Opinions on the early 35mm Summilux?

[matt fury]

So, I love shooting at 50mm. Problem is, I'm now using an RD-1s, so all of my lovely 50's are now 75mm. Now I've got some great portrait lenses, but nothing for general shooting. I shoot 90% of the time in very low light, so speed is important to me. I was considering the 40/1.4 Nokton, but it just doesn't do it for me, unfortunately. So, I've been considering doing something extreme (for me) and picking up an early 35mm 'lux. I haven't been able to find a lot out there about it. So any opinions? I'd be shooting at f/1.4 or possibly f/2, so that's where my concern lies. TIA!!

 

[sleepyhead]

Hello, I think you should re-consider the 40 nokton. I have this lens as well as the 35mm summilux pre-ASPH and I've used them both on my RD-1.

The 40mm beats the 35mm at f/1.4 BY FAR for sharpness and lack of veiling flare. The 35mm summilux cleans up significantly already at f/2, and by f/2.8 I can't distinguish between the two sharpness-wise. The bokeh of the Nokton is slightly nicer than the summilux to my taste.

A further advantage of the Nokton is that the 35mm lines on the RD-1 fit it like a glove, whereas with the 35mm Summilux you get more in the picture than you expect.

Will I sell my 35mm pre-ASPH summilux? NO, I just won't be using it much on the RD-1, but will save it for the M4-p with pushed Tri-X for it's "look".

 

[sleepyhead]

I for got to say that the 40mm Nokton also improves abit between f/1.4 and f/2, but not nearly as dramatically as the pre-ASPH summilux.

If I were considering ANOTHER 35mm lens for the RD-1, it would be the 35mm ASPH Summilux, but then we're talking REALLY BIG BUCKS and SCARCITY these days.

 

[matt fury]

Yeah, if I had the bones for a 35mm ASHP Lux, well, I'd probably have an M8. lol

The Nokton definitely has great sharpness, but I really don't think I enjoy the bokeh. Maybe it's just in my head. Is the bokeh on the 'lux actually worse?

And it's funny you should mention it, because most of my film shots were done on Tri-X @ 3200...

 

[sleepyhead]

The Nokton definitely has great sharpness, but I really don't think I enjoy the bokeh. Maybe it's just in my head. Is the bokeh on the 'lux actually worse?

A couple of thoughts: to be fair, I would say that at f/1.4 the bokeh of both lenses is nice in my opinion. But, since I often stop the Summilux down abit (f/2 to 2.8), in my mind I was comparing the Nokton at 1.4 to the Summilux at f/2, and the nokton bokeh is nicer under those circumstances, partly BECAUSE THERE'S MORE OF IT!

My other thought is that when the Nokton first came out, there were posts on several forums about how BAD the Bokeh was, and some people did in fact post pictures to back up there opinions. Basically, the 40mm had a Bad Bokeh Rap. This actually put me off buying the lens for a long time (also because I had the 35mm pre-ASPH lux). The I got a Leica CL and thought, gee it would be nice to have a 40mm lens for it, lemme give the Nokton a try. All I can say, is that my experience with the 40mm Nokton has only been good. Under the conditions that I shoot it (indoors, subject is usually 1 to 2 meters away and background is 3 to 6 meters away) I have NEVER had a photo from that lens which objectionable bokeh.

Here is a recent picture taken with the RD-1 and the 40mm, wide-open (or at f/2): http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1053/1095941087_fa455e2122_o.jpg

What do you think of the bokeh?

This one is at f/2.8 (I believe): http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1381/1095942975_36a15780ea_o.jpg

 

[JNewell]

IIRC, there are two 35mm Summilux optical formulations. The early version, which I owned, was one of the worst "good" lenses I've ever owned. I guess the bokeh was great, but is all there was. It was very soft at anything less than medium apertures and medium distances. Relatively close shots at wider apertures, which is after all what you buy that lens for, were really very soft. Double check me against the written authorities, but I think you should steer clear of the true first version. I haven't owned the second pre-ASPH version but I would guess it is a better performer, since it stayed in the line for so many years.

 

[x-ray]

I shot the 35 summilux for years and at the time it was made was a superb lens and cutting edge technology. Compared to todays lenses it's only a fair performer. It's soft at 1.4 and good by 2.8 with uncontrolled flare untill you get it to about 2.8. Contrast is loer and flare can destrou your images very quickly. It's particularly bad if point sources of light are in ir mear the edge of the frame at 1.4-2. If th eprice was $400 then it would be a good deal but at the prices they bring , now over $1,000, it's a bad deal. Why pay that much for a lens that's only fair in performance and have to stop it down to 2 or 2.8 to get acceptable results.

Look at the Zeiss Biogon for a stellar performer that tops the new asph summicron. I have both and like the Biogon over the asph summicron. The Biogon is a much smoother tonality than the asph and atleast as sharp if not better with much better flare controll and excellent contrast.

