The Leica Lens That Let Me Down

I've never told this story until now.

I've tried/tested a number of them, but the only Leica 35mm I ever owned was a beautiful fourth-version 35mm Summicron-M of the type that was dubbed the "pre-ASPH" after the first aspheric version came out in 1996. Pics of that lens here. (Remember when aspherical elements were the hot thing? Been a while now. You have one or more in your phone's camera module.) I bought it new. I really got to know that lens; I taught myself zone focusing and could focus by feel from about five feet out. It had a lot of falloff (also called "vignetting"), especially with thin-emulsioned B&W films—but it was ungodly sharp and contrasty in the right circumstances, and the bokeh when it was stopped down and focused not-too-close was as coherent as anything I ever saw. Maximum aperture was pretty poor and I almost never shot it at anything wider than ƒ/2.8.

Unfortunately, my lens developed a problem. The black paint or anodizing or whatever it was on the aperture blades started to flake off, and the tiny chips began to collect right in the center of the adjacent inner elements...right in the optical axis. I agonized for quite a while about what to do about this. Get it taken apart and cleaned, and risk it coming back improperly centered? And what if the same problem continued? Send it back to Leica? Live with it? No solution seemed good. Well, no solution seemed ideal. And the more expensive the item, the more you feel you deserve it to be ideal.

It finally triggered my "persnicketyness" (see the post "Hwo to Cure Perfectionism" for a definition of that word) so much that I had to sell it. Somewhat to my lasting shame, though, I never (until now) mentioned that quality-control problem I had with that lens. The rule is that you may not say that anything Leica makes is anything less than the best, perfect, and unimprovable until Leica itself improves on it. Then you may criticize the superseded product. So my lens was perfect until 1996, and at that time I got to point out that falloff characteristic I mentioned.

I am supposed to be in the disclosure business (in David Vestal's memorable phrase), but I had already criticized Leica enough to raise the ire of certain of its devotees, and I just didn't need the hassle. (I consoled myself with the thought that my lens was just one sample, but that's chicanery—the rule of disclosure is, say what's true, just qualify it accurately.) I'm sure it was one of those production problems that companies of all sorts fix on the fly as soon as they become aware of them. The early '90s were an era of quiet cost-cutting by Leica, an era that is now well passed.

Problem or not, it was one of the lovliest lenses I ever used, with a beautiful look to the pictures and gobs of character.

The current Summicron-M is better, but not as good.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2017 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

TOP/Yale Spring Photo Book Offer
(Ends June 30th or when supplies run out)

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Peter Wright: "You didn't mention if the flakes had any effect on the pictures. I suspect that they might not, even though they were on the centre line of the lens. I know what you mean though. When we buy into 'perfection' we can't get past very obvious but perhaps insignificant defects. I have an older 90mm Leica lens on which the red dot fell off and got lost. I have to somewhat shamefully confess that I sent it in to Leica Service to have another one stuck on. However, when that one also fell off, I resorted to making one myself and attaching it with super glue. It's been there every since, and I have learned to live with it and be happy."

Mike replies: I'm uncertain if it had any effect on the pictures, but that very uncertainty had a decidedly bad effect on my mind.

Ignacio Soler: "Re 'The current Summicron-M is better, but not as good.' Sorry, but you lost me there. I can see how something can be both 'better' and 'not as good' at the same time. Say you are young and go on holiday to this beach town with a group of your best friends. You book the cheapest hotel and sleep five in a room and you count your pennies every night for the beer. You have tons of fun and remember that trip for the rest of your life. Thirty years later you return to the same town with your wife. This time you book the luxury hotel and enjoy fine dining and spa treatments. Certainly a 'better' trip, just 'not as good.' But how does this apply to lenses?"

Mike replies: I just think that the search for technical perfection can potentially rob lenses of character and appropriateness for certain tasks. For example, making a portrait lens clinical and razor sharp, rather than having just the right degree of softness.

Paul De Zan: "Re 'The current Summicron-M is better, but not as good.' The perfect summation of so many comparisons here in the Late Technical Era of my generation."

Henning Wulff: "Being a Leica shooter on a continuing basis since 1962, that is one of the lenses I have and have kept. Hardly a technically cutting edge item anymore, it still produces wonderful images. I have other 35mm options, but this lens still produces images that I like more often than ones from the Summilux ASPH or Zeiss ƒ/1.4 ZM. Similarly, I have produced more keepers from an even more universally denigrated Leica lens, the 'thin' Tele-Elmarit 90mm ƒ/2.8 than I ever achieved with the 90 AA.

"And it's not just that I like lenses with technical imperfections. My favourite 50mm Leica lens, out of the approximately 25 that I have either owned or used sufficiently is the current Summilux ASPH and my favourite 21mm is the current ƒ/3.4; both outstanding by any criteria. Some lenses just have a combination of characteristics, whether technical superlatives or downsides, that just combine to allow you to make images that achieve a higher level of satisfaction than others.

