x-ray
Veteran
If you shoot with the sun to your back and never have a light in or near the edge of the frame then you'll be fine with the v1 summilux but if not be prepared.
35 Summicron 4th version vs 35 Summilux pre-ASPH?
- Thread starter Bosk
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 37
- Views 13K
Crasis
Well-known
x-ray said:
The examples of flare for the v1 summilux are insane! I hadn't actually realized that a lens could flare that much!
As to the other 35s, I would really love it if either CV or Zeiss made a 35/2 as small as the v2-v4 crons. I just absolutely love the size of that thing and any bigger in a 35 would start to annoy me. I've heard really good things about the Biogon, although I'd love to see side by side comparisons with the v4 cron. I assume it has a different signature, possibly the more modern signature of asph lenses.
If anyone could point me to such a thing, I'd appreciate it 🙂
x-ray
Veteran
I found the v4 just too small and difficult to change f stops with the hood on. While the camera is to my eye I have trouble getting my fingers on the small aperture ring without the release tabs of the hood getting in the way. If I remove the camera from my eye I can do it with no problem. For me the lens is just too small and things too tightly placed for my hands. I also do not care for the focus tab on Leitz glass after the 60's vintage lenses. Just my personal thing. On the other hand the Biogon is only slightly larger and about the same size as the 50 summicron. The aperture is easy to change even with the camera to my eye and the focus tab is only a little bump with a serated focus ring which makes focusing very easy for me. Just my thing.
I haven't had a chance to compare them side by side but will before I sell the v4. The look of the Biogon is more clasic than you might think. It has the sharpness and even illumination of the asph but very smooth in tone. I believe it's a very classic look to the images.
I haven't had a chance to compare them side by side but will before I sell the v4. The look of the Biogon is more clasic than you might think. It has the sharpness and even illumination of the asph but very smooth in tone. I believe it's a very classic look to the images.
Crasis
Well-known
x-ray said:
That's rather interesting. I wonder what would cause this to be the case? The classic look tends to come from lacking compensation for the higher order optical aberrations which cause, among other things, uneven sharpness peaking in the center (in a gaussian-like distribution no less). I think it is possible to correct for certain aberrations while purposely causing the lens to be deficient in other areas which, perhaps, attributes to the classic feel of the biogon.
I don't know how the biogon was optimized though so this is all just speculation.
Flyfisher Tom
Well-known
Don,
As a big fan of your work, I would be very interested in seeing your results with the biogon. Particularly, if you have the time to test the 4th, biogon and the cv nokton, on the same subjects and same apertures if possible. cheers
As a big fan of your work, I would be very interested in seeing your results with the biogon. Particularly, if you have the time to test the 4th, biogon and the cv nokton, on the same subjects and same apertures if possible. cheers
Dan States
Established
I'll wager the cross shots above were taken with a UVA filter attached. That's why the crosses are inverted AND still in focus. The second is a pretty good example of the Summilux at it's worst.
An anecdote: Before the days of the internet, when I bought my first new Leica, I also purchased a v1 Summilux. After using the lens for a week I returned to the camera shop with my night shots...all with what I now know was coma and extreme flare. I returned the lens as "defective" and traded to what was then the "new" Summicron v4. The difference in contrast, color saturation and flare resistance was dramatic. No, the Summilux was not defective, just OLD TECH.
While the Summilux can create awesome images, it is not an all purpose "super lens". If your ultimate goal is great technical image quality, you will be best served by the latest design you can afford. The v4 Summicron or the Zeiss Biogon will surpass the Summilux in every measurable way.
Best wishes
Dan
An anecdote: Before the days of the internet, when I bought my first new Leica, I also purchased a v1 Summilux. After using the lens for a week I returned to the camera shop with my night shots...all with what I now know was coma and extreme flare. I returned the lens as "defective" and traded to what was then the "new" Summicron v4. The difference in contrast, color saturation and flare resistance was dramatic. No, the Summilux was not defective, just OLD TECH.
While the Summilux can create awesome images, it is not an all purpose "super lens". If your ultimate goal is great technical image quality, you will be best served by the latest design you can afford. The v4 Summicron or the Zeiss Biogon will surpass the Summilux in every measurable way.
