I have been fortunate to speak with a gentleman called Lazlo,a quiet, unassuming master optician who was one expert entrusted to construct first version 35mm Summilux asphericals.I admit that I know little if anything on constructing optics.Briefly,Lazlo advised that each optician was given all lense elements,including the semi-finished aspherics,as well as lense barrel and so on.From there each was solely responsible for the delicate job of hand finishing the aspherics,followed by assembly, collimation and so on. He advised in general "failure rate" was surprisingly low and that each lense took several days to complete. I gathered that the work of a master Leica optician was not a "press button" operation and that we should never underestimate the work that go into our lenses.

-- Sheridan Zantis (albada60@hotmail.com), February 02, 2002

Answers

I don't think anyone does. I think it's the dirt specks that go into our lenses we get a little peeved over.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), February 02, 2002.

But they're like the mistakes in carpets - proof they're handmade!

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), February 02, 2002.

The second version 35/1.4A does not, thank goodness, require so much hand fitting and is priced much more reasonably. It sounds like great fun but fortunately Leica has the sense to modernise. If they kept up production methods as above they would be out of business in short order.

-- John Collier (jbcollier@powersurfr.com), February 02, 2002.

www.leicapages.com has some great videos on the production of cameras and lenses. Dirt specks, well maybe they're specks having to do with manufacturing materials, coatings? But the performance is there! I love the quality.

-- James (snodoggydogg@hotmail.com), February 02, 2002.

I have to confess.I can't imagine anything more boring than watching a video on the manufacture of leica cameras and lenses!

-- Virgil (leicavirgin@hotmail.com), February 02, 2002.

Virgil - think about watching an hour-long video carefully tracing the manufacture of a golf ball, and you'll likely scream, "Give me that Leica lens video! Quick!" (lol)

-- Ralph Barker (rbarker@pacbell.net), February 02, 2002.

Well that just backs up all other info I have heard about my lens. I have actually put it on sale on ebay. It is a fantastic lens, though seeing it is my only lens, I would be better served with the new version and a second lens instead- seeing I am by no means a collector. Fantastic lens though. Not sure If the old way on construction would result in a visual/noticable difference. i believe that it is more important to recognise the way Leica has designed the new version rather than praising them on their original verison- just cause it is made by hand.

-- Kristian Dowling (leicashot@hotmail.com), February 02, 2002.

"Not sure If the old way on construction would result in a visual/noticable difference."

---Maybe it would. I understand that the aspherical surfaces are now produced by pressing the glass blank into a mold, and not by grinding, as they once were. That's how Tamron makes their aspherical surfaces, too--except I think they use plastic for the molded element.

All this comes to mind because I just took back the 35mm ASPH Summicron that I bought last Saturday. It was in pristine condition, complete with lens hood, a handy cap to go on over the hood, an extra lens cap, and even a nifty zipper leatherette case with foam cut out precisely for the shape of the sunshade. But none of these amenities helped its performance.

On the tripod, with Velvia in the M6, I photographed the front of a Masonic temple decorated with a thousand littles tiles and details. I shot at F/4, 5.6, and 8, with my 35mm 2nd version pre-asph Lux; My version one 8-element 35mm Summicron;and with the ASPH Summicron.

I compared them first with my 12X achromatic loupe. Then I projected the slides out to 8 feet though a Golden Navitar projection lens. I did a "blindfold" experiment in which I judged and rank-ordered the slides for image quality before I peeked at the label to see which lens had been used. I repeated my observations three times to make sure.

The ASPH Summicron lost. Oh, it was a little sharper out toward the long edge; but not as sharp in the middle as the others. Results on some handheld architectural shots were similar. The ASPH was okay, but the ones taken with the older lenses had more breathtaking definition. So the lens went back.

All this started me thinking. There might be a point to aspherical surfaces for lenses that push the edge of the envelope, like a fast wideangle. But are they necessary, or even beneficial, for a lens that can already be corrected quite well without an aspherical surface? Or has the ASPH thing become marketing hype?

One aspherical surface is said to replace two spherical ones. It just could be that they're putting them into lenses that were already fine without them, as a cost-saving measure. Probably it costs less to push a piece of hot glass into a mold, than to grind the two spherical surfaces that would otherwise be necessary.

