This topic is in the 2016 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 201690mm MF Alt for A7?
p.7 #290mm MF Alt for A7?
uhoh7 wrote:
If you paid via PAYPAL he must accept return since the lens is not as described.
Seller's reply seems reasonable IMO.
"I'm sorry but I won't accept a return of the lens on the basis you have outlined. It was offered for sale on a no return basis which you were aware of. In addition it was sold as a Leica M lens which I know works perfectly well on a Leica M body. If it doesn't work as you would like it via an adapter on a camera it was not designed for this is in my view not a reason for a return. I made no representations that it was suitable for anything other than a Leica M body."
RE Summicron R APO: Another Whopper, though sweet lens, no doubt. The point is, the Summarit is loved by many because it's great AND small. This was Puts' walk around 90 for years.
Yes, I can see that the Summarit would be a very good lens..but so is the MD 100/2,5 for a ¼ of the price.
Edited on Mar 16, 2016 at 02:23 AM · View previous versions
If you paid via PAYPAL he must accept return since the lens is not as described.
Seller's reply seems reasonable IMO.
"I'm sorry but I won't accept a return of the lens on the basis you have outlined. It was offered for sale on a no return basis which you were aware of. In addition it was sold as a Leica M lens which I know works perfectly well on a Leica M body. If it doesn't work as you would like it via an adapter on a camera it was not designed for this is in my view not a reason for a return. I made no representations that it was suitable for anything other than a Leica M body."
RE Summicron R APO: Another Whopper, though sweet lens, no doubt. The point is, the Summarit is loved by many because it's great AND small. This was Puts' walk around 90 for years.
Yes, I can see that the Summarit would be a very good lens..but so is the MD 100/2,5 for a ¼ of the price.
Edited on Mar 16, 2016 at 02:23 AM · View previous versions
Mar 16, 2016 at 02:13 AM
p.7 #390mm MF Alt for A7?
coogee wrote:
It sounds to me like a golden opportunity to get the final E55 version of the 90mm Summicron-R you should have acquired in the first place
It sits nicely on the a7x being a shorter squatter lens with special sauce in spades wide open, sharp stopped down, in that budget range.
I don't think anything could replace the 100MP directly but that lens is such a whopper! I'd get another one of those if that's really what you want.
Good luck! I can't say I use my lenses at or beyond f/11 too much, unless it's something very very specific like...Show more →
coogee, the "R" version APO is bigger, heavier and much more expensive than the "M" APO! If I ever could justify getting one, it would be the "M" (with Helicoid adapter to get the 0.7M close distance)
It sounds to me like a golden opportunity to get the final E55 version of the 90mm Summicron-R you should have acquired in the first place
It sits nicely on the a7x being a shorter squatter lens with special sauce in spades wide open, sharp stopped down, in that budget range.
I don't think anything could replace the 100MP directly but that lens is such a whopper! I'd get another one of those if that's really what you want.
Good luck! I can't say I use my lenses at or beyond f/11 too much, unless it's something very very specific like...Show more →
coogee, the "R" version APO is bigger, heavier and much more expensive than the "M" APO! If I ever could justify getting one, it would be the "M" (with Helicoid adapter to get the 0.7M close distance)
Mar 16, 2016 at 02:18 AM
p.7 #490mm MF Alt for A7?
darrellc wrote:
I like the Summarit 90 on the A7x bodies quite a bit... the size, weight and operation is great, easy to MF focus.
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7382/12216432515_af306dbba9_h.jpgDSC02111 by DarrellC, on Flickr
Love this shot Darrell, the light through the mist with the highlights and green branches standing out.
I agree, the Summarit is a very good lens and perfectly balanced with the A7.
Edited on Mar 16, 2016 at 02:28 AM · View previous versions
I like the Summarit 90 on the A7x bodies quite a bit... the size, weight and operation is great, easy to MF focus.
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7382/12216432515_af306dbba9_h.jpgDSC02111 by DarrellC, on Flickr
Love this shot Darrell, the light through the mist with the highlights and green branches standing out.
I agree, the Summarit is a very good lens and perfectly balanced with the A7.
Edited on Mar 16, 2016 at 02:28 AM · View previous versions
Mar 16, 2016 at 02:26 AM
p.7 #590mm MF Alt for A7?
Rent or borrow an M body? Something smells off a bit.
timballic wrote:
Seller's reply seems reasonable IMO.
"I'm sorry but I won't accept a return of the lens on the basis you have outlined. It was offered for sale on a no return basis which you were aware of. In addition it was sold as a Leica M lens which I know works perfectly well on a Leica M body. If it doesn't work as you would like it via an adapter on a camera it was not designed for this is in my view not a reason for a return. I made no representations that it was suitable for anything other than...Show more →
timballic wrote:
uhoh7 wrote
If you paid via PAYPAL he must accept return since the lens is not as described."I'm sorry but I won't accept a return of the lens on the basis you have outlined. It was offered for sale on a no return basis which you were aware of. In addition it was sold as a Leica M lens which I know works perfectly well on a Leica M body. If it doesn't work as you would like it via an adapter on a camera it was not designed for this is in my view not a reason for a return. I made no representations that it was suitable for anything other than...Show more →
Earlier quote
RE Summicron R APO: Another Whopper, though sweet lens, no doubt. The point is, the Summarit is loved by many because it's great AND small. This was Puts' walk around 90 for years.Mar 16, 2016 at 02:27 AM
p.7 #690mm MF Alt for A7?
Hi Tim,
i currently went a little mad and have a nice lineup in your range. If it helps you, I can make a little shootout between:
- Canon FD 1.2/85 Aspherical
- Canon nFD 2/100
- Contax 3.5/100
- Contax 2.8/85
- Olympus OM 2.8/100
- Tokina AT-X 2.5/90
- Zeiss MP 2/100 ZF
when I find the time to
I'm curious too which lens will come out as the winner although I'd bet on the MP100 which just got disassembled, cleaned and adjusted from the Zeiss service.
Just forgive me that I'll only compare sharpness here, otherwise, a seven-lens shootout will be much too much work
i currently went a little mad and have a nice lineup in your range. If it helps you, I can make a little shootout between:
- Canon FD 1.2/85 Aspherical
- Canon nFD 2/100
- Contax 3.5/100
- Contax 2.8/85
- Olympus OM 2.8/100
- Tokina AT-X 2.5/90
- Zeiss MP 2/100 ZF
when I find the time to
I'm curious too which lens will come out as the winner although I'd bet on the MP100 which just got disassembled, cleaned and adjusted from the Zeiss service. Just forgive me that I'll only compare sharpness here, otherwise, a seven-lens shootout will be much too much work
Mar 16, 2016 at 02:31 AM
p.7 #790mm MF Alt for A7?
Jannik Peters wrote:
Hi Tim,
i currently went a little mad and have a nice lineup in your range. If I can help you, I can make a little shootout between:
- Canon FD 1.2/85 Aspherical
- Canon nFD 2/100
- Contax 3.5/100
- Contax 2.8/85
- Olympus OM 2.8/100
- Tokina AT-X 2.5/90
- Zeiss MP 2/100 ZF
when I find the time to I'm curious too which lens will come out as the winner although I'd bet on the MP100 which just got disassembled, cleaned and adjusted from the Zeiss service.
Just forgive me that I'll only compare sharpness here, otherwise, a seven-lens shootout will be much too...Show more →
I look forward to that Jannik. I do just the same, get a selection of lenses in a certain FL and then test and compare for the "favourites". Like you, I first shortlist, based on sharpness and any obvious differences.
(My Canon FDn 100/2 is currently away with "TheLensDoctor". That seller paid for the repair!)
I am considering referring the Summarit to PayPal, after all it is a demonstrable lens fault of uneven focus, regardless of the body I use it on.
However, I do wonder if I should try another make of adapter first? The one I used was a cheap "K&F", though it measures correctly (after shimming) and both camera and lens mounts are a good fit.
Hi Tim,
i currently went a little mad and have a nice lineup in your range. If I can help you, I can make a little shootout between:
- Canon FD 1.2/85 Aspherical
- Canon nFD 2/100
- Contax 3.5/100
- Contax 2.8/85
- Olympus OM 2.8/100
- Tokina AT-X 2.5/90
- Zeiss MP 2/100 ZF
when I find the time to
I'm curious too which lens will come out as the winner although I'd bet on the MP100 which just got disassembled, cleaned and adjusted from the Zeiss service. Just forgive me that I'll only compare sharpness here, otherwise, a seven-lens shootout will be much too...Show more →
I look forward to that Jannik. I do just the same, get a selection of lenses in a certain FL and then test and compare for the "favourites". Like you, I first shortlist, based on sharpness and any obvious differences.
