p.27 #4 · Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 Steel Rim lens
stgrove wrote:
Just checked Leica website for Silver reissue and this black one and they list weight the same for both at 200g without hood.
Based on what is listed here was the first silver reissue aluminum?
That's probably because Leica didn't include the accurate weight for the new "Black" version. The 200 grams they initially released was for the silver brass version. So, we can't assume it's the same for the black version since Leica didn't specifically publish the weight of each lens separately.
p.27 #5 · Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 Steel Rim lens
Fred Miranda wrote:
That's probably because Leica didn't include the accurate weight for the new "Black" version. The 200 grams they initially released was for the silver brass version. So, we can't assume it's the same for the black version since Leica didn't specifically publish the weight of each lens separately.
Fred
Checked the weigh of the black on the US site and it says 200grams like the silver version.
BTW my replacement hood's plastic bag says 421 037 982 006 which is the same you indicted was the replacement you received. BUT when I check it against my original hood the part number 12486 is the same. Now I am VERY confused.
p.27 #6 · Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 Steel Rim lens
stgrove wrote:
Fred
Checked the weigh of the black on the US site and it says 200grams like the silver version.
BTW my replacement hood's plastic bag says 421 037 982 006 which is the same you indicted was the replacement you received. BUT when I check it against my original hood the part number 12486 is the same. Now I am VERY confused.
Yeah, I noticed that too, and it's really confusing. I don't rely on the weight measurements provided by Leica. There are too many inconsistencies in the weights listed for many of their lenses. Some have incorrect weight information, like the 50/1 Noctilux and the new 35mm and 50mm Summilux lenses.
As for the hood, yeah, it has the same part number; they didn't change that, which adds to the confusion. Take a look at these images and see if you can spot any differences that indicate the new and improved version: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1779165/25#16504758
p.27 #8 · Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 Steel Rim lens
stgrove wrote:
BTW, Leica has a buy back clause for purchasing this black SR lens back from a new owner if new owner desires to sell lens before 2 years of ownership.
stgrove wrote:
The buy-back program for the SR Black is most intriguing.
I think it's a great idea if you're a citizen of say, a certain country that is making it harder to move your liquid assets offshore. You buy a few 35 Lux limited edition lenses at home ahead of each of your business trips, visit the local Leica Store at your destination, hand them back in for a refund and deposit your cash in your offshore account. Or spend it on a nice dinner. The lenses are cycled back into the system and the process can be repeated again. Biggest problem though is $11K is a drop in the bucket.
p.27 #10 · Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 Steel Rim lens
rscheffler wrote:
Seriously though, how can Leica enforce that?
my best guess would be, they cant, in front of a judge this contract has zero binding, as you bought it, its yours, you can do whatever you like to do with it
p.27 #11 · Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 Steel Rim lens
Just a thought: A way that Leica could enforce the buy-back contract is to seize the lens if it ever arrives at an official Leica service center, for warranty service or other work, within two years, if the service is not requested by the original owner. In essence, the date of ownership would not transfer to the original buyer until two years after the date of the original sale. Obviously, the legal details would differ from one country/state/jurisdiction to another.
Loss of future privileges can also be used discourage non-compliance. A buyer could become “persona non grata,” black-listed for future favorable treatment by Leica and its official stores. The stores/dealers could find themselves being sanctioned for not enforcing the terms of the blacklist.
One USA manufacturer of high-end, limited-production leather products, that has long lead times, that deals directly with end users, has been known to limit what buyers can order, to discourage buyers from receiving the products, and “flipping” the products on on-line auction sites, selling to collectors and impatient wealthy buyers. If a buyer is suspected of “flipping” its products, that company will simply refuse to accept future orders from them.
p.27 #12 · Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 Steel Rim lens
I hate all chrome/silver rings equally :P
Fred Miranda wrote:
Some people don't like black Voigtlander lenses with a brass front ring that's chrome plated. However, there are plenty of compliments about how stunning the 35/1.4 black Steel Rim version looks. It's great for Leica, but not so much for Cosina.
p.27 #14 · Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 Steel Rim lens
stgrove wrote:
This does not seem right since the lens should still be in warranty. I would go back to the store who originally sold it assuming you were given that original invoice.
Good advice! I received the correct replacement shade this afternoon.
p.27 #15 · Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 Steel Rim lens
Is it common for the aperture ring to have a slight wobble? I believe this is intentional in the design rather than a flaw. I've tested three copies, and they all exhibited a slight wobble, although the little axial play should not affect lens operation.
p.27 #16 · Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 Steel Rim lens
I was all ready to get the SR reissue, but then saw a video from the guy in Paris who has a huge collection of lenses and does reviews/commentary on all Leica equipment. He was adamant that the SR reissue is a step backwards from the original version, claims it's much less sharp wide open than the original.
But then I was communicating with Ye who does lens CLA's, asked him about an original version I was thinking of buying. He questioned why I'd pay a price for a German original version that's close to the new SR reissue price, and I told him what the French guy said, and below I've pasted his response.
Do you agree that the SR reissue is just as good as the original?