So, I decided to save my money for something that will actually make my system more versatile.

What do others think about the possibility I'm raising?

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), February 02, 2002.

there is no mention of apertures tested, etc. The newer ASPH lenses are said to have better performance wide open. It is almost impossible to improve most Leica lenses at f/4-f/8. You said that the Lux was sharper in the middle, but the Cron ASpH was better in the edges. This is also consistent with most reviews and opinions I've heard. Anyway, who really cares. The fact is that the newer lenses are definately better at wider apertures than preASPH lenses. Tell me who will dispute that? and who cares how they make it as long as the quality is still the same and performance is maximised......and the fact is that for the last 8 years, I've only heard of one person out of hundreds who wasn't that happy with the Lux ASPH....and then he went to medium format....figures!

-- kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), February 03, 2002.

All this started me thinking. There might be a point to aspherical surfaces for lenses that push the edge of the envelope, like a fast wideangle. But are they necessary, or even beneficial, for a lens that can already be corrected quite well without an aspherical surface? Or has the ASPH thing become marketing hype?

I don't think that aspherical surfaces are used in lens types except for 35 mm and below. Personally, I would like to see more "true focus" lenses instead of "retro focus" designs in the future... even at the expense of on-camera metering. Leica's big advantage is that there is no mirror to interfere with close rear element positioning relative to the film plane so shouldn't designers be taking advantage of this physical quirk to make lenses as dinky as possible? Like the 21 mm SA f3.4 vs the modern retro focus 21 mm ASPH?

-- John (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), February 03, 2002.

Bob: we TOLD you to get the 24! 8^)

Remember that, on the whole, Leitz/Leica lenses from c.1960 - c.1985 were designed under the 'Mandler' approach - maximize center sharpness at all costs - esp. with the double-gauss designs.

I believe the ASPH 'cron has more CONTRAST wide open and more sharpness in the corners, but possibly at the expense of peak center sharpness.

In his review of the Summilux-R 50, Erwin points out that there is nothing magical about ASPH surfaces - none of the Contax-G Zeiss lenses, which he compliments highly, use aspheric surfaces, whereas some of the Ricoh/Cosina lenses that he finds just OK DO use aspherics.

John: re true-wide-angle designs.

1) Erwin also points out that retofocus designs actually provide MORE opportunity for optical corrections, since the front half of the lens doesn't have to match the back half as with 'symmmetrical' Super- angulon-type designs. Giving more opportunity to reduce aberrations (if not distortion)

2) Leica has spent over 30 years (since the M5/CL) trying to get metering INTO M-cameras. They're finally introducing an auto-exposure camera. Presumably they have been trying to meet a demand and not just waste R&D money to keep the Solms economy hopping.

So can you imagine them introducing a 'new' 28 or 21 (or 15) and saying "Oh, by the way, you can't use this lens with the meter in that new body you just paid $2600 for - you might as well have bought a used M4- P for $900."?

Since I happen to HAVE an M4-P, like you I wouldn't mind a compact 21 that won't meter. Maybe I'll buy a 21 SA (still available used that last time I looked.)

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), February 03, 2002.

Andy: maybe I do need a 24mm. I do have the 21mm f/3.4, though, and use it on my M2 whenever the M2 isn't back at Focal Point, which is often, lately. So if I were to get the 24, I would probably part with the 21, which I'm not really ready to do, yet. Another idea would be to go for the 28mm ASPH instead of my version III. It's really just a matter of waiting for one of these to come my way, I guess. This experience has taught me that an aspherical surface is not a magic bullet, just as you pointed out.

John: Yes they do use aspherical surfaces in lenses longer than 35. I just saw a 90 ASPH Summicron-M APO yesterday.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), February 03, 2002.

John,

If your M2 continues to be that unreliable send it to Solms. My M2 and other cameras return to their spawning grounds every ten years and I have never had a Leica let me down.

-- Justin Scott (jcdscott@bigpond.net.au), February 07, 2002.

"? Like the 21 mm SA f3.4 vs the modern retro focus 21 mm ASPH?"

Nostalgia aside, isn't the point that the new asph is a better performer than the old lens _and_ allows metering?

Do people on this list really want to see lenses which don't allow the use of the TTL meter, thus making the M6 into an M4?! Weird!

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), February 07, 2002.