Second choice would be to look at the CV Ultron or PII. Also if the size doesn't bother you and you want the ultimate in speed and flare controll with excellent sharpness look at the 35mm Nokton.

From my understanding there is only one summilux pre asph formula. The difference as to what I haveread is the coatings improved some and a slight tweek to the lens was made. The one I had was supposed to be after that tweek and it still was not a good lens by todays standards.

 

[matthewsyip]

The Summilux 35 Type 1 Canadian Silver Chrome is one of my most favorite lens in all my M glasses. It was made from 1960 to 1966. Lanthanium rare earth glass was employed in this Type 1 version giving it a very unique Leitz low light drawing characteristic. From various MTF data, flare characteristic and contrast level, it may not be what typical modern glass is offering. There are many photographers knows its character and learn to employ them for very spectacular results. I made a few family pics here mostly wide open or at f2.

http://matthewsyip.zenfolio.com/p503385251/?photo=h1E675C38#510090296

The pics, both foreground subject and bokek speak for itself =)

 

[Ororaro]

I love my Unique pre-asph 35 Lux. Has body and character. Same for the Summarit 5cm!

 

[v3cron]

I shot the 35 summilux for years and at the time it was made was a superb lens and cutting edge technology. Compared to todays lenses it's only a fair performer. It's soft at 1.4 and good by 2.8 with uncontrolled flare untill you get it to about 2.8. Contrast is loer and flare can destrou your images very quickly. It's particularly bad if point sources of light are in ir mear the edge of the frame at 1.4-2. If th eprice was $400 then it would be a good deal but at the prices they bring , now over $1,000, it's a bad deal. Why pay that much for a lens that's only fair in performance and have to stop it down to 2 or 2.8 to get acceptable results.

Look at the Zeiss Biogon for a stellar performer that tops the new asph summicron. I have both and like the Biogon over the asph summicron. The Biogon is a much smoother tonality than the asph and atleast as sharp if not better with much better flare controll and excellent contrast.

Second choice would be to look at the CV Ultron or PII. Also if the size doesn't bother you and you want the ultimate in speed and flare controll with excellent sharpness look at the 35mm Nokton.

From my understanding there is only one summilux pre asph formula. The difference as to what I haveread is the coatings improved some and a slight tweek to the lens was made. The one I had was supposed to be after that tweek and it still was not a good lens by todays standards.

i use a circa 1979 35 'lux as one of my main lenses, and i think the look is fabulous - even wide open. i wouldn't tell a prospective buyer that the performance is limited at certain apertures, as this is highly subjective. one must try it for themselves.

 

[x-ray]

i use a circa 1979 35 'lux as one of my main lenses, and i think the look is fabulous - even wide open. i wouldn't tell a prospective buyer that the performance is limited at certain apertures, as this is highly subjective. one must try it for themselves.

Glad you like your Summilux and it might be just the right lens for you. My opinion is as stated above and unless someone is made of money the idea of buying it just to try is a little out of reach. The v1 has become unrealistically high in price.

I lost a number of parts of assignments to flare causing the image to be totally unusable. Under difficult lighting with point sources in or near the frame it will kill an image at wider apertures. I posted images in a previous thread that are probably still in the archive if you're interested in searching. If you shoot under average lighting then it might perform well but under some conditions it will kill you photographs.

I don't understand why this lens and some of the others have been put on a pedistal. This only drives the prices higher on lenses that are lacking in performance. I'm not a sharpness frek but do expect a lens to handle difficult lighting well. Flare is one of the problems in older glass and IMO leica hasn't gotten the problem under controll yet. My 75 summilux handles flare well but my asp asph 90 and asph 35 summicron do not. My Zeiss lenses kill leica in the flare department.

Save some money and buy a Zeiss Biogon and have the ultimate or if on a budget buy the CV Ultron 35. Both perform better than the summilux v1 IMO.

I know it's subjective.

 

[v3cron]

Glad you like your Summilux and it might be just the right lens for you. My opinion is as stated above and unless someone is made of money the idea of buying it just to try is a little out of reach. The v1 has become unrealistically high in price.

I lost a number of parts of assignments to flare causing the image to be totally unusable. Under difficult lighting with point sources in or near the frame it will kill an image at wider apertures. I posted images in a previous thread that are probably still in the archive if you're interested in searching. If you shoot under average lighting then it might perform well but under some conditions it will kill you photographs.

I don't understand why this lens and some of the others have been put on a pedistal. This only drives the prices higher on lenses that are lacking in performance. I'm not a sharpness frek but do expect a lens to handle difficult lighting well. Flare is one of the problems in older glass and IMO leica hasn't gotten the problem under controll yet. My 75 summilux handles flare well but my asp asph 90 and asph 35 summicron do not. My Zeiss lenses kill leica in the flare department.

