35 pre-Asp summilux

[simon_wong]

Hi to owners of this vintage lens. How soft is this wide open? Does the 'glow' make up for it? How does it perform stopped down?

 

<p>

 

I used to be a fan of ultra sharp. But recently I've grown to love my newly aquired ancient Summar, and the lovely images that I"ve seen of the Noctilux. Just wondering about the 35'lux as a next purchase.

 

<p>

 

Cheers.

[richard palmer]

Simon,

 

<p>

 

you are speaking my language, and I am also interested in this lens

after comparing results of the new and old 35 summicron. I am

beginning to develop a view that it is the rate of change form sharp

to soft both in and out of the field of view and from the centre to

the edge of the frame that is important for the perception of

sharpness. Also the tonal graduation and 'blend' that some lenses

exhibit so well for me seems to add to the 'magic' of a picture.

Tonal contrast for me is not just about local 'bittiness' if you

understand my view [considering my poor use of english....]

 

<p>

 

Richard

[steve_lehuray1]

The old 35/1.4 and the 50/1.4 Summiluxes are my two favourites. I do

not agree with everybody that the 35/1.4 is real fuzzy wide open. This

shot was with the 35/1.4 at 1.4:

www.streetphoto.net/photo_of_the_week/wk13.jpg It is hard to see in

the picture but the girl has her arm in the air because she is a

student carrying a cello. Personally I see no need to buy the 35/

1.4asph.

[wilhelm]

At f:1.4 it is embarassingly soft. From f:2.0 it's quite good, and

in fact has an "edge" that one doesn't get with the older Summicron.

It appears to have excellent color correction at all apertures.

[jay_.]

I shot with that lens back a long, long time ago when films weren't

capable of nearly the resolution they are today, and my memory of its

performance is not yet as fuzzy as the images it produced wide open.

If you want soft effect, shoot the 35/1.4ASPH through a softening

filter of some kind. At least you can attach one. The non-ASPH 35

LUX has *no* filter threads. Be sure to buy it with the hood if

you've any intention of using a filter.

[peter_hughes1]

I used to own a 35mm f/1.4 Summilux and, yes, it is very soft wide

open. I didn't like that look then, but I wish I had that lens now. I

am currently using a 50mm f/2 Summitar SM (wide open) on my M3 to get

a soft, vintage look. (The Summar was a bit too soft for me.) When

stopped down, the 35mm Summiluz is razor sharp.

 

<p>

 

See: http://www.ravenvision.com/ivy.htm for two b&w examples of the

Summitar at its best.

[roberto_watson_garc_a]

is it Steve? is it actualy wide open, I ask because I see enough

reasons for the lens to form halos.what serial number is your lens,

mine is 2626xxx, and does has halos problem wide open, an interesting

caracteristic, if it doesn´t take you by surprise.

 

<p>

 

I share your opinions about this lens, from f/2 the quality is for me

good enough.

[albert_smith]

Peter,

 

<p>

 

Very nice images indeed! This is interesting to me. While the world

seems to be seeking out 3 more line pairs per millimeters every year

with "upgraded" optical designs, and "bad mouthing" last year's

design, there seems to be a core of Leica users that are looking for

that retro look.

 

<p>

 

My first Leica lens was a Summarit, and I was surprised at how "poor"

it was. I quickly upgraded to a succession of Summicrons, settling

on the current design. The funny thing is that a decade after the

Summarit was long gone, a review the old images is making me think

that I did a bad thing by letting it go. I hate to use intangible

words like "look", but this old lens had it. I would pick a

Summicron any day for things that require detail, like being able to

count every brick in a building, but I wish I had my Summarit back

for wide open environmental portraits.

 

<p>

 

Maybe it is a valid concept to have redundant focal lengths, old and

new designs, that we could pick and choose for the effect desired.

It is frustrating when my girl friend picks an old Summarit shot as

her favorite photo of herself over the razor sharp image made with my

1000 Dollar Summicron. So much for Hindsight... my rule: Never sell

any Leica gear!

[steve_lehuray1]

Yes, that was shot at f1.4. This was last winter and I was going

through an 'available darkness' phase. The serial No. is 3,537,736

which I believe is one of the last made.I remember somebody telling me

that they recomputed the coating on the last few. I bought it brand new

2 years ago after it had sat on a dealers shelf for about 7 or 8 years.

It even came with the Passport warranty.

[richard palmer]

Just out of interest were the later lenses made in Germany?

[peter_hughes1]

Unfortunately, most photographers have become slaves to sharpness and

rate a lens solely on that basis, instead of on character, which is a

subjective quality and cannot be quantified.

 

<p>

 

A number of years ago I was heavily into audiophile stereo systems.

And one of the interesting things about the equipment was that units

that tested very well sometimes sounded awful, and vice versa:

Japanese receivers that cost a couple of hundred dollars often tested

better than audiophile amplifiers costing thousands. The problem is

that very few people could really hear the difference between a

mediocre piece and a truly exquisite one. But for those who could,

the difference was often striking�and well worth the fantastic sums

of money that such equipment cost.

 

<p>

 

We live in a world that values easy solutions to complex problems.

And buying gear on specifications is such a solution. Further,

instant pop culture has destroyed the ability of most people to

appreciate nuance, delicacy and detail, values which require

dedication and emotional commitment, and which are only revealed over

time. Finally, I submit that obsessive preoccupation with technical

specifications is a masculine peculiarity, which values linear left-

brain thinking over holistic right-brain feeling. Perhaps this

explains why women are often into pinhole and antique cameras while

men are intent upon acquiring the sharpest lenses and latest, most

technically advanced equipment.