(My Canon FDn 100/2 is currently away with "TheLensDoctor". That seller paid for the repair!)
I am considering referring the Summarit to PayPal, after all it is a demonstrable lens fault of uneven focus, regardless of the body I use it on.
However, I do wonder if I should try another make of adapter first? The one I used was a cheap "K&F", though it measures correctly (after shimming) and both camera and lens mounts are a good fit.
Mar 16, 2016 at 02:41 AM
p.7 #890mm MF Alt for A7?
timballic wrote:
I look forward to that Jannik. I do just the same, get a selection of lenses in a certain FL and then test and compare for the "favourites". Like you, I first shortlist, based on sharpness and any obvious differences.
(My Canon FDn 100/2 is currently away with "TheLensDoctor". That seller paid for the repair!
Great, I'll see what I can do I'm holding my thumbs for your 2/100, mine is still on the way. It hits a sweet spot between brightness and size. The bokeh looks great and it seems to be reasonalble sharp and contrasty wide open.
timballic wrote:
I am considering referring the Summarit to PayPal, after all it is a demonstrable lens fault of uneven focus, regardless of the body I use it on.
However, I do wonder if I should try another make of adapter first? The one I used was a cheap "K&F", though it measures correctly (after shimming) and both camera and lens mounts are a good fit.
Yes good idea, I'd try everything to return that lens.
I look forward to that Jannik. I do just the same, get a selection of lenses in a certain FL and then test and compare for the "favourites". Like you, I first shortlist, based on sharpness and any obvious differences.
(My Canon FDn 100/2 is currently away with "TheLensDoctor". That seller paid for the repair!
Great, I'll see what I can do
I'm holding my thumbs for your 2/100, mine is still on the way. It hits a sweet spot between brightness and size. The bokeh looks great and it seems to be reasonalble sharp and contrasty wide open. timballic wrote:
I am considering referring the Summarit to PayPal, after all it is a demonstrable lens fault of uneven focus, regardless of the body I use it on.
However, I do wonder if I should try another make of adapter first? The one I used was a cheap "K&F", though it measures correctly (after shimming) and both camera and lens mounts are a good fit.
Yes good idea, I'd try everything to return that lens.
Mar 16, 2016 at 02:49 AM
p.7 #990mm MF Alt for A7?
Jannik Peters wrote:
Great, I'll see what I can do I'm holding my thumbs for your 2/100, mine is still on the way. It hits a sweet spot between brightness and size. The bokeh looks great and it seems to be reasonalble sharp and contrasty wide open.
See of you can beg, steal or borrow, Phillip's OM Z 100/2, it "needs" to be in that comparison.
When I compared it with my MP 100/2, on the 5DII, I liked it a lot. Even "softer" bokeh, slightly less CA, though not the same biting sharpness. With the MP, you see an almost "ripple" of knife edge sharpness as the plane of focus runs through the picture, that I've never seen with any other lens! ( though I wouldn't be surprised if the Z*135/2 had it too)
Great, I'll see what I can do I'm holding my thumbs for your 2/100, mine is still on the way. It hits a sweet spot between brightness and size. The bokeh looks great and it seems to be reasonalble sharp and contrasty wide open.
See of you can beg, steal
or borrow, Phillip's OM Z 100/2, it "needs" to be in that comparison. When I compared it with my MP 100/2, on the 5DII, I liked it a lot. Even "softer" bokeh, slightly less CA, though not the same biting sharpness. With the MP, you see an almost "ripple" of knife edge sharpness as the plane of focus runs through the picture, that I've never seen with any other lens! ( though I wouldn't be surprised if the Z*135/2 had it too)
Mar 16, 2016 at 02:56 AM
p.7 #1090mm MF Alt for A7?
timballic wrote:
It sits nicely on the a7x being a shorter squatter lens with special sauce in spades wide open, sharp stopped down, in that budget range.
I don't think anything could replace the 100MP directly but that lens is such a whopper! I'd get another one of those if that's really what you want.
Good luck! I can't say I use my lenses at or beyond f/11 too much, unless it's something very very specific like macro.coogee, the "R" version APO is bigger, heavier and much more expensive than the "M" APO! If I ever could justify getting one, it would be the "M" (with Helicoid adapter to get the 0.7M close distance)
I was talking about the previous version, the 11254, this one:
http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/index.php/90mm_f/2_Summicron-R
It's the same MFD as M lenses (0.7m) and has that whole sharp but with soft edges thing at f/2.0 that's gone by f/2.8.