Save some money and buy a Zeiss Biogon and have the ultimate or if on a budget buy the CV Ultron 35. Both perform better than the summilux v1 IMO.

I know it's subjective.

oh, i agree that the prices are stupid. and i wasn't trying to be a douche. i actually read many of your posts before buying my 'lux, and appreciate the insight very much.

i think if one is aware of the potential for flare (mine actually isn't that bad except at 1.4), he/she can decide if the effect is desirable. i've used it a few time shooting into light sources, and have liked the flare. stopped down even a little bit, this lens is very sharp and has a really cool character.

 

[x-ray]

I love some of the older lenses myself and have started to like the softer rendition of some over the asph harder rendition. I'm starting to feel the asph lenses are a little to plastic or over sharpened looking. I personally like softer tonal transitions that are characterisitic of older glass. This is why I like the Zeiss lenses. They seem to have the tonality of older lenses but cleaner, less flare and sharper. I just had some major problems with the ols summilux and feel it's been elevated to a position that's unrealistic. It's become a cult lens for what reason I don't know.

 

[dreamsandart]

Fact is f1.4 is f1.4 and f2 is f2... I used a 35 Summilux as my main lens for about 25 years when I traded it for a ASPH version when it came out with the thinking this was a lens that was excellent even wide open without reservations. I did regret that decision for the fact the pre-ASPH lens is just so compact, and worked well on the M-series. I always thought of the lens as a lens to stop down with for 'best' image (like any of those 50s/60s lenses), but one that I could open up if needed, or for its 'look' (sometimes not so high contrast, a bit of 'glow', and softness around the edges, and limited 'smooth' depth of field with a wide-angle lens can add something to a photograph)

The newer designs and coatings will give you less flare for sure and you may have some images with unexpected 'added attractions' with a pre-ASPH sometimes, but over-all its still a very nice sharp lens that gives you a fast f1.4, is small and well made. Buying one to at least try out is a good idea. They seem to still sell and if you don't like its worth a try.

 

[maddoc]

Summilux 35mm pre-ASPH wide open

Summilux 35mm pre-ASPH wide open

This one is taken @ 1.4 and 1/30s. I think that slow shutterspeeds contribute more to soft images under low light conditions than the optical design. The 35 Summilux ASPH should be a better performer but it is a bigger lens and quite expensive.

 

[x-ray]

While I'm pleased than many of you love your v1 35mm summilux i think it's very important to illustrate my point regarding how the v1 summilux 35 can suffer from excessive flare. I purchased my v1 in 1968 new after a three month back order due to the high demand for this lens. Because of this I know it was a current lens produced in that year. I used the v1 professionally for many years and under normal conditions it performed well and particularly well for a lens of that speed in the 60's and 70's. I did however have some major issues with internal reflections, double images under high contrast situations particularly at night and excessive flare. Most of these problems were seen at wider apertures.

The images I have attached is from a magazine shoot with president Richard Nixon in the summer of 1970. There are 4 frames of the same scene all shot at 1.4 or 2 on Tri-x and were shot with only slight changes in position and within seconds of each other. I think you can understand my opinion of this lens from these shots. This happened a number of times and also experienced double images from internal reflections during night shoots and high contrast. The lack of performance under difficult conditions and it being only a fair lens optically compared to modern glass plus the elevated prices is why I tell people to stay away from the v1 35 summilux. We now have quite a few other lenses at a fraction of the cost with far better performance to justify the high prices and lower performance in the v1.

 

[Ororaro]

You had a hood on?
And l

 

[x-ray]

Hood on and no filter. Hood doesn't matter when the light source is directly in the lens. Hoods aren't 100% effective anyway. It's just the nature of the v1. I've seen the same thing in other folks shots. Recently I purchased a photo book and in the book one image displayed internal reflections causing double images exactly as my v1 did. I have examples of the double images but don't have the desire to search my negs for it.

In the images you can see the internal reflections from the lights in the upper righ hand corners. In 1971 I was assigned tp photograph a KKK rally. The burning cross in the night appeared as a double image that was inverted in the frame. This also happened many times with the v1 but never happened with any other lens.

 

[matt fury]

Thanks everyone for all the info. Looks like I'm going to have to hunt down a Canon 35/1.5 or fall in love with the 40 Nokton. I'm all sorts of fine with putting up with old lenses with more character than sharpness, but the flaring issue is something that I think would kill me. Especially since this would pretty much become my main, if not only, lens & I do shoot in some harsh lighting conditions.

 

[Ororaro]

I've never run into a flare issue with ym 35 1.4.
Logically, it depends on the conditions you're shooting in. I'm not even sure a Football stadium is the right place for a 35 1.4 Summilux heh!