[steve_lehuray1]

I am pretty sure all Summiluxes have been made in Germany.

[peter_hughes1]

My 35mm f/1.4 Summilux was Canadian.

[kens]

Amen, Al. Despite a lineup of current lenses (which I *do* appreciate)

I held on to a 21SA, pre-pre-ASPH Summicron 35, pre-ASPH Summilux 35,

2nd version Summicron 50 rigid, and 1st version Summicron 50

collapsible. Sometimes I'm bewildered by the redundancy, but then I

look again at the images, the strenghts, weaknesses, and looks of

each. They aren't all that redundant afterall - each has its own

purpose. As long as the arsenal doesn't get in the way of making

images, that is. Confusion and indecision are dangers to be avoided.

[jay_.]

I've got a bevy of older Leica lenses as well, but they're there for

sentimental reasons and in case something happends to my newer ones.

If I want the retro-look, I can always use a softar, defocus a hair,

shoot 400 speed film (equivalent to 100 speed of a decade ago), etc.

but when I want crisp, sharp, contrasty images (which is 99% of the

time) I can get them a little easier with the newer lenses.

[gary_yeowell]

I think we are talking nuances here with regards to older versus

newer designs. If when I was travelling I carried various versions of

lenses to achieve 'a feel' specific to the subject I'm sure I'd miss

opportunities whilst deciding which feel is just right. The only

focal length I'd consider duplicating for the 'feel' is the 50mm

with my Noct. Now that is sufficiently different not to be a 'nuance'.

 

<p>

 

Regards,

Gary.

[roberto_watson_garc_a]

Steve; my ´lux is a canadian one, and I´m sure, talking about ,mine

has what your´s got, my dude is about the ligth sources way of

handling of your lens, it seems very good, probably the german

version was in a way improved, wish some of the experts here could

make an opinion

[roberto_watson_garc_a]

>talking about resolution<

 

<p>

 

sorry for the missing word

[steve_lehuray1]

I did not know that some of the 35/1.4 lenses were made in Canada,

there is nothing wrong with that. Mine says right on the lens 'Made in

Germany'. Just to make a comment on the ASPH lenses, I bought a new

Summicron 28/2.0 ASPH a few months ago and shooting wide open I would

say no question it is better than the old 35/1.4 but once you start to

stop down (where most people spend their time) it is very hard to tell

the difference. I use the 28/2.0 and the 35/1.4 about an equal amount,

they both work very well for me.

[simon_wong]

Thanks for all the imput guys. I suppose my main issue is wheither it

holds up stopped down, and I guess you have all helped answer that

one.

 

<p>

 

Cheers.

[Rob F.]

This lens is great for shooting impressionist paintings in museums.

When used wide open, the image becomes even more impressionistic than

Monet, Degas, or Renoir had in mind when they painted it . . .

 

<p>

 

I agree it cleans up well when stopped down.

[lutz]

Simon

 

<p>

 

I'm a bit late on the argument due to a short vacation. I'm not up to

having a last word on this after so many valid contributions but I

would like to add some of my personal experiences.

 

<p>

 

I owned the summilux 35 pre-asph twice. And twice I sold it again. The

first time along with my complete Leica M6 gear, after a short test

ride some 10 years ago. The second time it was the first lens I chose 2

years ago to build up a new equipment from scratch. When I had my first

wide-open shots devellopped I was shocked by the blur (or "glow", since

it is most apparent within highlights). And it was only then that I

remembered this same experience of 8 years before.

 

<p>

 

Looking at the effect superficially I thought it could easily be

obtained with soft-focus or halo filters, with white stockings for

instance and by that @ f-stops even different from wide-open (!). So

why spend much money on an effect that tends to dissapear completely as

soon as you step down? On the other hand, why spend more than necessary

on a fast lens, if it doesn't offer sharp images @ maximum aperture?

 

<p>

 

So I compared the lux and the pre-asph cron and found, that @ 2.0 the

cron is crisper but the luxes glow is already much contained. @ 2.8 I

couldn't tell a difference. I sold the lux, bought a cron and ever

since enjoy it. Another thing: the cron focusses from 0.7 meters, the

lux from 0.9, if I remember precisely.

 

<p>

 

Then again @ 1.4 and a half stop down (1.7) the lux has some magic in

handling light...

 

<p>

 

<A HREF="http://www.konermann.net/gallery/violinist.jpeg">http://

www.konermann.net/gallery/violinist.jpeg</A>

 

<p>

 

So... If you can afford a couple of bucks more than you need for buying

a cron... And you know that you will get a very special and strong

highlight glow @ 1.4, a more contained one @ 1.7 and an almost

neglectable one @ 2.0... And you know that you do not need to focus

closer than 0.9 meters... Than you might want to go for the lux.

 

<p>

 

Cheers,

Lutz

[roberto_watson_garc_a]

This is just to share how I decided to buy this 1.4, it was from a

single picture, from the Magic Moments magazine edited by leica, I

belive it was the first one, since there is another out now; there is

a picture in this magazine by Marc Riboud, can´t tell wich page it is

in, but is a full page color picture landscape, vertical framed;done

with the 35/1.4, it seems done with the lens wide open or very near,

I fell in love with the plasticity of the image of those mountains,

there is no ligth source in the frame, so we can´t test that in this

single picture, please if you can find this magazine take a look and

share your opinion.