M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
1961 35mm Summilux vs. 1997 35mm Summicron ASPH.
- Thread starter Magus
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 17
- Views 5K
J. Borger
Well-known
Everything you say is right.
I use a 35 lux pre-asph titanium (one of the last pre-asph ) and a cron asph.
The real difference is in 'fingerprint' .. the lux has an old look.
On screen i had difficulties telling them apart at f2.0 in good light.
In dim light .. the asph has the edge wide open.
The asph renders more fine detail in the shadows ....
As you say the lux has a creamy look .. even the whites look creamy white.
In print i prefer the summicron asph ... the prints look brighter & clearer: but it is clearly a matter of taste and not of bad performance of the lux.
( i have the same preference for prints from the 50 cron compared to the 50 lux pre-asph)
In general i think the 35 lux pre-asph is an underrated lens at the forums .. the lens to stay a way from .. i can 't understand where that reputation comes from.
It sure is the lens to get if you want your pictures to have a look from the 60's .
I use a 35 lux pre-asph titanium (one of the last pre-asph ) and a cron asph.
The real difference is in 'fingerprint' .. the lux has an old look.
On screen i had difficulties telling them apart at f2.0 in good light.
In dim light .. the asph has the edge wide open.
The asph renders more fine detail in the shadows ....
As you say the lux has a creamy look .. even the whites look creamy white.
In print i prefer the summicron asph ... the prints look brighter & clearer: but it is clearly a matter of taste and not of bad performance of the lux.
( i have the same preference for prints from the 50 cron compared to the 50 lux pre-asph)
In general i think the 35 lux pre-asph is an underrated lens at the forums .. the lens to stay a way from .. i can 't understand where that reputation comes from.
It sure is the lens to get if you want your pictures to have a look from the 60's .
Robin Harrison
aka Harrison Cronbi
I have a type II pre-asph 35 Summilux. And I summilove it to bits. Sharp? Who needs sharp? Sharp is easy and can be achieved cheaply. Creamy? That's a different matter. Not everyone can do creamy.
It has character, (soft) speed when you need it, and it's darn tiny. I too think it's an undervalued lens.
It has character, (soft) speed when you need it, and it's darn tiny. I too think it's an undervalued lens.
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
Last edited:
J. Borger
Well-known
Let s see what we like.
From left to right 35 lux (pre-asph), 35 cron asph, 50 lux (pre-asph) 50 cron (current), .
For sometime i found the 35 cron asph far more clinical compared to my 50 cron.
But the samples below suggest different. A lot depends on subject, light etc.
If i had to keep only 1x 50 and 1x 35 i would probably keep the 35 cron & 50 lux.
But for now i will keep them all and use them depending on my mood.
Besides for compact size the 35 lux + 50 cron are perfect.
This and the difference in fingerprint are good arguments to keep them all.
From left to right 35 lux (pre-asph), 35 cron asph, 50 lux (pre-asph) 50 cron (current), .
For sometime i found the 35 cron asph far more clinical compared to my 50 cron.
But the samples below suggest different. A lot depends on subject, light etc.
If i had to keep only 1x 50 and 1x 35 i would probably keep the 35 cron & 50 lux.
But for now i will keep them all and use them depending on my mood.
Besides for compact size the 35 lux + 50 cron are perfect.
This and the difference in fingerprint are good arguments to keep them all.
Attachments
sleepyhead
Well-known
I have not used the 35mm ASPH, but I have used the pre-ASPH Lux, and I agree with the previous posters that the lens tends to get a bad rap on forums on the internet. I have tried to shoot mine under flary conditions and it has behaved well. I find it sharp enough for my purposes, although i rarely need to use it wide open. It is VERY SMALL, and that was it's main attraction to me. It has nice bokeh in my opinion, and the results fromit are not clinically sterile feeling.
So, I'm happy with it. I see it as a good f/2.8 lens, with the more wide stops as options if the light level really requires them. Nice to have. I don't have very many scans from this lens right now, but will try to post some at some point later.
So, I'm happy with it. I see it as a good f/2.8 lens, with the more wide stops as options if the light level really requires them. Nice to have. I don't have very many scans from this lens right now, but will try to post some at some point later.
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
Last edited:
J. Borger
Well-known
MICRO CONTRAST?
I am not into MTF curves and do not know what Puts means in his reviews.
But when i looked at the pictures below i had a strong feeling this is what he means with micro contrast and capacity to render very fine detail.
Look at the pullover in these crops. One with the Asph cron the other with the lux pre asph.
Both at f2 ..... taken seconds from each other . same exposure- processing etc.
See the white/ gray elements in the fabric of the pullover in picture 1?
A striking diference .... but lets face it not every picture is about fine detail. Sometimes mood is more important.
I am not into MTF curves and do not know what Puts means in his reviews.
But when i looked at the pictures below i had a strong feeling this is what he means with micro contrast and capacity to render very fine detail.
