Summilux 35mm pre-asph photos

brusby said:
Thank you for showing us the meaning of real art. Who would have imagined it could be embodied in a seemingly plain brick wall.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the delightful compliment. True art is everywhere, you just have to learn to see it. :D

G
 
Example: Summilux 35mm f/1.4 pre-asph on Leica CL, f/5.6:

Colors At Dusk #2 - Santa Clara 2020
Leica CL + Summilux 35mm f/1.4
ISO 1600 @ f/5.6 @ 1/60​
 
Godfrey said:
Thank you for the delightful compliment. True art is everywhere, you just have to learn to see it. :D

G
Click to expand...

Haha, you're so full of it. Just so we're clear, are you saying these last few photos you posted are "true art"? I want there to be no confusion about the sensibilities and judgment of the person who was attacking me for posting images lacking in artistic appeal.
 
gelatin silver print (summilux 35mm f1.4 steel rim v2) leica mp

Erik.

49312088632_a1b68395ea_b.jpg
 
brusby said:
Photos I posted in response to an earlier request for more images were deleted 11-12-21 at 03:30 by me (brusby) thanks to being shown the error of my tasteless ways by Helen Hill, Godfrey and DWF, and after much of their criticism was deleted by someone else. I'd have to be a masochist to continue to post photos here.
Click to expand...

A mod deleted the discussion in error, which I have reinstated.

Please put the pics back up.

It is an interesting discussion.

That said, everyone be respectful to everyone else.

Thanks,
Stephen
 
I picked up this lens recently after extensive research. I read several people comparing it to the V4 Summicron which made sense looking at the construction of the lens. It's not particularly glowy at full aperture with plenty of detail still present but doesn't come close in sharpness compared to the V4 Summicron stopped down. Is this perhaps due to sample variation? My example was manufactured in the early 80s.
 

Attachments

  • photo111431.jpg
    photo111431.jpg
    232.3 KB · Views: 8
  • photo111432.jpg
    photo111432.jpg
    154.9 KB · Views: 8
helenhill said:
So much of the Dialogue between
Brusby, Godfrey and Myself has been deleted by a Mod or Stephen...

(all of mine were except my original post)
Click to expand...

All of my posts on this particular sub-thread seem to be intact, FWIW.
That said, I have nothing further to add.

G
 
CameraQuest said:
A mod deleted the discussion in error, which I have reinstated.

Please put the pics back up.

It is an interesting discussion.

Thanks,
Stephen
Click to expand...


These are the images I deleted following criticism by three forum members, Helen Hill, Godfrey and DwF about the lack of artistic value in my images and other stylistic complaints starting at post #1561 on page 105 with Helen’s 'Playboy' & 'Hustler' ... “masterbating” criticism.

The lone voice who offered any support was Ricoh, and for that I am very grateful. Thank you!!!

Why did I delete them? Simply because I never want to be anywhere the work is not wanted or appreciated. Life’s too short to put up with negativity.

A little background for anyone who may be interested. I had worked briefly at a local architectural and commercial photography studio right out of college in the film days of the mid 1970’s. But then I completely lost interest in photography. For over 30+ years, from the mid 70’s till about a year before these photos were taken I didn’t own and hand’t even touched a camera.

About a year or so before these photos were taken my interest in photography was rekindled and I started acquiring some digital cameras while simultaneously trying to educate myself in the modern age of digital photography.

A close friend who is pictured below with the model in a couple of images invited me to accompany him on a few shoots he had set up. I believe this was only the second time in over 30 years I had photographed a live person. It was his shoot and I was trying to grab some images of my own while trying not to screw up his shooting experience.

All credit to the model for most of the poses. I just tried to get exposures right with acceptable natural light and to compose the shots in ways that made sense to me.


Here’s my friend who set up the shoot. I offered this image as an example of my least favorite use of this lens — color photo, large aperture in broad, diffuse sunlight. Just too lacking in character for me. More like a snapshot.

All from the same afternoon session Leica M240 with 35mm f1.4 Summilux v2. All natural/existing light.

L1001371-509-1 by Brusby, on Flickr



Behind the scenes of my friend photographing the model. Offered to show nice rendering of this lens in b&w when in more favorable light (more directional).

L1001414 by Brusby, on Flickr



My first shot using window light.

L1001460 by Brusby, on Flickr



More directional window light. Lens is still soft but with enough detail and a nice glow -- sometimes too much in highlights.

L1001403 by Brusby, on Flickr


Stopped down just a bit more the lens cleans up nicely and has plenty of detail for this type of image.

L1001426 by Brusby, on Flickr


I think I uploaded this one too, to show color rendering.

L1001383 by Brusby, on Flickr
 
Fjäll said:
I recently picked up this lens recently after extensive research. I read several people comparing it to the V4 Summicron which made sense looking at the construction of the lens. It's not particularly glowy at full aperture with plenty of detail still present but doesn't come close in sharpness compared to the V4 Summicron stopped down. Is this perhaps due to sample variation? My example was manufactured in the early 80s.
Click to expand...

The earliest 35mm f/1.4 lenses from Leitz were made in the early 1960's, from 1960 to1964, the "steel rim". These lenses were made with very special glass and were acceptable sharp at f/1.4. An opening of f/1.4 is for a 35mm extreme. This speed was very useful for photojournalists to whom lens speed was more important than sharpness, so the later produced 35mm f/1.4 were made with less exotic glass to keep the lenses small, light weight and affordable. Aspherical lenses didn't exist back then.

gelatin silver print (summilux 35mm f1.4 steel rim v1) leica mp

Erik.

49144900968_fa2968fc63_b.jpg
 
Just by way of contrast, I have the 35mm f2 asph (and a 50mm f1.4 asph). I find them biting sharp and lacking ‘charm’, as Helen eloquently describes the 35mm f1.4 pre asph.
Probably too expensive to sell and re-repurchase, also too much hassle I guess.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom