Leitz Summilux 35mm/1.4 performance?

Hello boys and girls.

 

I'm considering to buy a Leitz Summilux 35mm/1.4 for my M8. I've heard some

people speak of this lens as a Coke bottom type lens, but then again is that

relly so? The attractive thing about it is certainly its size. Very compact

indeed and as such, it doesn't protrude into the view finder frame by a

ridiculous amount as is the case with the newer aspherical ones. Obviously,

being non-aspherical, it edge definition will suffer a bit but with the crop

factor on the M8 I wonder if that really matters.

 

If anyone have any sort of experience with this lens and its performance I

would be most happy to hear of it.

 

Thanks to you all.

 

Tore.

Its no Coke bottle. Yes, it suffers from coma wide open, and can flare somewhat. If your

intention is to use the lens at or near maximum aperture most or all of the time, then the

aspheric lens is a better choice (though larger), but at the kind of apertures most of us

would use most of the time I love mine - in fact I sold my aspheric 35mm to re-purchase

one, basically because I love the way the older lens renders things.

 

If you want a small lens, don't overlook the 4th version Summicron, which is also a lovely

optic. This and the old 'lux seem to sell for similar money here in the UK.

Performance is poor at f/1.4 so practically it is an f/2 lens but from experience it is not as

good as any f/2 Summicron.

The performance of this lens is only considered not that good at the edges wide open. With the M8 crop I think it would work extremely well.

I have this lens. It's well worth having and using. Not up to the standard of the new aspherical version, but hey, it is much lighter and more compact. Down to f2 it behaves almost exactly like an earlier Summicron, and it's not brilliant, but "good enough" at f1.4. This is a pj lens ... these guys were looking to bring home the shot, not fiddle and fuss for the last extra lp of resolution.

I'm with Federick on this. If you shoot on sunny 16 condition you'd be perfectly satisfied with it. And if you need that grab shot on the back alleys at midnight it would get the job done without having to pay for the price of the asph. It's not the lens to push on overgear but it gets you there nevertheless.

I use this lens as my normal lens. I must have a really good one judging from the comments herein. It proved itself for me when used inside The Louvre and Muse d'Orsay last year. All naturally lit and shooting 400, I brought home some incredibly detailed pictures of the sculpture rooms. Even snuck a photo of the famous lady, with the camera prefocused and hanging at chest level.

 

A minor complaint deals with the "ears" to adjust the diaphram, which are slighly in the way of the vented hood's attachment controls. Without the hood, or with the bottom half of the hood only, the combination of lens and body is very compact. The Series 7 filters have not been a problem. As there seem to be few buyers out there, I've picked a few Leitz and B&W from ebay at $10-15 each.

 

You can quibble all day about the merits of the two 35s. I prefer low speed film and the extra stop works for me.

Fred is right on, it is almost like a 35 Summicron from f2 on down. I used the lens for many

years as a photojournalist. I was always very happy with it, it is the one lens that I regret not

having any more.<div></div>

I agree that with a M8 it should be better than film bodies with the crop factor improving things a bit. Performance at f/2 is a tad less than the pre-asph. 'cron and by f/2.8 and beyond it's as good or better than the 'cron. Based on this, I would price a very clean used one at around $1100, the same as the pre-asph. 'cron in very clean condition.

I have a pre-asph 35 Summilux and it's my favorite lense. At medium apertures it's very sharp and nothing is lost in image quality. It's a little soft at 1.4 but it gives highlights a unique character. Like Paul, I used it at the Louvre and around Paris last year. 85% of my shots in Paris were with this lens. About a straight photo of my girlfriend in the Louvre, she accused me of using photoshop tricks to make her look good. That's a great compliment to the Summilux. Beware shooting into the sun however, it will flare. It's short and compact and probably the last Leica lens I'd part with.

Tore: I have one that I may want to sell as I've picked up a coded 'asph version. If you're

interested feel free to contact me off forum on paulhart2 {at} mac {fullstop} com

The pre-asph 35mm 1.4 is my favorite everyday lens. I like the wide-open quality, and

especially its compactness.

 

Just one FYI - the lens shade is fragile, hard to come by and spendy.

