OK then, what's the WORST leica lens?

[phill kneen]

So, following on from the 'good 'cron, bad 'cron' thread, what do you

think is the worst lens Leica has made?

[skip_williams]

That's too broad a question, IMO, since you'd have to go back to the 1920's to start with. Lenses have changed significantly in the past 70-odd years, so what's excellent in 1930 isn't today.

 

Do you mean lenses made today? Or during a specific time period.

[joe_pelizza_salusso_di_vol]

The lens you haven't!

Joe

[phill kneen]

OK, lenses in production now. I had a 35-70 R and that really was a piece of crap......but that wasn't made by Leica in all fairness, but they still put their name to it.

[michael_kastner]

As always, this whole question is terribly relative, but then I'd say, for me, the worst lens is the last one I'd buy, even if I had the money. That'd be the M 75* or Nocti*. Of course, one of those might be the first one you'd love to buy, even if you DIDN'T have the money.

 

(* As re size, weight, imbalance, focus-firmness, cost etc.)

[jerry_lehrer]

Andy et al.

 

Don't any of you remember the 125mm f2.5 Hektor, which was a dandy

slide projection lens, 'till Leitz decided to put it in a screw

mount.

 

The 50mm f2.5 Hektor in screw mount was no great shakes either. Even in it's own time.

 

Of course, the most unsharp lens was the Thambar, but it was designed

that way. (No, it is not for sale).

 

Jerry

[kajabbi]

Hey Gerald,

I've used the hektor 125MM for years and its great for what it was designed for. Wide open it makes middle age+ look years younger and stopped down to F8 or more,as sharp a lens as you will ever need. Tripod a must however

[zoeica images]

nothing wrong with the 125/2.5 Hektor! nice lens. worst has to be the summilux 75/1.4 cause it will not show up my 75mm frame line on my M3.

[alexander_grekhov]

The worst lens, my friend, is the one you have but do not shoot with.

[charles barcellona www.bl]

First generation 28mm Elmarit-M's were nothing to write home about, neither were the 2nd generation from what I hear. Considering Japanese manufacturers had really good 28's by that time (early 70's) its a shame it took Leica three tries to get a decent 28mm M lens.

[albert knapp md]

In my experience, the 28-70mm f/3.5-4 has some shortcomings

but the 35-70mm f/4 has been an excellent performer.

[john_collier2]

The Leica lens I was the most disappointed with was the 90/2.8 Tele-Elmarit-

M. The worst Leica lens I have owned was the 135/4.5 Hektor. The focusing

mount needed colimating and the photos were terrible. I got the work done

and it is just fine now.

[Troll]

My 2nd generation 28mm Elmarit-M is an excellent lens, definitely better than any Canon or Nikkor lens of it's generation. I'd say that any Leica lens which was labeled "Hektor" was a dog (that's a joke, Son!)

[andrew n.bra hrefhttp]

Elmarit-C, 40mm f2.8 (1973). Assembled in Romania during the

good ol' days. According to G.Sartorius "Identifying Leica

Lenses" (at p.75) Leica scrapped the whole batch of 400 and

started again.

[george_b1]

The first edition of the M 50mm f1.4 Summilux.

[john_collier2]

Hi Andrew,

 

One reason the 40/2.8 was scrapped was that they made the lens with the

aperture tab up and it would block the viewfinder at certain apertures. I never

heard it was a poor performer. The lenses were sold to Leica employees at a

discount though where I read this I cannot for the life of me remember!

[harry_soletsky1]

I vote for the 50mm f2.5 Hektor and the 50mm Summar. I've them both. One cannot cover how lousy the Summar is by discussing some special soft focus property as an art form. We are just taking advantage of a rather limited lens. This was the product of its time caused by the use of lots of air-glass surfaces prior to advent of coating.

[dlegaspi]

<i>The Leica lens I was the most disappointed with was the 90/2.8 Tele-Elmarit-M</i>

<br><br>

you must be kidding me...

[eliot]

One really has to go back to the early SM era to find truly "bad" Leica lenses. Remember, they have to be judged against other contemporary Leica lenses and those of their competitors. The 50/2.5 Hektor and 50/2.0 Summar were well behind Leica's standard bearer *the 50/3.5 Elmar) and were not particularly good fast lenses.

 

In the M era, there were obviously some lenses not as good as others, but none I consider as really "bad". For example, the 135/4.5 Hektor was inferior to the 135/3 Elmar and TE; and the 90/4 Elmar (4 element) was clearly not as good as the 90/2.8 Elmarit. But none of these lenses are "dogs".

[msitaraman]

Somebody had put up an image from a Thambar on the Web. It looked like a real dog. I can't find the link, sorry. But the lens is obviously coveted by collectors-specimens are offered for $3000 or so.

<br><p>

 

But I'm no expert. Maybe it was <i>supposed</i> to be a soft focus lens.

[Rob F.]

Yes, the Thambar was supposed to be a soft-focus. It even came with a disk you could use to block the central rays, to take advantage of the greater abberations at the periphery of the glass. Sort of the opposite of a diaphragm. The soft focus was achieved, according to the 1960 Morgan & Morgan manual, " . . . a small amount of residual spherical abberation was deliberately retained at the extreme margins of the lens itself. Thus when The lens was stopped down enough to block out the margins of the elements, the definition was critically sharp."

[ray_moth]

The question asks for the "worst" Leica lens. That doesn't necessarily mean "bad", it just means not up to Leica's expected standard. From what I know of Leica M and R lenses (ignoring screw-mount lenses, which were mostly from a totally different technological era), I would list the following lenses as being "inferior" to the Leica standard of excellence:<br><br>

 

35/1.4 Summilux-M, pre-Asph.<br>

50/1.4 Summilux-M, first version<br>

50/2.8 Elmar-M, previous version<br>

85/1.5 Summarex-M<br>

90/2 Summicron-M, pre-Asph. version <br>

135/4.5 Hektor-M<br><br>

 

24/2.8 Elmarit-R<br>

28-70/3.5-4.5 Vario-Elmar-R<br>

70-210/4.0 Vario-Elmar-R <br><br>

 

I apologize if I've maligned somebody's pet lens (or omitted to mention somebody's pet "dog"). :-)

[nom]

Thambar: From the Greek word:"èáìðüò", verb:"èáìâþíù", means something that you can see through it but not clearly.

 

Btw, it was a very good one about the "Hektor dog" Bill :O)

[nom]

Sorry, I didn't realise that the Greek letters will not show right on your screens.

In "Greeklish" now: "Thambos", verb "Thambono" means something that you can see through it but not clearly.

[joel_matherson]

I generally dont judge a lens as bad if it was good for its time, so based on this I would have to say with the lenses I have used and owned I would say the Compact 90 f2.8 TE. I had the lens element problem that affects this lens, its a common fault of this lens but I think its unacceptable for a lens maker of Leicas skill to let that one slip through. Its true that the lens is good if you have a clean one but I saw the problem develop in mine quite quicky and unexpectedly, any could be a time bomb waiting to happen. I loved the size of the lens but had to sell it for scrap.