotmail.com), October 10, 2001.

Jack Flesher says above: "As a belated point for future reference, I would advise that you NEVER sell a proven performer UNTIL its replacement actually proves itself superior... And I believe this to be especially true with Leica lenses!"

I might add... And then still don't sell the old equipment! Not one Dollar I've ever made selling old gear means anything today, but I sure wish I had that stuff back.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), October 10, 2001.

Jack is right! Never sell any Leica lenses. You will immediately regret it and spend the rest of your life missing that 'perfect' one! :-)

-- Muhammad Chishty (applemac97@aol.com), October 10, 2001.

there is one leica lens I have sell it was a SA 21/4, and sell it after get the 21/3.4; I still regret, specialy when ever I read something good of the first one.

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), October 10, 2001.

I have only sold one single Leica lens. It was a (today's) 50 'cron. I did this on purpose and have never regretted it since because I'm still looking forward to finding the right penultimate one here (with its tab and hood). OTOH I have already realized that no-(further)-selling of my Leica stuff is going to be the best way I can ever will my children something decent (I think).

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), October 10, 2001.