[RobA_Oz]

I wouldn't necessarily assume that there is an issue, just because it was reported by one user.

In the NEX pictures thread, there was a discussion about vignetting and colour shift for the CV 15mm lens on the NEX, with some users reporting issues. Yet I see no such issues on my photos, and those users also acknowledged they do not see those issues in the examples I posted.

I need to stress that individual variations in lenses do exist, as well as mount adapters and camera bodies, and a sample size of one doesn't prove anything.

For example, I went through three Summicron 50mm lenses before I settled on one that I liked.

One would hope that, in that price range, variations would be kept to a minimum. Having been in manufacturing, I'm well aware there's no such thing as zero variance in product or component dimensions, but variations of the size and type reported here are not in keeping with the status that CZ and Leica enjoy.

[Christine Tham]

One would hope that, in that price range, variations would be kept to a minimum. Having been in manufacturing, I'm well aware there's no such thing as zero variance in product or component dimensions, but variations of the size and type reported here are not in keeping with the status that CZ and Leica enjoy.

Leica lenses are hand-made. Some people think the variations are part of their charm.

[RobA_Oz]

Leica lenses are hand-made. Some people think the variations are part of their charm.

Yes, but hand-made precision instrument assemblies are supposed to allow for component mix-and-match and individual tuning to meet the specification. I don't think microscope buyers pay large sums of money for the charming effects of optical misalignment.

[Christine Tham]

Yes, but hand-made precision instrument assemblies are supposed to allow for component mix-and-match and individual tuning to meet the specification. I don't think microscope buyers pay large sums of money for the charming effects of optical misalignment.

Not quite sure what your point is. Variations exist, and are well documented (there are Leica books that detail them, down to individual serial numbers).

Stradivarius violins also exhibit variations.

There are some people that like the idea of buying unique, rather than mass-produced goods. If you don't, then that's your choice, but not sure why your expectations are relevant to the actual buyers of these lenses.

Some people also prefer not to eat at McDonalds, even though they pioneered the concept of standardising the consistency and quality of the food they serve, and minimising variations.

---

Last edited by Christine Tham; 10-23-2013 at 03:31 AM.

[RobA_Oz]

Not quite sure what your point is. Variations exist, and are well documented (there are Leica books that detail them, down to individual serial numbers).

Stradivarius violins also exhibit variations.

There are some people that like the idea of buying unique, rather than mass-produced goods. If you don't, then that's your choice, but not sure why your expectations are relevant to the actual buyers of these lenses.

Some people also prefer not to eat at McDonalds, even though they pioneered the concept of standardising the consistency and quality of the food they serve, and minimising variations.

I think you missed something in what I was saying. The optics in Zeiss and Leica lenses are supposed to be the best that money can buy. That does not mean they exhibit variations like Lomo lenses. I take your point about individual characteristics, but the variations being described were optical flaws of a magnitude that no serious lens manufacturer would countenance. Comparisons with McDonalds are not really relevant. Although they adopted quality system principles to minimise variations, it was to minimise cost and ensure the same experience was achieved each time. It was not to deliver a high standard of cuisine.

[Christine Tham]

I think you missed something in what I was saying. The optics in Zeiss and Leica lenses are supposed to be the best that money can buy. That does not mean they exhibit variations like Lomo lenses. I take your point about individual characteristics, but the variations being described were optical flaws of a magnitude that no serious lens manufacturer would countenance. Comparisons with McDonalds are not really relevant. Although they adopted quality system principles to minimise variations, it was to minimise cost and ensure the same experience was achieved each time. It was not to deliver a high standard of cuisine.

I think you missed something in what I was saying. I was not saying that variation alone accounts for whether you see a "flaw" or not.

The combination of the lens and camera (and adapter) may create issues - that may be unique to the combination, and variations can be a contributing factor. The same lens may not exhibit the issue on another body (same model). That's why I said a sample size of one proves nothing. We already know the Zeiss 21mm is prone to colour casting - even on Leica bodies. Some Leica wide angles are also susceptible. If you don't like that, don't buy these lenses.

There is no such thing as a perfect lens, and I don't believe that ALL Leica and Zeiss lenses are "the best that money can buy." For example, the Sony 50mm E mount is sharper in the centre than a Summicron 50mm. Some of the longer Leica lenses are prone to flaring. My Summicron 90 is very prone to purple fringing. My Summilux 50 has poor contrast when wide open.

In the end, it's not about perfection - it's about a whole bunch of other factors. I am not going to list them, because it's actually different for every lens. As an example, a Summicron for me is really is about contrast, colour rendition and bokeh - that's what I want and I don't care if it is not as sharp in the centre as a $300 Sony lens. And the rendition and bokeh will be slightly different from lens to lens - at one stage I own multiple copies of the same lenses because I couldn't decide which one I preferred. I eventually settled on one each, but it was a long hard decision and it took months to make up my mind.

Your expectations regarding these lenses are not the expectations I have when I buy these lenses. If I wanted consistency and accuracy, I would have bought Canon. But even Roger Cicala has documented that quite large variations can exist even for factory mass produced lenses.

I think the comparison to McDonalds is absolutely relevant. As you yourself pointed out, consistency and minimising variations does not equate to a "high standard". One of my favourite restaurants serves Napoli pizzas - each pizza is uniquely shaped. I accept that sometimes I get a smaller serving, the ingredients may be a little more unevenly distributed, but the taste and the flavour makes up for all that inconsistency.

[uhoh7]

With respect, at infinity, past 100ft, there is no contest between e mount 50 and 50cron. The summicron is superior as a landscape lens.

Results to the contrary most likely involve focus issues or copy issues.

The new ff 50 may beat it.

[uhoh7]

New shots a7r

Note alpha 70200g incredible crops.

Goodnight, Canikon.

[falconeye]

Christine, You might want to read the article on Online photographer

The Online Photographer: Two Reasons...

[ quoteLuke ]

I looked at that article and Luke's comment about the Zeiss may be interesting.

However, the main article (from Bruno Masset actually) has a major flaw in its reasoning. I already contacted TOP to withdraw the article.

Bruno missed to take into account that the rays which are displaced by different amounts (what he calls smearing) aren't parallel (of course not, they are made to intersect at the original focus plane). A more rigorous treatment could have told him that the rays do still intersect, just elsewhere. This is a shift of the focus plane, a well known effect of inserting a refractice medium into a light path. It is already corrected for in the camera firmeare and calibrations.

The article needs be taken down.

[Christine Tham]

With respect, at infinity, past 100ft, there is no contest between e mount 50 and 50cron. The summicron is superior as a landscape lens.

Oh I agree entirely - that was the point I was trying to make. And even wide open, I'll rather have the contrast and the rendition of the summicron over the Sony anyday.

The fact is - the Sony 50mm is sharper in the centre because it has to, to enable CDAF to work properly. Sony has optimised sharpness above everything else. And when you do that, you trade off other things.

[Clicker]

Photography is a strange animal and it's boils down to what side of the viewers brain is more dominant or not
some people only like to see tack sharp images, others a little softer... heck some people just want a recognizable image. How we see and how the manufacturers cater to those visions vary also but in the end, there is a product for everyone no matter what the costs or issues. Final image is all that should really matter.