It's very much a Mandler style lens and around the budget of the Summarit. It's around the size of the Zeiss 50MP Z*
I've never even seen the 90-R APO, the M version as you note is cheaper, smaller and lighter.
coogee wrote
It sounds to me like a golden opportunity to get the final E55 version of the 90mm Summicron-R you should have acquired in the first placeIt sits nicely on the a7x being a shorter squatter lens with special sauce in spades wide open, sharp stopped down, in that budget range.
I don't think anything could replace the 100MP directly but that lens is such a whopper! I'd get another one of those if that's really what you want.
Good luck! I can't say I use my lenses at or beyond f/11 too much, unless it's something very very specific like macro.
I was talking about the previous version, the 11254, this one:
http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/index.php/90mm_f/2_Summicron-R
It's the same MFD as M lenses (0.7m) and has that whole sharp but with soft edges thing at f/2.0 that's gone by f/2.8.
It's very much a Mandler style lens and around the budget of the Summarit. It's around the size of the Zeiss 50MP Z*
I've never even seen the 90-R APO, the M version as you note is cheaper, smaller and lighter.
Mar 16, 2016 at 05:00 AM
p.7 #1190mm MF Alt for A7?
coogee wrote:
I've never even seen the 90-R APO, the M version as you note is cheaper, smaller and lighter.
It seems to be a rare and expensive "beast" indeed
I have seen the test on Phillip's site, of the "M" version pre-ASPH and don't think that one, or the "R" are for me., (if the "R" is the same design?)
I've never even seen the 90-R APO, the M version as you note is cheaper, smaller and lighter.
It seems to be a rare and expensive "beast" indeed
I have seen the test on Phillip's site, of the "M" version pre-ASPH and don't think that one, or the "R" are for me., (if the "R" is the same design?)
Mar 16, 2016 at 05:34 AM
p.7 #1290mm MF Alt for A7?
After doing more test series this morning, with the Summarit, which consistently show the problem with the top left corner especially, I've opened a "Request return and refund from seller" case, with eBay. I won't be popular with the seller, but I think it is the right thing to do, and thanks for your advise to take this route.
The tests also show that, at, or near infinity, the lens performs poorly.
I don't think I'll pursue another Summarit, my MD 100/2.5 is like an improved version of it.
The tests also show that, at, or near infinity, the lens performs poorly.
I don't think I'll pursue another Summarit, my MD 100/2.5 is like an improved version of it.
Mar 16, 2016 at 06:06 AM
p.7 #1390mm MF Alt for A7?
If you were a bit closer, I would volunteer my Minolta Maxxum 100/2. I just need it too soon to take a risk with all the shipping timing.
Jannik Peters wrote:
Hi Tim,
i currently went a little mad and have a nice lineup in your range. If it helps you, I can make a little shootout between:
- Canon FD 1.2/85 Aspherical
- Canon nFD 2/100
- Contax 3.5/100
- Contax 2.8/85
- Olympus OM 2.8/100
- Tokina AT-X 2.5/90
- Zeiss MP 2/100 ZF
when I find the time to I'm curious too which lens will come out as the winner although I'd bet on the MP100 which just got disassembled, cleaned and adjusted from the Zeiss service.
Just forgive me that I'll only compare sharpness here, otherwise, a seven-lens shootout will be much too much...Show more →
Jannik Peters wrote:
Hi Tim,
i currently went a little mad and have a nice lineup in your range. If it helps you, I can make a little shootout between:
- Canon FD 1.2/85 Aspherical
- Canon nFD 2/100
- Contax 3.5/100
- Contax 2.8/85
- Olympus OM 2.8/100
- Tokina AT-X 2.5/90
- Zeiss MP 2/100 ZF
when I find the time to
I'm curious too which lens will come out as the winner although I'd bet on the MP100 which just got disassembled, cleaned and adjusted from the Zeiss service. Just forgive me that I'll only compare sharpness here, otherwise, a seven-lens shootout will be much too much...Show more →
Mar 16, 2016 at 09:39 AM
p.7 #1490mm MF Alt for A7?
timballic wrote:
Seller's reply seems reasonable IMO.
