Experience with M , 35mm summilux

<p>Hello ,</p>

<p >I am using a V4 summicron 35mm. I am tempted to replace it by a f1.4 35mm as I sometimes need the extra stop. I need help from users with experience of lux 35. </p>

<p >1. Is the old pre asph lux 35 any good ? I read rather negative reviews on this lens it seems it's got field curvature that I can live with but how does it perform in real life. </p>

<p >2. I used the lux 50 is the lux 35 really worse ? </p>

<p >3. How different is the old lux 35 from the cron V4 35 ?</p>

<p >4. Is the asph really sharp</p>

<p >5. rendition of the asph has been criticised when compared to crons is there a real difference ?</p>

<p >Thanks for your help, LV </p>

 

<p><a href="../leica-rangefinders-forum/00JxEn">Start here</a> ... I would consider the SummiLuX 35mm pre asp for it's unique signature and not for it's increase in speed...some call it flare others would say it has flair...<br>

<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=325604">Lutz Konermann</a> has a lot of informative info on this lens, if you search the archives...</p>

<p>Maybe I should add another question: is the 35 lux pre asph like the 50 lux pre asph sharp in the center even at 1.4 ? Or not. I want a lens that is sharp in the center !!</p>

<p>The pre 35 lux is a fine lens. If you think you need the extra stop, buy it. It has a signature. It makes photographs, not copies.</p>

<p>4. The 35mm Lux Asph is the best 35mm f1.4 I've tried (compared to the pre-asph Lux, the 35mm f1.4 Nikkor-N and the 35mm f1.4 Nikkor AIS). It is also very, VERY resistent to flare.</p>

<p>1. The 35mm pre-asph lux is exactly like a 35mm Summicron with an extra stop for emergencies. I have found the 1.4 usable, but others haven't. I don't blow up shots bigger than 16x20. The pre-asph is also far more vulnerable to flare. Having said all that, the pre-asph is a very good lens, comparable to a 35 summicron.</p>

<p>2. I am a major fan of the 50mm Lux Asph. It is an evolution of the 35 Lux Asph formula. Both are outstanding lenses.</p>

<p>3. The 35 Pre-Asph and the Type 4 35mm Summicron are almost identical except for the extra stop. Funny, I've grown to prefer the Canon 35mm f2 Black to either. If I need 1.4, I go to the asph.</p>

<p>5) BIG difference between the 35mm Summicron Asph, the 35mm Lux Asph and the Lux and Cron pre-asphs. The Asphs are like flat-field lenses, with a very sharp transition from in-focus to out-of-focus. Is this cause of criticism? I think not. Recognize the difference and deal with it. The 50mm Lux Asph has very similar flat-field characteristics and strikingly different bokeh; it's still become my primary 50mm.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I have not used the 35/1.4 pre-asph, but I have seen some beautiful photos taken with it. From what I understand, it is not as sharp wide open as the 50mm f/1.4 pre-asph, though it has a similar signature (it should have more coma and more vignetting). If I had to have one lens for all photography, it would be the 35/1.4 ASPH -- it does everything well. It is sharp without being harsh, it has a great angle of view (on film), it is fast, ergonomic, and it even has nice bokeh. It is one of the very best lenses around. No hesitance using it wide open. I have printed it to 20x24 and it has held up superbly. </p>

 

<p>Hi,<br>

I've got both. I prefer the summicron overall. The summilux is almost the same when stopped down, but at 2 & 2.8 the summicron is superior. Wide open the summilux is very low contrast & soft. The summilux flares badly when a bright light is just outside the frame. If the light source is in the frame it does not. One other thing, I find the summicron ergonomically easier to use & focus. It seems the layout of the summilux is not as user friendly. Also for filters, E39 is way easier to deal with than series 7. The summilux for B&W & the summicron for color is the way I generally use them. Never tried the asph lenses. Like the small size of the pre aspherics. You get used to something & it works for you, not worth switching:) </p>

<p>Hi,<br>

I've got both. I prefer the summicron overall. The summilux is almost the same when stopped down, but at 2 & 2.8 the summicron is superior. Wide open the summilux is very low contrast & soft. The summilux flares badly when a bright light is just outside the frame. If the light source is in the frame it does not. One other thing, I find the summicron ergonomically easier to use & focus. It seems the layout of the summilux is not as user friendly. Also for filters, E39 is way easier to deal with than series 7. The summilux for B&W & the summicron for color is the way I generally use them. Never tried the asph lenses. Like the small size of the pre aspherics. You get used to something & it works for you, not worth switching:) </p>

<p>If you can wait and save, go for the ASPH lux. Run a search in www.rangefinderforum.com about the pre-ASPH 'lux and you should find a thread with a lot of useful photographs that show how this lens was really good for its time... and only for its time (when the users decided to put up with its flaws). Reading these comments saved me from purchasing one. In the end, I got the Asph lux and I couldn't be happier. </p>

<p>Cannot tell you a thing about the 50 'lux. I wish I could!</p>

<p>I haven't used the pre asph versions. But as Stuart said, if I have to have one lens and one lens only, it would be the Summilux-M 35 f1.4 Asph.<br>

Answering question #4. The Lux 35 Asph is sharp, sharp, sharp, even wide open.</p>

<p>I'm sure that the Leica 35mm asph is an <em>insurance adjusters</em> dream Lens...</p>

<p>Perhaps, but it is also a photographer's dream lens because it is versatile and its performance is superb. It just gets out of the way and takes great photos. It has a signature, but not one that gets in the way of a good photo, nor one that will create an interesting one where there isn't one already. Every aperture performs well. </p>

<p>Here are a few of my favorites with it...first two taken at 1.4.</p>

<p><img src="http://www.stuartrichardson.com/sinclair-kristen-mexican.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://www.stuartrichardson.com/vik-trucks.jpg" alt="" /> </p>

<p><img src="http://www.stuartrichardson.com/noelle-relish2.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://www.stuartrichardson.com/jietai-mae-gallery.jpg" alt="" /> </p>

<p><img src="http://www.stuartrichardson.com/reynir-church-gallery.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://www.stuartrichardson.com/crab-series8.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>No doubt a great, great Leica lens: but for me, not worth $2,000+ more than a clean, crisp 2.8 Summaron.</p><div></div>

<p>Having owned a 35mm Summilux 1.4 since it was new I've shot thousands of photographs with it. It was new to me in early 1970's. About six years ago I finally got a Summilux - asph. Where with the classic Lux I'd hesitate to shoot at f1.4 I will shoot all the time f1.4 with the lux-asph. I always describe the classic lux at f1.4 as looking through a window. The lux-asph can be shot all day and night at f1.4 and it's always sharp and clear. The first lux-asph I bought was the chrome/silver model. It's a brick. I didn't like the weight. (The Lux classic is tiny.) So I bought the black model and it's much better weight wise. (I kept the chrome as backup, and still have the lux classic). The MAJOR difference between the Lux classic and the Lux-asph is that the classic ONLY FOCUSES DOWN to 1-meter, whereas the Lux asph focuses to .7 meter. If you are a people photographer and like to get (semi) close the 1-meter is not good. IF you do street scenes and landscapes the 1-meter will not effect you. All of that said, it took me nearly 30 years to finally put the Lux classic aside and pick up the Lux asph. Good luck you won't go wrong with any of them.</p>

<p>I have both 35/2v4 and 35/1.4PreAsph. I have thought about selling one, but I would never do it. They're different. The 35/1.4PreAsph makes women look fabulous. Really, women who always hate pictures of themselves actually like pictures from that lens. It's not blurry at all. It's just flattering. I usually use it it low-light situations.</p>

<p>I have the 35 1.4 Asph. Out of all the lenses I own for Leica, this would be the last one I would sell, it is simply in my opinion the best lens to use on a Leica M. I'm sure the other version is nice, but I use Leica for it's unparalleled optical quality. Here is a shot at 1.4 into streetlights at 1/15th of a second at ISO 64. </p><div></div>

<p>It is reasonably sharp or the period, but has flare and low contrast at 1.4 and 2. The APSH is 10x better</p>

<p>Many Many thanks to all of you,<br>

It seems I'll have to go for the Asph as one thing I need is flare proof (like on Elmarit 28 pre asph) which is perfect but slow! Bad news for my bank account, and to me when my wife finds out!<br>

Thanks again and bravo fror the super illustrations.</p>

 

<p>Busy backgrounds can sometimes be avoided to improve the bokeh, but wide-open softness is inescapble for certain lenses ... unless you insist on everything coming directly from the Church regardless of price/performance:</p>

<p>http://www.ziforums.com/album.php?albumid=82<br>

http://www.photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/00OVu3</p>

<p>Great shots Stuart !! I specially like the first one, it is so spontaneous.</p>

 

<p>Thanks Marco, glad you like them!</p>

<p>The 35mm /1.4 is very good. I've had quite a few Leica lens (50,35,90,50,24); this one will deliver if you treat it well (good exposure and sufficient shutter speed). It is not a lens I'd use much on an M8 as i would prefer something wider but the results i have are convincing: sharp, light and one to take on a transparency shoot. Excellent choice</p>

 

Not mentioned- I think the Lux Asph will block more of the viewfinder than the pre-asph, an issue unless you're

using live view.

 

I've thought about adding to or switching from my pre-asph Summicron, but I think I'll keep it. Nice and

compact, great lens. I've shot with it more than any other lens.