johnastovall
Light Hunter - RIP 2010
[SIZE=-1]I'm in the process of putting together a new set of lenses for an M8 and plan to keep them for many years. In the past my standard Leica lens was the 50/2.0 Summicron. I had planned on the following Summicron's the 35 and the 75 but I get to thinking about the extra speed of the 1.4 Summiluxes in this range as I do available light work on the streets at night. I was alway impressed with the acutance of my 'Cron and wonder if the new crop of 'Luxes would have that.
Have been peoples experiences with these new versions of these two lens lines and is the extra stop worth it?
[/SIZE]
Have been peoples experiences with these new versions of these two lens lines and is the extra stop worth it?
[/SIZE]
wparsons
Bill Parsons (Boston)
Most people say that the 'Lux's are not as sharp as the 'Cron's at f2.0.
I have a 35mm f1.4 asph, a 50mm f1.4 asph, and a 75mm f1.4
I do stage photog so need the extra stop ("You pays your money and you takes your choice.")
My only comment is with regard to the 35mm f1.4 non-asph lens. This lens exhibits too much flare for my purposes. I would recommend against the non-asph version of the f1.4 lens in 35mm.
I previously used a 50mm f1.4 non-asph and did not have problems with flare, but replaced the lens with the asph version after seeing the incredible difference that asph wrought for the 35mm f1.4. Again, I had no problems with the non-asph and find the asph version excellent.
Many posters on the Leica Forum praise the 75mm f2.0 asph lens in comparison with the f1.4. I need the light and have no problems with the 1.4 lens with regard to flare. It's not a fast-focusing lens, as you probably know.
I plan to buy the M8 and recently purchased the 24mm f2.8 asph lens for this body.
Good luck with your purchases. Stay away from a non-asph 35mm lens.
I have a 35mm f1.4 asph, a 50mm f1.4 asph, and a 75mm f1.4
I do stage photog so need the extra stop ("You pays your money and you takes your choice.")
My only comment is with regard to the 35mm f1.4 non-asph lens. This lens exhibits too much flare for my purposes. I would recommend against the non-asph version of the f1.4 lens in 35mm.
I previously used a 50mm f1.4 non-asph and did not have problems with flare, but replaced the lens with the asph version after seeing the incredible difference that asph wrought for the 35mm f1.4. Again, I had no problems with the non-asph and find the asph version excellent.
Many posters on the Leica Forum praise the 75mm f2.0 asph lens in comparison with the f1.4. I need the light and have no problems with the 1.4 lens with regard to flare. It's not a fast-focusing lens, as you probably know.
I plan to buy the M8 and recently purchased the 24mm f2.8 asph lens for this body.
Good luck with your purchases. Stay away from a non-asph 35mm lens.
peter_n
Veteran
Bill welcome to the forum! Nice to see you over here!! 
Agree about the ASPH lenses but I only have experience with the 35/1.4 and 90/2. I would think the 35/1.4 ASPH would make a cracking "normal" lens for the M8. I would go for the extra stop if you have a practical reason like DOF or low light. The 35 is a gem. Leica recently announced a 22% European price increase on the 24/2.8 lens that Bill just got; they have figured out that this superb lens will be hot when the M8 arrives...
Agree about the ASPH lenses but I only have experience with the 35/1.4 and 90/2. I would think the 35/1.4 ASPH would make a cracking "normal" lens for the M8. I would go for the extra stop if you have a practical reason like DOF or low light. The 35 is a gem. Leica recently announced a 22% European price increase on the 24/2.8 lens that Bill just got; they have figured out that this superb lens will be hot when the M8 arrives...
venchka
Veteran
I know at least one person who had BOTH 35mm ASPH lenses and he sold the Summicron and kept the Summilux.
chendayuan
Established
For size go for Summicron, may go further to 4th version, for speed go for Summilux ASPH, Summilux is real big, like 50/1.4 Summilux. I personal do not like heavy and large lens for Leica M , the 50/1 and 75/1.4 are in this cartegory. If I need speed, 50/1.4 is better choice than 75/1.4.
J. Borger
Well-known
You should stop thinking in "just one extra stop" and "just as sharp" when you evaluate summilux vs. cron. THe Summiluxes in general have a diferent fingerprint/ character.
I very seldom use f1.4 on my summiluxes but prefer them to the crons.
But as you say it is for available light streetwork i think the 75 lux is too slow focussing and too bulky ..
In the 35 range you should compare the 35 lux asph to the cron asph for lenscharacter by studying sample pictures...... i have the 35 cron asph and it is my least liked lens.
In the 50 range both 50 cron and 50 lux asph are awesome lenses .. the 50 lux asph perhaps beeing the most versatile and "best" Leica lens available.
I very seldom use f1.4 on my summiluxes but prefer them to the crons.
But as you say it is for available light streetwork i think the 75 lux is too slow focussing and too bulky ..