"I'm sorry but I won't accept a return of the lens on the basis you have outlined. It was offered for sale on a no return basis which you were aware of. In addition it was sold as a Leica M lens which I know works perfectly well on a Leica M body. If it doesn't work as you would like it via an adapter on a camera it was not designed for this is in my view not a reason for a return. I made no representations that it was suitable for anything other than...Show more →
Never EVER buy a lens from somebody who says NO RETURNS. That's totally ridiculous and if bought on eBay or through paypal, the item must be "AS DESCRIBED" anyway. Don't give up, he must take it back. Otherwise you will be the guy who is selling a bad lens.
How many decentered Sony lenses are for sale now because the owner wants a good one?
You don't ever save money on these NO RETURN deals anyway. You can always find the lens for the same price from a reasonable person. Now, it is a good idea to shoot a lens along side another when testing, because the Sony Mount is now notorious for wobble, that is being soft left/right. This is not only the A7 but later models also show movement at the mount if some pressure is applied. This could totally ruin a test, especially at high speed. But another lens, shoot at equal speeds with similar DOF should also show the issue (critical to compare simultaneously)
I advise don't give up on the Summarit, because it's so nice to carry it will get shot much more.
uhoh7 wrote
If you paid via PAYPAL he must accept return since the lens is not as described."I'm sorry but I won't accept a return of the lens on the basis you have outlined. It was offered for sale on a no return basis which you were aware of. In addition it was sold as a Leica M lens which I know works perfectly well on a Leica M body. If it doesn't work as you would like it via an adapter on a camera it was not designed for this is in my view not a reason for a return. I made no representations that it was suitable for anything other than...Show more →
Earlier quote
RE Summicron R APO: Another Whopper, though sweet lens, no doubt. The point is, the Summarit is loved by many because it's great AND small. This was Puts' walk around 90 for years.Never EVER buy a lens from somebody who says NO RETURNS. That's totally ridiculous and if bought on eBay or through paypal, the item must be "AS DESCRIBED" anyway. Don't give up, he must take it back. Otherwise you will be the guy who is selling a bad lens.
How many decentered Sony lenses are for sale now because the owner wants a good one?
You don't ever save money on these NO RETURN deals anyway. You can always find the lens for the same price from a reasonable person. Now, it is a good idea to shoot a lens along side another when testing, because the Sony Mount is now notorious for wobble, that is being soft left/right. This is not only the A7 but later models also show movement at the mount if some pressure is applied. This could totally ruin a test, especially at high speed. But another lens, shoot at equal speeds with similar DOF should also show the issue (critical to compare simultaneously)
I advise don't give up on the Summarit, because it's so nice to carry it will get shot much more.
Mar 16, 2016 at 02:02 PM
p.7 #1590mm MF Alt for A7?
I really hate these "confrontations" with sellers not willing to accept their precious lens is at fault. However, some of his points are so ludicrous that I thought you might like a smile.!
(He's viewing on a 13"Pro Macbook with Retina screen, so he should be able to see the obvious!))
It didn't improve my mood that I hit "delete" instead of "send", when I first finished the email, then hit "recover" twice, losing it for good..
It is my second attempt, that you see here!
Below are the 1:1 enlargements I sent to the seller to illustrate the soft top left corner.
Top Left 1:1 Summarit by Timothy Ball, on Flickr
Below is the comparison lower right sharp corner
Lower right 1:1 Summarit by Timothy Ball, on Flickr
Here are his responses and my replies (I sent another set of images taken at the same time, from the same tripod position, with my "sharp" MD 100/2.5)
My responses are highlighted
• Looking at the image as a whole, in my opinion, you can’t tell that the extreme upper left corner is “soft". The subject of the “soft” corner is a leafless tree with increasingly thinner branches/twigs which is probably (my guess) 200 yards+ or so away. Resolution/sharpness will not be perfect at that distance, even with a high res image.
The top left softness of the Summarit is immediately obvious to my eye, even before enlarging. A leafless tree is a very useful way of seeing if a lens is sharp. Even 50 year old lenses will resolve the branches sharply.
• It also seems to me that the tree in the top left is further away than that in the bottom right corner - it may not be comparing like-with-like as regards subject, distance etc and there would be differences.
The top left corner you have enlarged I would agree does not appear to be quite as sharp as the bottom right corner, but not to any appreciable extent - I have to say that you can only tell that it’s “soft" by doing a really substantial enlargement.