Best wishes
Dan
x-ray
Veteran
Flyfisher Tom said:
I have deceided to hold onto the v4 for a little while and certainly will shoot the same shots with all three.
The summilux v1 certainly gave me the capability to make some very good images in the 60's and 70's. Now technology has advanced and I feel we need to move on unless the v1 is the look desired. I certainly understand the desire for a specific look. I recently shot in a coffee roasting plant with my 1937 28 hektor and 1936 50 elmar. I shot wide open available light with bergger 200 processed in DK-50. What a beautiful vintage look so I do understand the desire for vintage glass. The thing I don't understand is the cult following for some of this glass and the extremely high prices it brings. When I was looking for a super speed 35 I considered the v1 and the asph summilux. I also learned about the CV and researched it. Certainly the asph summilux is a very fine piece of glass but after investigating I felt the CV Nokton was virtually the same performance in real world shooting plus having a bonus of extra speed. Price wasn't an issue here but a balance of performance was. I certainly do not regret my decision to buy both the CV and the Biogon.
The attached photo is the v1 summilux when it's doing it's best. I don't remember the f stop but there was a light just above the fire eater just outside the frame. I retouched a very noticable streak of flare that extends through the left hand. This is very typical of this lens but the image is very sharp and handled the extreme range of tones. It's a real bear to print with the fire requiring 10 times the printing exposure of the main part of the frame with a 0 filter. The reast of the image requires holding back the body of the midget with a grade 1-1/2 and the kids plus burning the face inand fire in the mouth. Above the face was a patch of soft flare that requires 3 times the exposure to equal the density of the rest of the print. Wow!!! I seem to never shoot easy printing negs!!! The original 14 inch print has very beautiful delicate tones and is very sharp. I would say this is the classic look and performance of this lens under very tough conditions.
Dan-- I don't believe I had a filter on the lens. I rarely use filters.
Last edited:
Sparrow
Veteran
x-ray said:
i for one would love to see that, thanks
J. Borger
Well-known
The amount of flare you show is really insane.x-ray said:
I am a big fan of the 35 summilux pre-asph and never had it flare ... and i do not even use a hood very often.
So i am realy wondering if the formula improved/ slightly changed over time .. i have one of the last made (a titanium version) .. it's also very usable wide open ..... where reports on the internet are often diferent.
Anyhow ... a good reason to hang on to my copy of that fabulous lens!
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
x-ray
Veteran
Coating improvements certainly could have improved the lens. I think coatings have a great deal to do with the extremely low flare of the ZM lenses.
A little side note, I purchased my copy new in 1968 from Ritz in DC. You'll laugh but it was the whopping sum of $330 US if I remember correctly. At that time they were almost impossible to find. Big bucks back then.
A little side note, I purchased my copy new in 1968 from Ritz in DC. You'll laugh but it was the whopping sum of $330 US if I remember correctly. At that time they were almost impossible to find. Big bucks back then.
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
Xmas
Veteran
The big problem with the lux is it is attracting collectors prices, in the UK in '70 the lux had a very small price premium relative to the cron. I bought it because I was poor!
The early lux post the optical change were not well blackened, or at least mine is not, and it will flare, and I always use the leitz hood and I always remove the uv filter if there is no rain/salt spray hazard.
I had been looking at a CV 40mm 1.4 but I now need to visit dealers with 2nd hand later lux, as the size and aperature and angle are what I use. Currently I also use a J12 (a Bigon clone) which only is only missing
- two stops and
- clicks, it is the clicks that annoy
It is nearly cheap enough to discard like a paper tissue, rather then clean, and holds up better in night shots contra jour, when you can tripod and expose longer.
Noel
The early lux post the optical change were not well blackened, or at least mine is not, and it will flare, and I always use the leitz hood and I always remove the uv filter if there is no rain/salt spray hazard.
I had been looking at a CV 40mm 1.4 but I now need to visit dealers with 2nd hand later lux, as the size and aperature and angle are what I use. Currently I also use a J12 (a Bigon clone) which only is only missing
- two stops and
- clicks, it is the clicks that annoy
It is nearly cheap enough to discard like a paper tissue, rather then clean, and holds up better in night shots contra jour, when you can tripod and expose longer.
