35 ASPH Summilux "Signature"

[v3cron]

How would you characterize this lens, especially compared to its pre-ASPH version (leave price out of it)? I've spent a few days reading about it and the 'crons on here, and looking at samples on Flickr, and it's still not that clear how to characterize the difference.

I know the new one is sharper wide-open, but that doesn't really tell me about it's "look" overall. I don't really give a crap about bench sharpness - I'm looking for the subjective stuff.

What is the ASPH character (and the pre-ASPH as well)? I know it's somewhat vague and hard to express in words. If anyone has side-by-side samples, that would be great! Thanks in advance.

 

[StuartR]

I have not used the pre-asph, but the characteristics of the 35/1.4 ASPH are high contrast, high sharpness and a sharp falloff between the sharp and unsharp areas of the frame. Compared to other 35mm lenses I have used, it appears to have less depth of field because of this effect. Overall, I use it as my general lens and I could not ask for anything more. It draws the image faithfully, and has a nice impact to it. I like the ability it has to offer really great images at all distances and all f stops (well, to be honest I have not used it much at f stops smaller than f/5.6...usually I shoot between f/4 and f/1.4, even in good light. The older 35/1.4 may well give close results at f/5.6 or f/8, but even then, perhaps not. Wide open it will be much softer and lower contrast and "glowy". The 35/1.4 ASPH is very similar wide open to what it is stopped down. Anyway, enough words, here are a few samples:

 

[v3cron]

thanks for the samples! these are really great, especially the color rendition. you somewhat confirmed my existing belief that the asph version has a very modern and literal look to it, and is probably optimized for color.

 

[kevin m]

Here's a wide open shot with point light sources in the frame.

 

[35mmdelux]

let me try. For one, there is no comparison between the pre-asph 35 Lux and the Lux Aspherical - you might want to start there - where the pre-asph was dreamy, the Aspherical is much more clinical. I moderate the more clinical character by using different film emulsions. FWIW my 50mm Summilux pre-asph is far sharper than my 35mm Lux Asph.

"the asph version has a very modern and literal look to it, and is probably optimized for color."

i would agree w/ this statement. ...w/ the caveat that the 35mm Lux Asph can also tackle B&W w/ impunity.

 

[StuartR]

FWIW my 50mm Summilux pre-asph is far sharper than my 35mm Lux Asph.

Wow, that has not been my experience at all! Are you sure that your 35/1.4 ASPH is properly collimated and adjusted? Mine is significantly sharper than my 50/1.4 pre-asph. It is much closer to the 50/1.4 ASPH...

 

[visiondr]

Here's a wide open shot with point light sources in the frame.

Kevin,

Are you sure that is shot wide open? The ferris wheel OOF lights are octagonal or enneagonal in shape.

Ron

 

[kevin m]

Good catch, Ron. I was shooting on 800 speed NPZ, so I might have been opened up to f2.0. 🙂

 

[35mmdelux]

"Are you sure that your 35/1.4 ASPH is properly collimated and adjusted? Mine is significantly sharper than my 50/1.4 pre-asph. It is much closer to the 50/1.4 ASPH..."


I sent it in to Sherry to have it CLA'd. Maybe that will change things - I don't know? It did see a difference between it and my 35mm 4th version and my 35mm Lux pre-asph.

I recently purchased a late late model 50mm Summilux and it blew my socks off w/ its incredible sharpness and color rendition on a set of portraits.

Now, I'm no expert but I have been shooting w/ 35mm Crons for the past 15 years. I've also shot w/ 50mm Duals and 50mm 3rd versions, and older model 50mm Luxes (circa 1962). My late model 50mm Summilux (circa 2000) has so impressed me that its doing most of the work right now.

