35/2 35/2.8

What gives the better looking photographs- the 35/2.8 or the 35/2. Both being the later versions.

Which one has the better 'look'?

<p>Alan, can you describe the "look" you want?</p>

<p>Maybe upon blowing up the image to 16 x 24 inches or larger you might see some differences in the center or outside rendition or detail or microcontrast of the print, but my feeling is that the photographer has much more impact on the "look" (camera shake, focussing, choice of exposure, etc.) than any slight differences in either of these very fine aspherical Leica lenses. </p>

Aspherical?

<p>What body are you using, and what type of photography are you into. For some, edge to edge sharpness at wide apertures is important, for others, bokeh and the central sharpness receeding into a softer edge is important. For some, size & weight and being able to discreetly use a camera with smaller sized lenses (street shooting) is important. Your question doesn't give enough info to really give an answer. You might be interested in some of the discussions on the lenses in question at the L-Camera-forum.com, which is devoted entirely to Leica products and run by a former Leica manager. Over the years I've found the depth of Leica knowledge there to be incredible</p>

R6 and R7 bodies.

<p>The 35mm f2 is one of the best 35mm I have ever used. The 2.8 is not at the same level in my opinion. I have owned three f2.8 35's over many years, thought it might be my sample based on the experience of others but it let me down every time. When I finally bought the f2, I finally got what I expected from a Leica 35mm.</p>

<p>As far as I can tell, there were no aspherical 35/2 or 2.8 R lenses. According to Doug Herr's private website on R bodies and lenses, the Summicron-R (35mm f/2.0) came in 2 versions; the first heavier and longer than the 2nd shorter and skinnier. The first was built in Canada so I suppose it was a Walter Mandler design, whereas the 2nd was totally redesigned and built in Germany. I never owned either. However the Elmarit-R (35mm f/2.8) I did own. It came in 3 versions, with the latter two being terrific performers, a full redesign of the original, which designed for the Leicaflex. I owned version 3 and it was the lens I owned longest when I used Leica R bodies. I think you would be highly satisfied with the 3rd version Elmarit-R unless you absolutely frequently needed that extra stop for low light conditions.</p>

<p>The question of R versus M lenses was not clear in the OP.</p>

<p>Modern M lenses are often made with one or more aspherical elements. I still have no idea though of what form of look is desired by Allan. All optics carry compromises, so knowing what sort of look is desired is important in answering the question.</p>

<p>It is often not the highest resolution or highest contrast that is preferred and some say smooth bokeh (out of focus rendition) effects are not just a question of how many diaphragm blades are present, but other factors, including the presence of spherical or other aberrations that can provide smoother bokeh and more fluid or softer out of focus rendition that impacts on the overall "look." But when some start talking about an optic's "glow", I tend to quickly disconnect.</p>

<p>For a technical comparison of the various R lenses, the differences between them and also how each version of a particular focal length compares, see Erwin Put's Leica lens monograph, a version of which is a free download. As many of R lenses came out of Walter Mandler's design group, except for earlier Wetzlar versions, with some Canadian designs later fabricated in Germany, they represent often the best of what is available, whereas later M lenses saw new designs (including aspherical lenses) from Solms after the late 1980s.</p>

Thank you all.

Leica R was stated at the top - not of my post but the forum category.

 

I managed to get the answers.

The 'look' is something many can relate to and it was good to hear from people that actually have/had the lenses so could

actually talk about their experiences and not quote data and facts - thanks again

<p>Alan, good luck in determining which lens will give you what you want.</p>

<p>In the interest of meaningful communication and exchanges that can help to inform each of us it might be useful in future discussions to define more concretely (as we are dealing with physical appearances and not abstract metaphysics) than the so-called "look that is something (that) many can relate to".</p>

<p>That might allow those with personal experiences of these lenses to better understand the expressed need. This is not a criticism of your OP, simply a desire for clarification of what you may be looking for. Thanks.</p>

<p>Incidentally, Stephen's first post is appropriate. His comment in the later post, "the latter two being terrific performers" is no doubt very true for him, but does his summary (undetailed) conclusion allow you enough information to satisfy your idea of "look"? <br>

<br>

If it does, fair enough. </p>

<p> </p>

If we are speaking of personal experience and not test results, the volumetric look, that I admire from Leica lenses is what I was talking

about. The f2.8 R lens is sharp enough, but with little "character." On the M side, My favorite 35mm lenses are the Zeiss f2.8 and the

Voigtlander f1.2 for their special volumetric charcter. Here's a recent shot from the CV.<div></div>

I don't shoot nearly as often with my R lenses, and I'm a bit to busy to be digging an example up, but it does visually what the

image above does in my opinion, as does the Zeiss at f2.8, whereas the R f2.8, gives a flatter, less interesting, rendition

of space in my opinion.

<p>I've had both 35 optical configs of the Elmarit-R. 1st one from 1965 was disappointing (poor in the corners below f5.6) and the second one was excellent, but agree with Charlie, somehow uninspiring. The 2nd ver of the 35 Summicron-R is one of my favorite R lenses - great performance, great handling and lovely bokeh. Never tried the earlier and larger ver 1 Summicron.</p>

<p>I've owned the type 1 35mm Summicron, the type 2 35mm Elmarit, and the type 3 35mm Elmarit. I kept the last 35mm Elmarit for practical reasons -- light and the same filter threads as my other lenses (55mm). For black and white film, it is perfectly fine; sharp with nice contrast. Color photography is sharp and clinical but a little bland. Maybe that's me though. I shoot mostly B&W. The type 2 Elmarit is the same or similar optical formula but but with the old school barrel look.</p>

<p>The 35mm Summicron (type 1) is a heavy, sculptural lens. Probably the coolest looking R lens I've ever owned. Its' color rendition was pleasing. Too tired to elaborate further, but it definitely had character. Found the B&W good.</p>

<p>Never have I used the type 2 35mm Summicron.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Summicron-R 35 ver 2 also has 55mm filter.</p>