I shot this lens profesionally for many years from 1968 to the late 70's or early 80's. I loved the lens at the time because it was the best we had but I had a number of images totally ruined by flare and internal reflections. I did a shoot wit president Richard Nixon in 1970 where part of the shoot done in a stadium at dusk. The stadium lights caused severe flare and secondary images from the lights directly and just outside the frame. All of the images with the 35 were totally unusable. Fortunately I shot with my 21 SA, 90 elmarit and 50 summicron also and had plenty of good material from that series. Another assignment was a KKK rally at night. The light from the burning cross caused secondary images in the frame that ruined many of the images. I've had this happen many other times and have seen other images from other photographers suffer the same problem.

 

You can say I was happy to get rid of this lens. By todays standards it's not a great lens at all. It's certainly not worth the price. I would recommend a non asph summicron v3 or v4 or better yet the Zeiss Biogon 35. Even the CV 35 ultron will far outperform the old summilux.

I replaced the summilux with a v1 summicron and then a v4. In the past year i purchased a CV Nokton 35 1.2 for my fast 35 and repolaced the 35 summicron v4 with a Biogon that I lile much better than the Summicron v4. I also won a new retro LHSA 35 summicron asph in a drawing and find it very good but much more prone to flare than the Biogon. You can buy a new Biogon for about 2/3 to 1/2 the price of a nice pre asph summilux and have a superior lens compared to the old summilux and also have a slight edge on the new asph summicron.

resolution might not be perfect at 1.4, but how it renders things in a very special way...

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=003N7w">Thread 1</a><p><a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00AzOa">Thread 2</a><p>

Best M lens ever.

<b>Don Dudenbostel</b><i><br>

I shot this lens profesionally for many years from 1968 to the late 70's or early 80's.</i><p>

 

Don, your Fire Eater photo was done with that lens, correct?

The thing that gripes me about this lens is the minimum focus 1-meter. Every other 35mm

Summicron or Summilux-asph focuses to .7 meter. With a 35mm lens that's a big difference

if like to work in close with people. I've owned one since the 1970's and it was my regular

lens for at least 30 years. I have a 35mm Lux-asph now and I prefer it, but for the price the

old 35mm Lux classic is great.

Yes the fire eater was shot with it but if you look at the unretouched print you'll se a major streek of flare coming from a light bulb above the fire eater. I've cloaned it out in the scan.

 

If you keep light sources away from the front of the lens whether directly in the frame or just outside the edge it will be a fine lens but if you cross the line it will destroy your images. there are so many better lenses today at less cost.

I don't mean to sound like it's not capable of making excellent images because it is but it's hard to predict when it's going to be a problem. I've made plenty of excellent images with it but I wish I had my CV Nokton back then or even my Biogon. Both of these lenses walk all over the old summilux.

I'm with Don on this. Stopped down it's good, but then why have an F1.4? Mine was really unpredictable and had coma to beat the band.

 

From F2.4 on it was almost as good as my V4 Summicron and was small and handy. If the price is right I'd think of it as an F2 lens with a bit more just in case, but I wouldn't pay a premium just for the extra stop.

Hi again and thanks to all of you.

 

The tread answers? Very helpful indeed but it seems I have to lock myself up in the think-tank again.

 

I just love the compact design of it but off course, I realise it has its weaker points.

 

Think, think, think. I think I'll end up with a hole in my head.

Tore, YMMV - and just to tell you how torn I've been myself in the past here's a shot taken @ f1.7 and 1/30 with no less than the *third* 35 'lux pre-asph I've owned so far (after liking and disliking it, selling and buying one, on and off...) - bottomline: I'm happy I got this shot, with all its characteristics which are owed to said lens:<p><center>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/1870181-lg.jpg"></center><p>

The performance wide open @ f1.4 is, euphemistically speaking, "dreamy". But once you start stopping it down, even just a tiny bit, you'll get an unparalleled bokeh. 0.95 cm of closest focus is a bit of a PITA, agreed, and there certainly are sharper lenses around today, for less dough to start with. But the same applies for digital cameras compared to the M8. So, if you're sold not only on the Leica feel but also on the Leica look and if you can find a nice sample for around USD 500, don't hesitate.