"By the way, my 4th-gen. Summicron was never flaky, but I did have a 135mm ƒ/2.8 that was, and some of the lenses I have now still have faults that should have never left the factory. Nevertheless, my Leica lenses as a whole still rise above any other brand in their totality."

Carsten Bockermann: "One of my most-loved lenses, the Summicron-M 35mm ƒ/2 is."

Comments

[marcin wuu]

I think Leica is a perfect example of that 638hp Corvette from your previous post. It looks great on the table in your local photo club.

[Dave Flanagan]

There's a big (1.5 mm diameter?) speck right in the middle of my Summicron 35/2 version 4. Ugh. I never would have guessed it was a piece of the aperture blades!

[Richard Tugwell]

Why not get Leica to fix/replace it? Irrespective of warranties, all the Leica gear that I ever had a problem was fixed free of charge or replaced. And I had problems with a few items. When I took them back to the dealer they never even asked for a warranty

[Jeff]

Leica introduced a new 35 Summicron - M earlier this year, so yours is now 2 generations past. I have the ASPH version that superseded yours, and it suits my needs and tastes well.

Your story did, however, remind me that I have an eye condition (Pigmentary Dispersion Syndrome) whereby little bits of my iris break off and travel in fluid around my eyes like rings of Saturn. Fortunately, it has no effect on my vision. Sometimes we just need to tolerate imperfections!

[William Schneider]

I had a different 35mm Summicron-M problem. The issue with mine was that the front half of the lens assembly would become loose. One day photographing overseas it became bad that I was afraid that the front half would separate from the lens body and fall to the ground.

I did a hotel room fix by pulling off the lens mount and tightening a retaining ring inside with jeweler's screwdrivers that I had packed. A more permanent fix awaited proper tools back home, but it sufficed for the remaining weeks that I was traveling.

But I still have recurring nightmares about an obligation to photograph but something is wrong with the equipment.

[hugh crawford]

"It had a lot of falloff (also called "vignetting"), especially with thin-emulsioned B&W films—"

Sounds more like a developer problem, or rather the compensating effect of the products of development in thick emulsion films not being present as much in the thin emulsions. At least that would be my guess. Never liked those thin emulsion films, thought T-Max was unusable vile looking stuff.

Cosine fourth falloff more likely than vignettting anyway in a non retrofocus design, and the angle of the rays impinging on a multi layered film or those damn T-grains could make a difference I guess but, I never heard it described as such before. Then again I was pretty much a photo hermit at the time.

The toeless, shoulderless, mushy grained, flat, hot sky rendering was enough to never get around to noticing vignetting. Was that really a thing? Just asking because I never heard of it until now.

[hugh crawford]

Oh and I meant to add, maybe its like that old saying about Schneider lenses that if they don't have bubbles you got a dud.

[Wayne]

Even though I will never adhere to the concept, I am always mindful of the OCOL mindset. The closest I have come, so far, is the Leica M3 and the 50 Summicron DR. When I bought the lens it was pretty much pristine. I am not sure if my example is representative of all such lenses but it renders beautifully and, to a greater degree than with any other lens, I am able to consistently gain accurate focus. Well, about a month ago I noticed a small speck of white material, about half the size of a pin head, located smack dab in the center of one of the inner elements. It bothers me that it is there, but it seems to have absolutely no adverse effect on photos. I think I will just leave it as it is.....As a reminder that things do not have to be perfect in order to be perfect.

[Marcelo Guarini]

I have a pre aspherical one that looks exactly as one in the pictures you show. Mine was fabricated at a Leica plant in Canada. I still have the lens, and I have never experienced the problem you mention.

[Richard Howe]

Like Peter Wright, I also lost the red dot on one of my Leica lenses (the 28–9)0 and, since I didn't have any idea just when or where I lost it, I wanted to replace it, which turned out to be more trouble than it was worth. Eventually I arrived at the same solution: I made one myself and stuck it on with super-glue. It's been fine for something like seven or eight years now.

I had another problem with that lens (which wasn't Leica's fault), which was that the mirror on my Canon camera(s) didn't clear Leica's anti-flare baffle (of course it worked fine on my R8, which I constantly regret having sold). I discovered that people were having the mirror shaved down by a millimeter or so (whatever it was so that would clear the baffle) but I thought before going to that much trouble I'd try just removing the baffle, which was easy enough to do, and of course that solved the mirror clearance problem. I never could see that it made any difference flare-wise, but maybe I'm just not very demanding about that.

I never had a Leica 35mm Summicron, but I do have the 50mm Summicron (also pre-aspheric) and I've always loved "the way it draws" (an expression that I've also always loved). If I had to choose just one lens to keep, it might very well be the one. No problems with it, ever.