Noel
dreamsandart
Well-known
The early 1st version in chrome ( and in the very rare black mount ) had the Leitz 'blue' coatings, a later 206xxxx lens in chrome I had was with the up-dated amber/blue/purple coatings that continued into the Summilux with the mount change in 1966 (series 7 filter in the hood and alloy mount). But even with these later coatings the opinions seem to vary greatly about the flare control of this lens.
Maybe as is the case with most production lenses including Leica/Leitz, is that there are sample variations. If you have a good one, your results may just be better than another, but in general the Summilux does seem to have the veiled flare problem opened up and gets much better stopped down. You buy a f1.4 lens for those difficult light situations so this seems to be a drawback, one of the reasons I treat my Summilux as a f2.8 lens, but it has the 'reserve' if I want or need the speed at those times I have no choice.
On overcast days, or when there isn't strong light on the front element it can give a unique image quality with very good 'mood' results, and for that it is worth the few times it does unusual things with challenging light. The ASPH Summilux opened up is just amazing with the same challenging flare situations, and the pre-ASPH lens I have I call my 'art-lens' for these reasons.
Maybe as is the case with most production lenses including Leica/Leitz, is that there are sample variations. If you have a good one, your results may just be better than another, but in general the Summilux does seem to have the veiled flare problem opened up and gets much better stopped down. You buy a f1.4 lens for those difficult light situations so this seems to be a drawback, one of the reasons I treat my Summilux as a f2.8 lens, but it has the 'reserve' if I want or need the speed at those times I have no choice.
On overcast days, or when there isn't strong light on the front element it can give a unique image quality with very good 'mood' results, and for that it is worth the few times it does unusual things with challenging light. The ASPH Summilux opened up is just amazing with the same challenging flare situations, and the pre-ASPH lens I have I call my 'art-lens' for these reasons.
haagen_dazs
Well-known
i dont seem to notice any 3rd or 4th gen 35mm cron for sale ...
anyone might want to sell theirs??
anyone might want to sell theirs??
SolaresLarrave
My M5s need red dots!
I've read this entire thread... and, call me whatever you want, I'm still lusting for a 'lux, even if it's old. I've saved some funds and, hopefully by December, I'll try to snag one.
A pre-Aspherical, that is. Why? A bit less unaffordable than the aspherical. And if it turns out like you guys say, I can always sell it again, or use it for trade. I'm simply hoping to bag one with flair, not flare 🙂
A pre-Aspherical, that is. Why? A bit less unaffordable than the aspherical. And if it turns out like you guys say, I can always sell it again, or use it for trade. I'm simply hoping to bag one with flair, not flare 🙂
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
Last edited:
Xmas
Veteran
Magus
I opened the photos earlier and my lens bought about '73 from new, serial 25486xx i.e. series VII in hood model has not flared like these samples.
The UK photo press at the time (Victor Blackmann in AP) '71-'72 or so said the new 35mm lens was a lot better than the old and published a photo with the new lens against the light (stage flood lighting), no trace of flare.
My lens does have some problems in extreme situations e.g. when the light source is partially behind a subjects and there is bleed over. Some other lens are better, but they are not 1.4 or 35mm or as compact.
I wont use 1.4 in real extremes it is less exposed to use 1.5 or similar, so I may have missed out.
If the asph was as compact I'd save up, but I'm thinking about a cv 1.4 40mm, a beaten up second hand model with a few scratches.
I opened the photos earlier and my lens bought about '73 from new, serial 25486xx i.e. series VII in hood model has not flared like these samples.
The UK photo press at the time (Victor Blackmann in AP) '71-'72 or so said the new 35mm lens was a lot better than the old and published a photo with the new lens against the light (stage flood lighting), no trace of flare.
My lens does have some problems in extreme situations e.g. when the light source is partially behind a subjects and there is bleed over. Some other lens are better, but they are not 1.4 or 35mm or as compact.
I wont use 1.4 in real extremes it is less exposed to use 1.5 or similar, so I may have missed out.
If the asph was as compact I'd save up, but I'm thinking about a cv 1.4 40mm, a beaten up second hand model with a few scratches.