The tree across frame are all at the infinity settings on both lenses. The Minolta MD shows both corners equally sharp. The enlargement is a standard 1:1, and I repeat is clearly unsharp before enlagement on my 27" screen.
•The enlargement you have made to illustrate the “softness” is only around 6-7% of the total image. Given it’s location (extreme top left) I doubt the vast majority of people would even notice it when looking at the whole image. I did ask my wife to look at the whole image and she couldn’t see it even when I told her to look specifically at the top left!
Again, the enlargement is a standard 1:1, and on a 27" screen, the softness is clear, even before enlarging.
•I would not consider that the extreme upper left corner (or any extreme corner) of an image to be other than incidental to the main subject matter. The central 90%+ of the image you sent me is sharp.
I think that if you pixel peep virtually any image you would find some sort of flaw in it.
Whether you consider the top left corner to be important is hardly relevant. It shows the lens to be decentred, and I often include important detail right into the corners. This is hardly "far corner" pixel peeping, it is the whole corner being unsharp.
• You also need to bear in mind that this is an 8-year old used lens - whilst Leica lenses have exceptionally high build quality, they are not immune to wear and tear. The lens was never sold as “new”. The price you paid for it reflects this compared to a new lens.
A decentred lens, is not a lens in Excellent condition, as you described it to be. 8 years for any quality lens is hardly old. I have Minolta MD, Olympus OM Z, and Nikon F lenses, 30+ years old that are perfectly centred and sharper than this, right into the far corners. This Leica lens is showing clear optical decentreing.
•Any lens will not be 100% optically perfect, even Leica ones! Virtually all lenses suffer from some sort fall off on the edges to some degree, some more than others, even when comparing identical lenses.
I must also repeat that it is a Leica M lens manufactured for Leica M bodies. If you are using it on a Sony A7, even with a decent adapter, no-one could guarantee 100% compatibility or image quality. I appreciate you have sought views on this in a forum, but they are not experts (neither am I!).
I refer you to my last answer, for perfect centreing of my other 90-105mm lenses. On my Sony A7, whilst the results will differ from on a Leica, the corners will always be evenly sharp/unsharp, with a properly "centred" lens.
• If a significant proportion of the central part of the image was “soft” I would agree you would be justified in requesting a refund. However, the “softness” is not pronounced, is in an insignificant part of the frame (i.e. extreme top left corner) and really does not affect the image to any noticeable extent.
The softness is pronounced over the whole corner area. I repeat, on a 27" screen, it is very obvious.
I have never noticed any softness in the extreme upper left corner when I was using the lens on a Leica M9 and latterly on my current Leica M-P(240) body. If I had, I would not have sold it without saying something in the eBay item description, or having the lens serviced pre-sale to correct any problem it might have.
That you didn't notice that the lens has a fault is hardly the point. I noticed it immediately.
I must therefore confirm that I am not prepared to offer a refund due to a minor image issue which could at the very least simply be down to using the lens with a non-Leica body. I hope you understand my reasoning.
This is not a minor lens issue! The Sony A7 would have all corners even if the lens were centred as it should be
If you maintain this position, I will have to escalate my claim for return with full refund with eBay
Edited on Mar 17, 2016 at 02:33 AM · View previous versions
(He's viewing on a 13"Pro Macbook with Retina screen, so he should be able to see the obvious!))
It didn't improve my mood that I hit "delete" instead of "send", when I first finished the email, then hit "recover" twice, losing it for good..
It is my second attempt, that you see here! Below are the 1:1 enlargements I sent to the seller to illustrate the soft top left corner.
Top Left 1:1 Summarit by Timothy Ball, on FlickrBelow is the comparison lower right sharp corner
Lower right 1:1 Summarit by Timothy Ball, on FlickrHere are his responses and my replies (I sent another set of images taken at the same time, from the same tripod position, with my "sharp" MD 100/2.5)
My responses are highlighted
• Looking at the image as a whole, in my opinion, you can’t tell that the extreme upper left corner is “soft". The subject of the “soft” corner is a leafless tree with increasingly thinner branches/twigs which is probably (my guess) 200 yards+ or so away. Resolution/sharpness will not be perfect at that distance, even with a high res image.
The top left softness of the Summarit is immediately obvious to my eye, even before enlarging. A leafless tree is a very useful way of seeing if a lens is sharp. Even 50 year old lenses will resolve the branches sharply.
