35mm Summicron or Summilux with similar rendition to the 50 DR?

[rich815]

I have tried a number of different lenses on my Leicas (MP and m3)

trying to find a "classic" look for my B&W photography. Now I know

that is completely subjective but I did finally find the one I want.

After trying the 40/1,4 Nokton, 50/2 Summitar, 50/2,8 Elmar, 50/2

Jupiter-8 and Canon 50/1,8 I finally tried a 50/2 Summicron DR and

found bliss. Most of the others are sharp and very nice performers

but for some subjective reason I feel are either lifeless or do not

have that look I want---until I found the DR. Not only do I love the

look I get from the DR but also the ergonomics and feel of the lens

in use. The rest of my 50's I will likely be selling.

 

Now I want to find a 35mm lens with similar look. I have the 35/3,5

Summaron and while I like it I find it not sharp enough and seemingly

lacking in the kind of sharpness and contrast rendition I like so

much in the DR (let alone being a bit slow). Since the DR is not a

very fast lens I'm thinking a 35/1,4 Summilux. I am a bit confused

though about the many different varieties some being extremely

expensive, some not so. I do not need the ASPH versions and would

like to spend less than $1000 if I can. How is the Summilux compared

to the DR in terms of performance, contrast, sharpness, etc.? Should

I consider a 35 'cron instead?

 

Any suggestions, comment or even example images, would be very

appreciated. Thanks.

[kurt_teerlynck]

This is a very interesting question I think.It's not easy because every lens seems to have special qualities.Because you already like the DR so much I think the summicron 35mm with eight lenses and the summaron 35mm 2.8 are good companions (also the first elmarit 90mm).

The summilux 35 pre asph. is great too,you get a nice glow wide open to f2 as an extra but the character is different I think...

[stephen_w.]

I, as you, have tried many 35's and 50's. I have reduced my kit to an 8-element 'cron (beyond your budget) and a 50 'lux; same vintage/character as the DR, but with another usable stop. I have a DR, but I don't travel with it. The 35/1.4 is very soft at 1.4, so my 35 is its equal or better.

[gmmullins]

I had an 8 element cron before and loved it - but to get a nice version w/o eyes will cost you a lot more than $1,000. Most feedback you read on the summilux is that the improvement of the asph over the non is substantial - I have the asph and love it (I have always been a 50 person, but the asph lux is one sweet lens). Since you want the dr look, I would strongly suggest saving for the 8 element cron - the build quality is fantastic, it is smaller than the asph cron or summilux, and the results are fantastic.

[Troll]

My DR Summicron, and Bugeye Summilux look very much alike in sharpness and rendetion (except at f:1.4, of course). A very good choice matching pair. The 135mm f:4.0 Tele-Elmar makes an excellent trio.

[rich815]

Thanks for the replies so far, Very helpful. Bill which is the "bugeye" Summilux? Which version does this pertain to when looking at Gandy's page: http://www.cameraquest.com/mlenses.htm

[shah_vittapuras]

If you can't stretch your budget to an 8-Element 35 Summicron and you can live with losing a stop, then I'd recommend the 2.8 Summaron. It's very, very close (like, basically identical) in fingerprint.

[stephen_w.]

Bug-eyes made for the M3, which didn't have 35 framelines.

[stephen_w.]

"...2.8 Summaron..."

 

I agree, I have one for my Canon VI-T, in LTM.

[rich815]

Is the 2.8 Summaron that much different than the 3.5?

[stephen_w.]

IME, yes.

[shah_vittapuras]

Yes, very much different. All 3, the 3.5, 2.8 and the 1st-version Summicron, are double-Gauss types, but the 2.8 and the Cron use the Lanthanum glass. They perform nearly identically (except of course at f/2!). The 3.5 is a ten years older design than the 2.8, it's a remarkably good lens even today, but it seems like you're looking for wide-open fingerprint, not all-over performance at the optimum aperture, so the 2.8 will be much closer to the 35 Cron and to the 50DR.

[gadge]

http://www.leica-camera.com/discus_e/messages/11/46174.html

 

enough said??

[Rob F.]

You said you want to match the sharpness and contrast rendition of the DR. Well, the DR has high sharpness and medium contrast. The same can be said of the 8-element version I Summicron. The Summaron f/2.8 is sharp, but I wonder if its contrast will be too high for your purposes, because, as a lens having only 6 elements in 4 groups (to the DR's 5 groups), it is a fairly high contrast lens. You didn't exactly say that you wouldn't be happy with additional contrast, but you did say you'd like to match that of the DR; so I though it was worth bringing up this point.

[rich815]

Thanks for all the suggestions and comments people. Really appreciated. So...

 

How much would I expect to have to pay for either a first version 8-element 35/2 Summicron or a 35/2.8 Summaron, either in user condition but with good glass?

[david k.]

"I have tried a number of different lenses on my Leicas (MP and m3) trying to find a "classic" look for my B&W photography."

 

Richard looks like the 35 Cron Ver. 1 somewhere north of $1000 US, or the 35 2.8 Summaron between $500 - 600 US, dependant on condition. Either one will give you the look you like, slightly lower contrast with the Cron.

 

Both lenses fit the term "classic Leica lens", both optically and mechanically.

[kurt_teerlynck]

Richard,

If you have an M3 body or don't mind using the bug-eyed version on other Leica M body's which is possible(!),then you can find both summicron and summaron at half the suggested price!

[jim_mcbride]

Richard: I have yet to find anyone else on the planet who agrees with me, but I find a good

match with my DR 50mm and my 40mm 'cron-C. I use them with an M2 and (occasionally)

an old 90mm collapsible Elmar. Works for me.

[james_itard1]

I use both the rigid Summicron (very similar to the DR) and the 2.8 Summaron--with

Portra 800 wide open at night--and find the Summaron even more three dimensional

than the Summicron. It does have slightly more contrast than the Summicron, but the

50mm Summicron contrast is good and may not be linear--stronger in the highlights

and softer in the shadows. I informally tested the 2.8 Summaron against the 40mm

CL Summicron in black and white and found the Summaron to be contrastier in the

out of focus areas, subjectively richer, and more 3 dimensional.

[nasmformyzombie]

Another vote for the 2.8 Summaron.