In the 35 range you should compare the 35 lux asph to the cron asph for lenscharacter by studying sample pictures...... i have the 35 cron asph and it is my least liked lens.
In the 50 range both 50 cron and 50 lux asph are awesome lenses .. the 50 lux asph perhaps beeing the most versatile and "best" Leica lens available.
S
Simon Larbalestier
Guest
FWIW i use the non asph lux versions of both the 35 and the 50. They are small and discrete and i very rarely have a problem with flare. I will also use them on the M8.
I've read good things about the new luxes but their size and price don't justify shelling out the extra $$$ when i'm working with low shutter speeds and fast film. I usually shoot in the F1.4 - 2.8 range as i like the OOF rendition both lenses exhibit at these apertures. What is worth the exta $$$ is the M8, for me anyway.
I've read good things about the new luxes but their size and price don't justify shelling out the extra $$$ when i'm working with low shutter speeds and fast film. I usually shoot in the F1.4 - 2.8 range as i like the OOF rendition both lenses exhibit at these apertures. What is worth the exta $$$ is the M8, for me anyway.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
johnastovall said:
Interesting question. There has been a heated discussion about this not too long ago. The main problem is of course that nobody has hands-on experience on the M8 yet. The character of lenses should be similar, but cannot be the same, so it is hard to decide on a lens now. Personally, based on the discussion mentioned I decided to go for the 35 Summicron asph, but that was also inspired by financial motives, as I was in the position to aquire a good one for a reasonable price (I'm waiting for the mail now
) As for the extra stop, that will be mainly a mainly of DOF wishes imo, as the speed, with a camera that can be handheld for 1/8th and with a max. ISO of 2500 I don't think that 1.4 or 2.0 is a very significant difference.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
You mean you've been influenced by all the marketing mumbo-jumbo about being discrete?Simon Larby said:
Seriously, that's interesting you say that you don't have a problem with flare with the non-asph 35 'lux. I've seen lots of sample shots with it, and they vary, but I've seen some with a serious case of flare, and others with only a hint of it. I wonder if there is a variation that is not documented.
What year of mfr. is your lens?
harmsr
M5 Nut
J. Borger said:
Exactly!!! Well said.
Ray
S
Simon Larbalestier
Guest
Hi Gabriel well according to the serial number it's after 1966 i can't locate where to find the exact year it was made - Erwin's site nor Stephen's site list the exact years just the 1966 changeover period.
I'll expand a bit on my reasons for keeping the 50 and 35 pre asph's
For me weight and space is a big factor as is discretion - (i know you are probably joking with me Gabriel with me but i really couldn't care less about the marketing opinions given over the net about photo equipment ) -
It's the results that count and how it fit's in with one's own way of working.
I've traded many lenses over the last few years including the 4th Version 35/2, Noctilux, 75/1.4 and the Nikon Millenium 50/1.4 as they just didn't fit my particular vision and even if they did their bulk often meant the exclusion of other useful lenses needed for certain projects. I wish i'd had the money to be able to keep the whole lot but the simple fact is i don't so i have to trade or sell (neither could i afford the yearly worldwide insurance premium to cover every lens i've ever owned !)
I don't like sharp edges in 35mm and i like to shoot wide open or just a stop down. (On the otherhand when i want detail and edge to edge sharpness i use my 120 Rangefinders) For the 35/1.4 I use the dedicated lens hood and the series VII filters and don't shoot directly in the light unless i really have to. So flare hasn't really been an issue.
The 35 and 50 asph v non asph's and the 35/2 4th version versus any other brand 35mm lens debates seems to go on forever on photo forums. There will always be different camps of thought both with valid reasons.
I'm rambling......
I'll expand a bit on my reasons for keeping the 50 and 35 pre asph's
For me weight and space is a big factor as is discretion - (i know you are probably joking with me Gabriel with me but i really couldn't care less about the marketing opinions given over the net about photo equipment ) -
It's the results that count and how it fit's in with one's own way of working.
I've traded many lenses over the last few years including the 4th Version 35/2, Noctilux, 75/1.4 and the Nikon Millenium 50/1.4 as they just didn't fit my particular vision and even if they did their bulk often meant the exclusion of other useful lenses needed for certain projects. I wish i'd had the money to be able to keep the whole lot but the simple fact is i don't so i have to trade or sell (neither could i afford the yearly worldwide insurance premium to cover every lens i've ever owned !)
I don't like sharp edges in 35mm and i like to shoot wide open or just a stop down. (On the otherhand when i want detail and edge to edge sharpness i use my 120 Rangefinders) For the 35/1.4 I use the dedicated lens hood and the series VII filters and don't shoot directly in the light unless i really have to. So flare hasn't really been an issue.
The 35 and 50 asph v non asph's and the 35/2 4th version versus any other brand 35mm lens debates seems to go on forever on photo forums. There will always be different camps of thought both with valid reasons.
