What SLR lens is most like the 35/50 v2 Summilux?

fotomeow

fotomeow

name under my name
Local time
5:56 PM
Joined
Oct 1, 2009
Messages
760
Location
Santa Cruz, CA
View My Gallery
Hey all,
I would like some input from ya'all about which SLR lenses have the most similar characteristics to the version 2 35mm/50mm Summiluxes.

By characteristics, I mean: 1) pretty fast at f1.4 or so) nice tonal range and gradation from highs to lows, 3) attractive bokeh, but not necessarily super soft OOF or swirly, 4) that special "je ne sais qua" that the Lux's have. Im OK with the focus being a little soft wide open, and I even love the glow if used properly.

I love the 35/50 v2 Lux's I have and would like to try FF digital. I would like an M9 as much as anyone else, but simply cant afford it. The dSLRs are more affordable, Nikon, Canon, etc. I guess Im leaning toward Nikon just for compatibility reasons with older film SLRs.

Are there some heritage lenses you can recommend to go on a dSLR? Thanks!
 
Last edited:
I've not seen any

I've not seen any

but will be interested to see the responses. One reason may be that Leica has optimized their lux lenses for wide open to about 5.6, while some SLR vendors have put the 1.4 (or 1.7, 1.8, 1.9) and sometimes even the f2, just to be there, but not to perform well there.

fotomeow said:
Hey all,
I would like some input from ya'all about which SLR lenses have the most similar characteristics to the version 2 35mm/50mm Summiluxes.

By characteristics, I mean: 1) pretty fast at f1.4 or so) nice tonal range and gradation from highs to lows, 3) attractive bokeh, but not necessarily super soft OOF or swirly, 4) that special "je ne sais qua" that the Lux's have. Im OK with the focus being a little soft wide open, and I even love the glow if used properly.

I love the 35/50 v2 Lux's I have and would like to try FF digital. I would like an M9 as much as anyone else, but simply cant afford it. The dSLRs are more affordable, Nikon, Canon, etc. I guess Im leaning toward Nikon just for compatibility reasons with older film SLRs.

Are there some heritage lenses you can recommend to go on a dSLR? Thanks!
Click to expand...
 
Sorry. Nikon glass is nice as is Canon if you do not compare it to Leica.

I just mounted a Nikon lens mount to my Leica 35 4.0 and 28 2.8 pc lenses for my D700.
For grins I compared Nikon glass to these and was very disappointed. Nikon AiS files look muddy, low contrast. low color sarutation in comparision with Leica lenses.

Try an old Nikor H 50 2.0 and 35 2.8 single coated and that is as close as you can get.
You should bet both under $200 total.

Not to knock the Nikkors, as I have a few dozen . You will think they are OK until you compare side by side.
 
I would suggest the 50/1.4 Nikkor. Sorry, I don't have any ideas for a 35/1.4 substitute. The 28mm AI-s is a great lens, as is the 24/2.8 AIS (or AF). Those two are perhaps not as good as the Leica M, but are as good as the Leica R equivalents. The 28 Af-Nikkor is not in the same league. Not sure if you were interested in anything that wide, though.
 
B2: Leica Rs might be a logical choice, yet they dont go as far back as the M-mount lenses, which seem to be "period" pieces, and that time period seemed to offer certain characteristics which I like and described above. So if there are any R lenses similar to the characteristics above, please let us know.

Ampguy: Thanks, that was an interesting point you made about Leica optimizing their lens' performance toward being wide open rather than stopped down, and thus the qualities the Lux' have to offer.

Ronald: thanks for the comparison. I dont mind low contrast, but am not looking for high contrast or high saturation. I will look into the Nikor H 50 2.0 and 35 2.8 single coated. For under $200, that would be great (on the $3000 dSLR!).

THANKS FOR ALL THE INFO,
Gary
 
Actually you guys are all missing the one choice out there, Contax 50/1.4 C/Y mount, can be had for about $200, and to my eyes, very similar to the leica summilux, if not better.
 
loneranger said:
Actually you guys are all missing the one choice out there, Contax 50/1.4 C/Y mount, can be had for about $200, and to my eyes, very similar to the leica summilux, if not better.
Click to expand...

And you can put it on a Nikon with a Leitax adapter, or on a Canon with an EOS-C/Y adapter.

But, to be honest, if you want to spend the $$$ on a full-frame DSLR, you can easily buy five different 50s to try out which one you like best.
 
I have heard that the manual focus 35 f/2 Canon had excellent bokeh. Minolta used to advertise the bokeh of their manual focus lenses. Those are the two places I would search first.
 
loneranger said:
Actually you guys are all missing the one choice out there, Contax 50/1.4 C/Y mount, can be had for about $200, and to my eyes, very similar to the leica summilux, if not better.
Click to expand...

Sorry, no good. The OP is looking for soft close up and glow. You won't find that on Contax T* 50mm f/1.4 lenses.
 
loneranger said:
Actually you guys are all missing the one choice out there, Contax 50/1.4 C/Y mount, can be had for about $200, and to my eyes, very similar to the leica summilux, if not better.
Click to expand...

Thanks LoneRanger: Are you referring to a Contax 50/1.4 C/Y mount from days past? the 70s? that may have limited lens coatings, or a post-60s feel in terms of contrast and B/W rendition?

Did Contax/Zeiss have T* lenses back then?
If it is pre-T* then it may have the medium contrast/medium saturation Im looking for.
 
Hi Gary, good thread you've started. I've actually been in the same boat as you. I love the old Leica look, with the glow and just that touch of old school softness. Now for the bad news. My advice before you splurge a whole lot of money down on a D700 and a bunch of lenses is to go rent the camera and lenses first to try it out. Somewhere like www.lensrental.com Why? IMO, it's not really a question of Nikon lenses vs Leica lenses and the look of it. In your case, I feel like it's going to be a situation of film vs digital.

In my past experience of trying to use old lenses on digital cameras, be it the M8 or the Canon 5D/1Dmkiii, the result was nothing at all like film. I can't give you the technical explanation as I'm not an engineer, but for me, the old school lenses on film looked right. On digital, it just looked like the whole images was out of focus. Is it because digital is so sharp and the tolerance for focus is so low? is it because digital has the tendency to be so high resolution that all the flaws in a lens like CA, fringing, that gave character to film images now come to light as what they truly are in digital? i'm not sure. I know one of the main difference for me between film and digital is the transition from in focus to out of focus is far more abrupt on digital to my eyes. This alone would make a pretty big difference to the ay old school lenses look.

Anyway, my thoughts are to rent it and try before you make the leap. you might be back to film pretty quick.
 
Pentax 31mm f/1.8 and 43mm f/1.9 FA lenses? and another vote for the SMC Takumar 50mm f/1.4. (I used to have the 35 f/2 super takumar too, softer wide open, but a nice look to it, hefty lens though).

-Brian
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
  • Article Article
What’s the best U.S.-made interchangeable lens rangefinder 35? It depends on your criteria.
2
Replies
26
Views
5K
rick oleson
R
J
  • Article Article
The Most Beautiful Cameras Of All Time, Part 2: Manual focus 35mm SLRs
3 4 5
Replies
83
Views
18K
hap
H
J
  • Article Article
The Golden Age of Lens Interchangeability is Now!
Replies
18
Views
3K
splitimageview
splitimageview
P
What lens design type is the CV 35/2.5 Color Skopar?
Replies
11
Views
2K
Sonnar2
Sonnar2
J
  • Article Article
The Incomparable Tom Abrahamsson: A warmhearted genius who loved people
Replies
12
Views
4K
raydm6
raydm6
Back
Top Bottom