35mm aspheric vs. pre-aspheric Summacron

[paulferesten]

I'm trying to decide between the new aspheric 35mm f2 summacron for

my m6 vs a late model pre-aspheric version of this lens. I heard

that the pre-aspheric has more of a classic Leica look (whatever

that means).

 

Also, since the majority of the late model pre-aspherics were made

in Canada, I'm wondering if that's an issue vs. Germany.

 

I'd appreciate any advice you could provide.

 

Thanks.

[stric]

As far as I know many experts claim that the newer Leica lenses are superior to the older ones. Newer and better technologies are used and in that respect aspherical lense would be better. But jury is really out on this issue. Some Leica afictionados like the older and more classic looks of pre-aspherical lenses, not to mention the smaller footprint. In any event, do some reasearch. You'll find many posts concerning similar or the same issues.

[len_smith]

It's a trade-off between ultimate sharpness and ultimate bokeh.

 

The last pre-ASPH Summicron is not known as "The Bokeh King" for nothing. The background bokeh is outstandingly smooth.

 

It is also a very sharp lens that performs well in the centre wide open. The edges improve by about f/4-5.6 and the best overall sharpness (centre and edge) is achieved at f/8.

 

The ASPH trades some of that beautiful bokeh for sharpness, especially wide open. The centre is pin sharp wide open, and the edges are sharp by f/2.8. Stopping down beyond f/4 offers no benefit to sharpness.

 

The price you pay is that the bokeh is nowhere near as good as the 4th version pre-ASPH "Bokeh King". It is neutral at best.

 

If you value ultimate sharpness over bokeh, the ASPH is the lens to buy. No doubt about that - it is exceptionally sharp. But if you value bokeh highly, the pre-ASPH is a wonderful lens.

 

Compared to 35mm lenses from almost any other manufacturer, the pre-ASPH is *very* sharp. The ASPH is even sharper, but at the expense of neutral bokeh.

 

Perhaps this explains why a used ASPH lens can be purchased for only a little more money than a used pre-ASPH, despite the ASPH costing much more when new?

 

I have tried both lenses. I bought the ASPH first, then the pre-ASPH. I liked the pre-ASPH much more, and was happy to sell the ASPH. Your mileage may vary.

 

Canada vs. Germany? The German lenses were the last production of the pre-ASPH. On average, a later lens will have had less use. Optically, they are identical. I don't believe there is a quality issue, but others may have a different view.

 

Whichever lens you buy, be happy that you are using the world's finest glass for a 35mm film camera. Of that, there is no doubt!

 

Tony

[Bill Blackwell Images]

At one time I owned both lenses and shot them side-by-side. At the time, I couldn't have told you the difference between them. Ultimately I decided to sell the pre-asph version to a friend for what I had into it; I only sold that one because at the time I wouldn't have been able to get my money out of the asph version.

 

However, I have since seen tests that conclude the pre-asph version has a softer (that is to say, less-harsh) footprint to it (and I don't mean less sharp). It's razor sharp in the center wide-open (and sharp edge-to-edge from about 5.6). It is known as the "bukeh king" due to its pleasant out-of-focus areas in the wider apertures. This version was produced in both Canada and Germany with no difference in either quality of construction or optical formula.

 

The latest (Asph) version is sharper edge-to-edge in the wider apertures, but with "harsher" bukeh - if that makes a difference to you. All were (and are) produced in Germany.

 

If I had to make the choice today, I would shop for both and buy the one I could get for the best price.

[kent_tolley2]

Look in Andy K's portfolio for examples of the 35/2 Asph. Nobody so far has talked about color rendition of the 2 lenses but the color in Andy's shots is remarkable. Then again he's an accomplished photographer and shots of his with a pre-Asph would also be good. My bias is always go for the newer formula. I don't believe Leica would change the lens unless they thought they could bring about significant improvements.

[dan d. chang]

I go to ASPH, the king of Bokeh is over stated, pre-asph in high light condition do show anoying dunuts shape back ground just like 50 Summicrion DR, ASPH's background is smooth too, light condition is important.

[jerry_lehrer]

Paul,-- The Asph 35 is a giant lens in size and weight. The 4th version pre-Asph is sub-miniature in size. I have used both extensively and easily decided that the pre-Asph is a keeper.

[Bill Blackwell Images]

"The Asph 35 is a giant lens in size and weight."

 

That's overstating it a 'bit don't you think, Jerry? Next to the collapsible Elmar, it's the smallest lens in Leica's current M-lens line-up.