I'm rambling......
Last edited by a moderator:
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Hi Simon: yes, I was joking (you didn't see my tongue-in-cheek?)
I have (again) a 35 Summicron 8-element I found at a great price, and I can live with the flare (it's only with strong sources of light) since it renders the tones and contours so nicely, but I'm considering trading it back for the 35 'lux (non-asph). But I love close-focusing, and the 'lux only focuses down to 3 ft., as opposed to the Summicron's 0.65m
Anyway, I like the "glow" (u-oh, a buzz word) I've seen on some 35 'lux samples. I also shoot my rangefinder lenses wide open, and hardly ever stop down more than a stop, if I stop down. Which is also why I have ND filters.
I don't like using hoods, but I've resigned myself to using a hood on the 35 'cron.
I'm rambling too. Bed time.
I have (again) a 35 Summicron 8-element I found at a great price, and I can live with the flare (it's only with strong sources of light) since it renders the tones and contours so nicely, but I'm considering trading it back for the 35 'lux (non-asph). But I love close-focusing, and the 'lux only focuses down to 3 ft., as opposed to the Summicron's 0.65m
Anyway, I like the "glow" (u-oh, a buzz word) I've seen on some 35 'lux samples. I also shoot my rangefinder lenses wide open, and hardly ever stop down more than a stop, if I stop down. Which is also why I have ND filters.
I don't like using hoods, but I've resigned myself to using a hood on the 35 'cron.
I'm rambling too. Bed time.
S
Simon Larbalestier
Guest
Perhaps you'll dream of non asph luxes.... i hope not there are better thing to dream about.....
I know you were joking Gabriel
I know you were joking Gabriel
J. Borger
Well-known
Simon Larby said:
I can only agree i love my 35 pre-asph lux and use it more than the 35 cron asph ..... i have a later sample and never ever had it flare ...yes it sometimes has a nice glow wide open .. but we all know this is beauty. And for size ... so small .. a joy to use. It has a wonderfull tonality in B&W and handles high contrast light (summerdays) a lot better on the R-D1 than the 35 cron asph.
In the 50 range i traded my 50cron & 50 lux pre-asph for the 50 Asph because the 50 asph is wonderfull creamy wide open .. and for size: it is smaller than the 50 pre-asph lux !
sgy1962
Well-known
I'm an available light junckie and have always been a fan of fast lenses. I think every film leica shooter desrves one fast lens. For me, that's the 50mm Summilux ASPH. I've used the 35mm Summilux ASPH for a year, and it's a great lens. I'm just a 50mm guy.
But this all changes with the M8 and the ability to change iso speeds at the flick of a button or whatever you have to do. I would like to see the quality of pictures taken with the M8 at high iso speeds, but for purposes, prints no larger then 8 x 10, I suspect a summicron would be sufficient.
But yes, the 35mm Summilux ASPH is an excellent lens. I always thought it was the near perfect one camer one lens system -- go anywhere; shoot anything. Frankly, part of me regrets selling off that piece.
But this all changes with the M8 and the ability to change iso speeds at the flick of a button or whatever you have to do. I would like to see the quality of pictures taken with the M8 at high iso speeds, but for purposes, prints no larger then 8 x 10, I suspect a summicron would be sufficient.
But yes, the 35mm Summilux ASPH is an excellent lens. I always thought it was the near perfect one camer one lens system -- go anywhere; shoot anything. Frankly, part of me regrets selling off that piece.
johnastovall
Light Hunter - RIP 2010
Based on what's I've read here and other sources I think I'll with the following:
The SUMMILUX-M 35 mm f/1.4 ASPH and the APO-SUMMICRON-M 75 mm f/2 ASPH.
One of each and I'll round out my kit with the 21mm ZM and a Noctilux.
The SUMMILUX-M 35 mm f/1.4 ASPH and the APO-SUMMICRON-M 75 mm f/2 ASPH.
One of each and I'll round out my kit with the 21mm ZM and a Noctilux.
venchka
Veteran
johnastovall said:
A marvelous kit it will be!
John, you do know about the new Zeiss 18mm lens? 24mm equivalent on the M8.
jdos2
Well-known
<streak>
I'll come running through the thread... I've had a Cron and enjoyed it, but the favorite lens of all time for me on the MP was the Noctilux.
Just a thought. Better than anything else.
</streak>
I'll come running through the thread... I've had a Cron and enjoyed it, but the favorite lens of all time for me on the MP was the Noctilux.
Just a thought. Better than anything else.
</streak>
Last edited:
johnastovall
Light Hunter - RIP 2010
venchka said:
No, but I know where I can get a deal on a new 21/2.8 at the old price.
If you are refering to the T 18mm, I understand it's f/4.0 and that's just too slow for me even if the M8 is as quiet as the 5D high iso.