• It also seems to me that the tree in the top left is further away than that in the bottom right corner - it may not be comparing like-with-like as regards subject, distance etc and there would be differences.
The top left corner you have enlarged I would agree does not appear to be quite as sharp as the bottom right corner, but not to any appreciable extent - I have to say that you can only tell that it’s “soft" by doing a really substantial enlargement.
The tree across frame are all at the infinity settings on both lenses. The Minolta MD shows both corners equally sharp. The enlargement is a standard 1:1, and I repeat is clearly unsharp before enlagement on my 27" screen.
•The enlargement you have made to illustrate the “softness” is only around 6-7% of the total image. Given it’s location (extreme top left) I doubt the vast majority of people would even notice it when looking at the whole image. I did ask my wife to look at the whole image and she couldn’t see it even when I told her to look specifically at the top left!
Again, the enlargement is a standard 1:1, and on a 27" screen, the softness is clear, even before enlarging.
•I would not consider that the extreme upper left corner (or any extreme corner) of an image to be other than incidental to the main subject matter. The central 90%+ of the image you sent me is sharp.
I think that if you pixel peep virtually any image you would find some sort of flaw in it.
Whether you consider the top left corner to be important is hardly relevant. It shows the lens to be decentred, and I often include important detail right into the corners. This is hardly "far corner" pixel peeping, it is the whole corner being unsharp.
• You also need to bear in mind that this is an 8-year old used lens - whilst Leica lenses have exceptionally high build quality, they are not immune to wear and tear. The lens was never sold as “new”. The price you paid for it reflects this compared to a new lens.
A decentred lens, is not a lens in Excellent condition, as you described it to be. 8 years for any quality lens is hardly old. I have Minolta MD, Olympus OM Z, and Nikon F lenses, 30+ years old that are perfectly centred and sharper than this, right into the far corners. This Leica lens is showing clear optical decentreing.
•Any lens will not be 100% optically perfect, even Leica ones! Virtually all lenses suffer from some sort fall off on the edges to some degree, some more than others, even when comparing identical lenses.
I must also repeat that it is a Leica M lens manufactured for Leica M bodies. If you are using it on a Sony A7, even with a decent adapter, no-one could guarantee 100% compatibility or image quality. I appreciate you have sought views on this in a forum, but they are not experts (neither am I!).
I refer you to my last answer, for perfect centreing of my other 90-105mm lenses. On my Sony A7, whilst the results will differ from on a Leica, the corners will always be evenly sharp/unsharp, with a properly "centred" lens.
• If a significant proportion of the central part of the image was “soft” I would agree you would be justified in requesting a refund. However, the “softness” is not pronounced, is in an insignificant part of the frame (i.e. extreme top left corner) and really does not affect the image to any noticeable extent.
The softness is pronounced over the whole corner area. I repeat, on a 27" screen, it is very obvious.
I have never noticed any softness in the extreme upper left corner when I was using the lens on a Leica M9 and latterly on my current Leica M-P(240) body. If I had, I would not have sold it without saying something in the eBay item description, or having the lens serviced pre-sale to correct any problem it might have.
That you didn't notice that the lens has a fault is hardly the point. I noticed it immediately.
I must therefore confirm that I am not prepared to offer a refund due to a minor image issue which could at the very least simply be down to using the lens with a non-Leica body. I hope you understand my reasoning.
This is not a minor lens issue! The Sony A7 would have all corners even if the lens were centred as it should be
If you maintain this position, I will have to escalate my claim for return with full refund with eBay
Edited on Mar 17, 2016 at 02:33 AM · View previous versions
Mar 17, 2016 at 02:22 AM
p.7 #1690mm MF Alt for A7?
Don't talk to that seller anymore, let Ebay do it's job
Mar 17, 2016 at 02:30 AM
p.7 #1790mm MF Alt for A7?
Thanks uhoh and Jannik, and all you guys here, for your encouragement and support. Great Forum.
I now have to wait untill March 25th before I can escalate the case with eBay!
EDIT: Seller accepted return, after receiving my above responses I will send today
I now have to wait untill March 25th before I can escalate the case with eBay!
EDIT: Seller accepted return, after receiving my above responses
I will send todayMar 17, 2016 at 02:32 AM
p.7 #1890mm MF Alt for A7?
uhoh7 wrote:
Never EVER buy a lens from somebody who says NO RETURNS. That's totally ridiculous and if bought on eBay or through paypal, the item must be "AS DESCRIBED" anyway. Don't give up, he must take it back. Otherwise you will be the guy who is selling a bad lens.