[larry_kincaid1]

You have to be careful about the language use here. All correct, but "the bokeh is nowhere near as good as" does not necessarily mean that the bokeh of the 35mm ASPH is bad. In my experience, it's always seemed pleasant enough. Also, the lens itself does not give you good bokeh every time. It also depends on the lens settings, film, light conditions, distance to background, etc. I remember seeing side by side comparisons of the same photo taken by a pre-asph 35mm cron and the new asph in which the bokeh was about the same or even better from the asph. Perhaps "on the average" or "over many photographs" you'll get more cases of good bokeh from the pre-asph. But it seems like you'd have to keep using both at the same time to prove that...and the analysis would still be subjective unless done by blind review.

 

Also missing here is what you plan to use the lens for more often. For landscape where the lens may often be set on infinity, then bokeh is not an issue, but sharpness in the corners and color contrast may be more important, hence the new ASPH. Portraits benefit from bokeh, but then why not get a 50mm lens with good bokeh for that purpose. People/street photography benefits from bokeh, but as I said, the ASPH does not have bad bokeh. This is why everyone is suggesting you try them both. In my ideal world, the "old" version would be selling for about $400 and I would own both. In the same ideal world each would not only hold their original price, but even increase in price. The latter ideal world is closer to the real one. This means you won't ever lose money, just have more invested in lenses. It also means you don't have to worry. Buy one, use if for 6 months, sell it for the same or more, then buy the other one. Or just keep both until you decide. My choice would be to have both. (Errrr... all three. I bought a 35mm lux ASPH and I still have the 35 cron Asph, which I'm supposed to sell to justify the purchase of the lux. I'm very slow and irrationally putting off selling it. But if you're interested let me know.) One other obvious advice, there's not much of a reason to buy a new 35mm cron ASPH if you can find a used one in good condition at a good price.

[sandy.]

<P>I think this is something at one time or another crossed every Leicaphiles mind. My conclusion ?

 

<P>Landscape and still life - ASPH

<BR>portrait, especially for ladies and children - pre-ASPH

<P>So you gotta have both :-))

[jim_a]

<a href="http://www.jimarnold.org/galleries/leica_35_test/">Leica 35 ASPH Cron, V4 lens comparison</a>

[frederick_muller]

They are both sharp lenses. The Type 4 Pre-Aspherical is just really, really nice, compact, light, and cute. I prefer the pre-aspherical.

[paulferesten]

Thanks for all the input on this. Most of you didn't have much to say about German vs Canadadian versions, so I assume that that is not really an issue.

[dan d. chang]

Jerry Lehrer , mar 31, 2006; 11:08 p.m.

Paul,-- The Asph 35 is a giant lens in size and weight. The 4th version pre-Asph is sub-miniature in size. I have used both extensively and easily decided that the pre-Asph is a keeper.

 

 

Jerry

Do you mean 35/1.4 ASPH vs 35/2 pre asph?, if not the ASPH and pre-asph are the same size, I will post a picture late. and the ASPH seems has better build quality.

[stephen_jones4]

Jim A -

I've seen this before but couldn't remember where. So... just to say it's appreciated. Nice one!

[35mmdelux]

In handheld shooting the "extra" value of the asph diminishes. baseline tests are all done on a tripod. many prefer the pre-asph because of its smaller footprint.

[rico_tudor]

There are four versions of the pre-ASPH 'cron 35, with variations in ergonomics and optical formulae. The celebrated v.4 is shortest in length and has a nice aperture ring. In my experience, the v.3 produces an image of equal quality, and I prefer its DOF scale. Received wisdom says the v.1 (costly, chrome, 8 elements) has the old-world charm.

<p>

<table width=400 border=2 cellspacing=1 cellpadding=10>

<caption><i>Lens Length from Mounting Flange</i></caption>

<thead>

<tr><th align=right>Length<br>(mm)<th>Lens

<tbody>

<tr><td align=right>34.5<td>Leica Summicron-M 35 ASPH

<tr><td align=right>26.0<td>Leica Summicron-M 35 v.4

<tr><td align=right>29.0<td>Leica Summicron-M 35 v.3

<tr><td align=right>28.5<td>Leica Summaron-M 35/2.8

<tr><td align=right>42.0<td>Canon EF 35/2

</table>

 

<p>

I don't yet own the ASPH: length was derived from the Leica engineering diagram. Other measures were taken from my copies (focus set at infinity). The Canon is pretty small for a retrofocus design, plus AF. The v.3 begins to encroach into the M4 brightlines.