That is a rumor. Leica makes products by product code. With the same product code, products have the same specs. A factory makes products by blueprint, the same blueprint, the same results.
The new reissue has the same optical design as the older version.
This lens is not supposed to be used at full f stop unless you look for the result like that. If you want the performance from a 1.4, buy FLE. We have two reissues, we love this lens. The brass construction is much better than the aluminum. The old version aluminum barrel from time to time, when well used, has problems. No more parts to repair. When you buy a new lens, you can always get parts from Leica. The new reissue has a much better structure than the older version.
p.27 #18 · Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 Steel Rim lens
brick33308 wrote:
I was all ready to get the SR reissue, but then saw a video from the guy in Paris who has a huge collection of lenses and does reviews/commentary on all Leica equipment. He was adamant that the SR reissue is a step backwards from the original version, claims it's much less sharp wide open than the original.
But then I was communicating with Ye who does lens CLA's, asked him about an original version I was thinking of buying. He questioned why I'd pay a price for a German original version that's close to the new SR reissue price, and I told him what the French guy said, and below I've pasted his response.
Do you agree that the SR reissue is just as good as the original?
That is a rumor. Leica makes products by product code. With the same product code, products have the same specs. A factory makes products by blueprint, the same blueprint, the same results.
The new reissue has the same optical design as the older version.
This lens is not supposed to be used at full f stop unless you look for the result like that. If you want the performance from a 1.4, buy FLE. We have two reissues, we love this lens. The brass construction is much better than the aluminum. The old version aluminum barrel from time to time, when well used, has problems. No more parts to repair. When you buy a new lens, you can always get parts from Leica. The new reissue has a much better structure than the older version....Show more →
p.27 #19 · Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 Steel Rim lens
brick33308 wrote:
I was all ready to get the SR reissue, but then saw a video from the guy in Paris who has a huge collection of lenses and does reviews/commentary on all Leica equipment. He was adamant that the SR reissue is a step backwards from the original version, claims it's much less sharp wide open than the original.
But then I was communicating with Ye who does lens CLA's, asked him about an original version I was thinking of buying. He questioned why I'd pay a price for a German original version that's close to the new SR reissue price, and I told him what the French guy said, and below I've pasted his response.
Do you agree that the SR reissue is just as good as the original?
That is a rumor. Leica makes products by product code. With the same product code, products have the same specs. A factory makes products by blueprint, the same blueprint, the same results.
The new reissue has the same optical design as the older version.
This lens is not supposed to be used at full f stop unless you look for the result like that. If you want the performance from a 1.4, buy FLE. We have two reissues, we love this lens. The brass construction is much better than the aluminum. The old version aluminum barrel from time to time, when well used, has problems. No more parts to repair. When you buy a new lens, you can always get parts from Leica. The new reissue has a much better structure than the older version....Show more →
That guy is an asshat- Not sure how else to say it- He is telling you it’s smarter to buy a 15K lens vs a remake of it for 3500. Literally one of the worst videos I have ever seen-
p.27 #20 · Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 Steel Rim lens
brick33308 wrote:
I was all ready to get the SR reissue, but then saw a video from the guy in Paris who has a huge collection of lenses and does reviews/commentary on all Leica equipment. He was adamant that the SR reissue is a step backwards from the original version, claims it's much less sharp wide open than the original.
But then I was communicating with Ye who does lens CLA's, asked him about an original version I was thinking of buying. He questioned why I'd pay a price for a German original version that's close to the new SR reissue price, and I told him what the French guy said, and below I've pasted his response.
Do you agree that the SR reissue is just as good as the original?
That is a rumor. Leica makes products by product code. With the same product code, products have the same specs. A factory makes products by blueprint, the same blueprint, the same results.
The new reissue has the same optical design as the older version.
This lens is not supposed to be used at full f stop unless you look for the result like that. If you want the performance from a 1.4, buy FLE. We have two reissues, we love this lens. The brass construction is much better than the aluminum. The old version aluminum barrel from time to time, when well used, has problems. No more parts to repair. When you buy a new lens, you can always get parts from Leica. The new reissue has a much better structure than the older version....Show more →
Some people state things without much evidence to support their claims. When comparing different versions of lenses, small variations in tolerance between copies might affect their performance significantly. All versions of the 35/1.4 Lux (pre-asph) lens, from the original SR to the Pre-asph v2 Canada, to the German, and the reissued one, have the same exact optical design. While the type of glass or lens coatings might have changed slightly over time, the differences aren't as significant as some people suggest. Also older lenses could have issues with haze which could reduce contrast noticeably.
As for whether the original SR version is sharper than the reissued one, I'm open to seeing side-by-side comparisons demonstrating this, but it needs to be from a reputable source and involve multiple lenses, not just one copy of each. Some people might think the original SR is superior, particularly if they own one and are worried about preserving its value.
From my personal experience testing five copies of this lens from different decades, the main difference I noticed was in contrast levels, largely due to variations in coating. Also not all of my copies were well aligned with the rangefinder which is another variable to consider.