How many decentered Sony lenses are for sale now because the owner wants a good one?
You don't ever save money on these NO RETURN deals anyway. You can always find the lens for the same price from a reasonable person. Now, it is a good idea to shoot a lens...Show more →
It would seem that the majority of sellers say "No returns" but I've found it to be meaningless..it hasn't put me off.....yet.
Thankfully I did shoot the tests alongside the MD 100/2.5, so I covered myself there.
Concerning the Decentred Sony FE lenses. I bought the 28/2 FE, used, through a seller on Amazon, but then promptly fell ill and could only return to try the lens after the return period had ended. You guessed, it had a soft left half. In that case the seller also refused return, and I was beyond the date for opening a case.
With very little expectation of a sale, I put it on eBay, FULLY DECLARING THE FAULT, but offering it at only a slightly reduced price, and was amazed...it sold!
As the Summarit was largely bettered, in my preliminary tests, by the even lighter, (though not smaller) MD 100/2.5
...and as the purpose of the search is to find an MP 100/2 "replacement", (I know, it doesn't exist ;o)), I don't think I'll pursue a Summarit 90/2.5 further at this time.
Never EVER buy a lens from somebody who says NO RETURNS. That's totally ridiculous and if bought on eBay or through paypal, the item must be "AS DESCRIBED" anyway. Don't give up, he must take it back. Otherwise you will be the guy who is selling a bad lens.
How many decentered Sony lenses are for sale now because the owner wants a good one?
You don't ever save money on these NO RETURN deals anyway. You can always find the lens for the same price from a reasonable person. Now, it is a good idea to shoot a lens...Show more →
It would seem that the majority of sellers say "No returns" but I've found it to be meaningless..it hasn't put me off.....yet.
Thankfully I did shoot the tests alongside the MD 100/2.5, so I covered myself there.
Concerning the Decentred Sony FE lenses. I bought the 28/2 FE, used, through a seller on Amazon, but then promptly fell ill and could only return to try the lens after the return period had ended. You guessed, it had a soft left half. In that case the seller also refused return, and I was beyond the date for opening a case.
With very little expectation of a sale, I put it on eBay, FULLY DECLARING THE FAULT, but offering it at only a slightly reduced price, and was amazed...it sold!
As the Summarit was largely bettered, in my preliminary tests, by the even lighter, (though not smaller) MD 100/2.5
...and as the purpose of the search is to find an MP 100/2 "replacement", (I know, it doesn't exist ;o)), I don't think I'll pursue a Summarit 90/2.5 further at this time.
Mar 17, 2016 at 03:50 AM
p.7 #1990mm MF Alt for A7?
timballic wrote:
It would seem that the majority of sellers say "No returns" but I've found it to be meaningless..it hasn't put me off.....yet.
Really? I've only bought one lens from somebody who claimed this, and guess what..out of many lens purchases (too many), that's the only seller I ever had a problem with. I often check adds at FM RFF and eBay. I rarely see "no returns". Keh and other large sellers all have return policies.
Who would want to give 600USD or more for something which cannot be returned if not what it is described?
Anyway, sorry you are having to deal with bad lenses now and in the past.
It would seem that the majority of sellers say "No returns" but I've found it to be meaningless..it hasn't put me off.....yet.
Really? I've only bought one lens from somebody who claimed this, and guess what..out of many lens purchases (too many), that's the only seller I ever had a problem with. I often check adds at FM RFF and eBay. I rarely see "no returns". Keh and other large sellers all have return policies.
Who would want to give 600USD or more for something which cannot be returned if not what it is described?
Anyway, sorry you are having to deal with bad lenses now and in the past.
Mar 17, 2016 at 08:23 AM
p.7 #2090mm MF Alt for A7?
TheEmrys wrote:
If you were a bit closer, I would volunteer my Minolta Maxxum 100/2. I just need it too soon to take a risk with all the shipping timing.
That certainly would have been interesting Tyler. Perhaps another time?
If you were a bit closer, I would volunteer my Minolta Maxxum 100/2. I just need it too soon to take a risk with all the shipping timing.
That certainly would have been interesting Tyler. Perhaps another time?
Mar 19, 2016 at 05:01 AM