 

[x-ray]

I have a great deal of experience with the pre asph and find it lower contrast with moderate sharpness stopped down a couple of stops and softer at wide apertures. The pre flares easily with point light sources in the frame and near the edge outside the frame. Almost any modern day 35 will outperform the pre. includint the CV lenses. I now shoot the CV nokton for low light and could not be more pleased and still have the v4 summicron but have retired it in favor of the much better 35 Biogon. I have not shot any appreciable amount with the asph summilux 35 but of the many 35's that I've used or owned the Biogon is the best for my needs and the 1.2 Nokton is the finest in low light.

 

[35mmdelux]

I have a great deal of experience with the pre asph and find it lower contrast with moderate sharpness stopped down a couple of stops and softer at wide apertures. The pre flares easily with point light sources in the frame and near the edge outside the frame. Almost any modern day 35 will outperform the pre. including the CV lenses. .

I did not like the 35mm/1.7 Ultron. IMHO any of my Leicas have blown by it. Ok sharpwise, but disappointing on color rendition. Did not like ergonomics either. At f/1.7 I'd rather go to the 40mm/1.4 VC or keep the Summicron.

 

[x-ray]

I did not like the 35mm/1.7 Ultron. IMHO any of my Leicas have blown by it. Ok sharpwise, but disappointing on color rendition. Did not like ergonomics either. At f/1.7 I'd rather go to the 40mm/1.4 VC or keep the Summicron.

I guess I should state that i shoot B&W 99.9% of the time. I think in the past year I've shot 1 roll of Astia E-6 and have lenses that I have never shot color with. Like lenses, cars and women we all have our likes and dislikes. In color I like softer colors with warmth and pastels vs the popular look of high saturation. I also seriously dislike the v4 summicron 35 that I have because it's just too small where as many like it for the size. To me the ergonomics of the v4 summicron are about as bad as it gets. I find the aperture ring too thin and too tight for my fingers to grip well with the hood on. I absolutely hate the focusing tab and like a focusing ring. This is why I mainly use the 35 Biogon now. Each of us have our own vision of the perfect lens. Possibly this might be why some like the old v1 summilux vs the newer technology lenses.

 

[Turtle]

At a guess I would say that manufacturing vairations are likely to pay a bit more of a role with CV lenses that Leica's. It is not too unusual to hear of issues with the CV lenses. If you end up with a friday afternoon lens it can always be exchanged I guess. I am surprised by the comment that a 35 1.4 ASPH was less sharp than a 50 lux pre.

 

[x-ray]

At a guess I would say that manufacturing vairations are likely to pay a bit more of a role with CV lenses that Leica's. It is not too unusual to hear of issues with the CV lenses. If you end up with a friday afternoon lens it can always be exchanged I guess. I am surprised by the comment that a 35 1.4 ASPH was less sharp than a 50 lux pre.

I currently have two Leica lenses with mechanical issues and sold my 50 tabbed summicron that had mechanical problems. No company is immune to manufacturing problems. Just look at the problems with the M8 and it's quite obvious leica is not immune. Leicas quality dropped when they started having financial problems and has never returned to he level of the 60's and before. I will say I'm very impressed with the quality of my MP's vs the M2's and 3's that I currently own but the mechanical properties of the new lenses are still not what they used to be.

 

[Turtle]

I currently have two Leica lenses with mechanical issues and sold my 50 tabbed summicron that had mechanical problems. No company is immune to manufacturing problems. Just look at the problems with the M8 and it's quite obvious leica is not immune. Leicas quality dropped when they started having financial problems and has never returned to he level of the 60's and before. I will say I'm very impressed with the quality of my MP's vs the M2's and 3's that I currently own but the mechanical properties of the new lenses are still not what they used to be.

Sure. I have heard as much, but it seems that few complain that their leica glass is freakishly soft and get a replacement finding it is much better. I have heard of this a good few times with CV. Are you referring to construction 'quality feel' or the actual reliability with the new lenses? I own an MP so have to take peoples word for it that they are tighter and smoother and M6s.

What are the issues with the new lenses?
Some say the brass 'special edition' LHSA lenses are better made. Is this fantasy or grounded in fact, if so, in what way?