Re: [Leica] 35 Lux ASPH

[Henning Wulff <henningw@archiphoto.com>]

>G'day Henning,
>Thank you for the balanced and reasoned comments. I started this 
>thread, when I was surprised by flare in a shot I was not expecting 
>it in. The comments (badmouthing in your terms) were several peoples 
>experience, most of whom spoke with their feet and moved away from 
>the TE. To be honest, I think the criticism has been "asked" for, 
>rather than any "campaign", and that is what this resource is all 
>about. Most people who use the TE seem to suffer more flare with it 
>than other lenses -- to this end, and with Leica's attention to 
>detail, I find it odd that there is NO hood supplied. I've not 
>bought a Leica lens without a hood, and even on the 35 lux I 
>remember their advise was to use the hood at all times. When I 
>bought my TE I remember reading that the lens was quite deeply 
>recessed and therefore did not require a hood. OK, I trusted Leica. 
>I have now shot maybe 3 rolls with the lens and was surprised to see 
>flare in all three. When it happened on a roll I was taking "with 
>care" (ie more attention to detail than a snap shot) I became 
>concerned. It seems I need a hood, it seems I have been spoilt by 
>the other Leica lenses which are very flare resistant. Leica's claim 
>that the TE lacks for none of the optical excellence of its other 
>lenses may not be quite true however !!!! This is not really 
>badmouthing the lens, it has been a balance between useful comments 
>of those who use and enjoy the lens and those who found it did not 
>meet their requirements. I suppose its now up to me to decide from 
>these comments whether to buy a hood, learn its limitations and 
>accept its real benefits, or to join those who would rather carry 3 
>lenses.
>
>Hope you are well. Hard to believe it is 2 years since we were in 
>Canada. Now we are off again, this time to San Diego, New Mexico and 
>Arizona, where the R8, XPan and M6 with 35 summilux will be given a 
>good working over ;-)

Hi Alastair,

Looking again at what I wrote last night made me realize that writing 
late at night after some food, wine and a scotch might make things 
more exciting but not more accurate.  :-).

You, as well as some others, obviously do have a more than normal 
flare problem. Just because I never experienced it doesn't mean it's 
not there. All lenses flare to some degree; some are just better than 
others.

Flare is a problem that can have very insignificant seeming causes. A 
patch of paint on the inside of the camera that is rubbed a bit 
instead of flat black, combined with a place on the insided of the 
lens mount (between cells or on the back) that is very slightly 
nicked and appears as bare metal from some angle can introduce huge 
and unexpected flare under certain conditions. As Frank Dernie 
mentioned, someone had a 35/1.4 ASPH with a flare problem when he got 
the lens, and this was missing a very small bit of edge blackening on 
an element. Leica fixed this.

What I'm really trying to say is that I don't think any of the lenses 
mentioned (the aspherics) have an intrinsic flare problem, that is, 
the type of flare that is only seen occasionally, but then is quite 
bad and veiling over the whole image or over large, often irregular 
parts of the image. These tend to be produced by little bits of shiny 
things in the light path, often combined with patches of insufficient 
blacking.

The 'flare' or 'ghosting' seen in some images posted, where the sun 
is in the picture and then a spot or circular flare patch is seen 
symmtrically opposite in the image is due to intrinsic lens/coating 
design, and until we develop perfect coatings are hard to get rid of. 
The unfortunate fact of rangefinder shooting is that since we can't 
see this while shooting, we won't find out about it until we develop 
our film. An SLR can help detect this before we shoot, but it'll 
still be there. Since lens complexity exacerbates this problem, and 
SLR lenses - especially zooms - tend to be more complex, they 
actually suffer a lot more of this than the M lenses. This is also 
part of the reason the Tri-E is worse than the fixed lenses. Flare 
reduction depends on lens curvatures, lens edge design, lens 
spacings, angles of incidence/refractance, lens mounting, etc, and in 
the T-E some of these factors do not stay constant, so can't be fully 
optimized.

A lenshood will reduce the flare under some circumstances, but as 
with most other wide lenses, the hood isn't as significant as with a 
tele. I don't use one with mine. As I mentioned, my T-E is more flare 
resistant in general, even at 50mm, than any 50mm lens from the 50's 
or 60's I've used.

- -- 
    *            Henning J. Wulff
   /|\      Wulff Photography & Design
  /###\   mailto:henningw@archiphoto.com
  |[ ]|     http://www.archiphoto.com
- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html