Would I buy Leica lenses again? Probably not: it's not all that hard to give an image made with Canon or Nikon lenses (and probably many others as well) a reasonable facsimile of the "Leica look" in PhotoShop, though once again, that may just be me not having — can one say "golden eyes" the way audiophiles say "golden ears"?

Someone once told me that serenity wasn't having what you want but wanting what you have …

[hugh crawford]

No red dot?
No problem
http://www.dagcamera.com/store/p113/Red_Lens_Dot.html

[Steve Caddy]

I have the aspherical version that superseded yours and love it, but I thought the rule was that when a new version of. Leica lens comes out you pronounce it better in every way, but pine for the "character" and "classic look" of the older version(s), which immediately begin going up in price?

;)

[Pak Ming Wan]

This post made me chuckle because it resonates at a couple of levels. At the time I had the choice between a Gen IV and Gen V (Asph) version of the 35/2, both second hand. I bought the ASPH Gen V 35/2 mainly because I already had a pre-asph Gen III and the performance on the digital sensor was average (and as you say, the weaknesses of the Gen IV wide open were problematic -- not enough of an improvement for the money).

But you're right about Leica owners. Why won't they complain? Is it because they've spent so much on so little? Well here's one complaining Leica user.

- My M6's shutter were/are never quite right. 1/1000 wasn't 1/1000. Neither were the other speeds.
- Nor was the shutter selector: 1/15 was a lottery ticket for 1/8, 1/15, and 1/30.
- My M9's electronics belong on an old washing machine. How small is that screen? How slow is that OS?
- There's a defect with the M9 design where the SD card electronics are too near the sensor: noise from the card creates banding on the sensor. Only Sandisk 8Gb Ultra (an only a specific version of these) reduce this banding effect. I ended up buying 8 of these cards.
- There's a bug in the OS of the M9 where the battery indicator wraps around. That is, if the voltage is above 100%, like say 105%, the battery reads 5%. You get low battery warnings (and the shutter refuses to go off).
- Dust on the sensor means a clean. Cleaning with liquid corrodes the sensor and means replacing the sensor. I've already replaced one sensor, so I've ended up never changing lens on my Leica.

I guess that is the long story why I like the Gen VI Asph 35/2 so much.

But, given the results, I'll STILL probably buy another Leica. But don't expect me to defend them. When someone tells me how great a Leica is, but have never used one: I normally hand over my M9 and tell them to have a go. And I start complaining in the background. They walk away mostly thinking: "Gee, how does he live with that?"

Pak

[Dave Kocher]

I had a flaking diaphragm problem with a 28mm Angenieux in an Alpa mount I bought for a song in the mid-sixties. It created a many-armed "spiral galaxy" of dust in the center of the lens. Being younger and more brash then, I simply disassembled the lens and wiped the dust away. No problem subsequently. Seemed to me that it was likely a graphite coating on the blades. I had the pleasure of meeting the designer of that lens years later. He said that lens was his first design job after WWII. Small world.

[Frank Petronio]

Those pre-ASPH Luxes actually wore out thanks to the Aluminum housing, I've owned two used ones and they developed wobbles from over-use. There are no bargains ;-p

[Chris]

I lost Leica red dots, and Leica NJ shipped me 3 free of charge. Sometimes all you have to do is ask! Stuck it on with superglue.

The Summicron 35mm ver 4 is a classic "bokeh" lens, but its poor construction is quite well known, although not all are affected. The previous and post versions returned to the high production standards Leica are known for.

[El Inglés]

Bought one of the last 80-200/4 Vario-Elmar R lenses available new about 8 years ago. Been used no more than 3 or 4 times but black "rubber" has turned white in places. Doesn't affect optical quality but.... Apart from that, my only Leica problem was a very sticky exposure compensation lever on a new-to-me R8.

Without doubt, the least reliable brand I've owned is Canon. An A-1, F-1 (original) and 5D II have all had to be repaired.

[Kenneth Tanaka]

Mmmm, unfortunate to encounter a manufacturing defect on such an otherwise fine product. I don't think it's really accurate to say that the lens let you down, though, do you? Leica certainly would have repaired or replaced it, as it was brand new. If anything your apprehensions about getting remedy are what ultimately foiled you, eh?

Aside, of the three 35mm lenses I have for my Leica M cameras the 35mm F2 Summicron is my favorite and most-used. Small, light, very sharp across the frame. And no "flecks" that I've seen.

[Earl Dunbar]

Like Wayne, I love the DR Cron. I had it (with goggles) on an M3, which I had bought used from Helix. I never inspected it carefully of any "imperfections," I just used the damn thing and boy was it great. Kodachromes were marvellous, Agfachrome 50 & 64 were superb. I'm now more of a 40mm guy, but every once-in-awhile I think about re-buying a 50 DR for my CL, though I suspect I would then want another full size M body. Must. Stay. Away.