Look at the pullover in these crops. One with the Asph cron the other with the lux pre asph.
Both at f2 ..... taken seconds from each other . same exposure- processing etc.
See the white/ gray elements in the fabric of the pullover in picture 1?
A striking diference .... but lets face it not every picture is about fine detail. Sometimes mood is more important.
Attachments
Last edited:
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
Last edited:
sleepyhead
Well-known
35mm pre-asph Lux: examples at 1.4 and flare
35mm pre-asph Lux: examples at 1.4 and flare
Hi, in case anyone is interested i dug up a few examples taken with my 35mm pre-ASPH summilux (from the 1970s, I believe).
The first shot was taken at 1.4, handheld at 1/60th on Fuji Neopan 1600. The subject is a statue in an underground tunnel (footpath) in Copenhagen. It was lit by one very bright light. I focused on the nipples (what else? 😉 ).
In the cropped version of this picture you can see that even fine details in the snake-like hair and the thin double-line of her dress are resolved at f/1.4. Resolution seems to be limited by the grain of the film, more or less. Examining the nipple-area closely reveals a circle of four small dots peeking out above the line of the dress (biologically these are the alveoli glands that define the boundary of the areola).
I summary, the pre-ASPH summilux is sharp enough for my purposes, even wide-open.
The second picture is an example of flare from my lens. The sun was just breaking through some clouds near the top right-hand corner (within the frame). You can see that the contrast of the building, hanging street lamp and distant smoke stack are adversely effected by the diffuse flare of the lens.
Conclusion: if you hate flare then this is probably not the lens for you. I personally don't mind the effect, and sometimes it can even make an otherwise dull picture more dramatic.
35mm pre-asph Lux: examples at 1.4 and flare
Hi, in case anyone is interested i dug up a few examples taken with my 35mm pre-ASPH summilux (from the 1970s, I believe).
The first shot was taken at 1.4, handheld at 1/60th on Fuji Neopan 1600. The subject is a statue in an underground tunnel (footpath) in Copenhagen. It was lit by one very bright light. I focused on the nipples (what else? 😉 ).
In the cropped version of this picture you can see that even fine details in the snake-like hair and the thin double-line of her dress are resolved at f/1.4. Resolution seems to be limited by the grain of the film, more or less. Examining the nipple-area closely reveals a circle of four small dots peeking out above the line of the dress (biologically these are the alveoli glands that define the boundary of the areola).
I summary, the pre-ASPH summilux is sharp enough for my purposes, even wide-open.
The second picture is an example of flare from my lens. The sun was just breaking through some clouds near the top right-hand corner (within the frame). You can see that the contrast of the building, hanging street lamp and distant smoke stack are adversely effected by the diffuse flare of the lens.
Conclusion: if you hate flare then this is probably not the lens for you. I personally don't mind the effect, and sometimes it can even make an otherwise dull picture more dramatic.
Attachments
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
Last edited:
sleepyhead
Well-known
HI, I like that photo a lot - it has a lot of depth. The attachment size is a bit big however.
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
sleepyhead
Well-known
Interesting - I alway like grafitti - seems alittle soft at the corners (surprising!).
As for size, I guess I meant mostly big in file size - perhaps aim for 300 kb max, and then see what size pixels you can have without noticible jpeg artifacts. But I'm on a modem, if I had broadband connection I probably wouldn't care as much.
What do other members think is a good size, in terms of kb?
regards, sleepyhead
As for size, I guess I meant mostly big in file size - perhaps aim for 300 kb max, and then see what size pixels you can have without noticible jpeg artifacts. But I'm on a modem, if I had broadband connection I probably wouldn't care as much.
What do other members think is a good size, in terms of kb?
regards, sleepyhead
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
Last edited:
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
I have the pre-asph 35mm lux and the 35mm V4 cron. I don't know why they bad mouth the pre-asph lux as much as they do? If Leica produced it for 35+ years I can't/don't believe its junk. Flare? I've pushed mine extensively trying to get it to flare but have not been able to flare it. I do agree w/ the creamy look, especially in high contrast images. Very apparent. Why do I use it when I could just pony up a few extra Benjis and get the asph model? Handling. I like its smaller footprint. The smaller footprint is important to me, especially in unobtrusive street shooting. Same reason I prefer the 50mm cron over the 50mm Lux.
Bottomline $ doesn't hurt as much either. Consider that combined I've got $1750 for the 35mm Lux (1982) AND the 35mm V4 "King of Boke" (1994) - both Mint. Do I want to trade that off for the 35mm Lux Asph (1997)? NO WAY.
Bottomline $ doesn't hurt as much either. Consider that combined I've got $1750 for the 35mm Lux (1982) AND the 35mm V4 "King of Boke" (1994) - both Mint. Do I want to trade that off for the 35mm Lux Asph (1997)? NO WAY.
Last edited:
Similar threads
