35mm asph: f2 or 1.4?

[aizan]

i've decided to bite the bullet and save up for a 'lux or 'cron asph. afaik, i'm not going to get the best bokeh wide open with any wide, so i might as well have the speed. somewhere down the line, i may opt for the nokton classic or one of the 40/2s, or pre-asphs, but the issue remains the same.

a 35/2 would supposedly give me the same handholdability as a 50/1.4, which i haven't noticed any problems with, but i wonder if a 35/1.4 might be more useful than i realize. what can i do with that extra stop, in a practical, everyday situation? or rather, every night?

 

[rover]

The 35/1.4 Asph Lux is my dream lens. As they say in sports, you can't coach speed. The 35mm focal length is perfect for indoors photography, where light levels are generally lowish and you tend to be closer to your subject. A fast 35 makes lots and lots of sense to me.

Of course, it is a Leica lens, so you will get great bokeh and super quality images which make this a great general purpose lens. I love looking though galleries of images taken with this lens.

Good luck, I am starting to turn green.

 

[Hektor]

what can i do with that extra stop, in a practical, everyday situation? or rather, every night?

Use a faster shutter speed !, It'll make your pics significantly sharper with say 1/60 instead of 1/30

 

[Mackinaw]

I opted for the 35mm F2.0 asph mainly because of cost. As much as I wanted the 35/1.4 asph, my piggy bank just wouldn't allow it. That being said, I'm 100% satisfied with the 35/2.0 asph. You can use this lens wide-open all day and be assured of a sharp, contrasty photo. Several shots in my gallery were taken with the 35/2.0 asph, many at F2.0. No matter which 35mm you choose you won't be disapppointed.

Jim Bielecki

 

[egpj]

I agree that no matter which 35 you get you will be very happy with the purchase. Personally, I have the 35/f1.4. I get very precise focusing out of this lens wide open but I am usually off again on again in using it. People haved waxed poetic about the 28 Summicron so many times that I will only say it is my preference for a wide angle. There are examples in my gallery of both lens'. Congrat's on your future purchase!

 

[mad_boy]

Generally faster lenses have only one advantage; they are faster.
Apart from that, they only have disadvantages
- More expensive
- Heavier
- Generally less sharp at the same f-stop setting
(although that seems not to be so true for these two)

So: one should only get the faster one if one needs or at least uses the avantage.
In the end it depends on your type of photography.
If it is mostly outdoors and not at night the cron will do.
If you use flash or trypod, the cron will do.
But if you snap in bars, clubs etc the Lux is preferred.

see http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/mseries/testm/m2-35.html for a comparison

good luck choosing,

Mad_boy

 

[aizan]

as far as bw film goes, i think it'd be great to use the 'lux stopped down to f2.8, 1/60 using tri-x in diafine or neopan 1600. this is for home interiors at night. but i'll have to look into fast colour films. i'm presuming the two stop rule of harsh bokeh: that it smoothes out real nice two stops down. if i can find an acceptable iso 3200 for at least 5x7 or 6x9, i could do with the 'cron. i guess i'll find out which in the meantime!

 

[SolaresLarrave]

I'd say either will perform well. Like Rover's case, the Summilux is my dream lens, but when push comes to shove not only do I have already a great piece of glass for the 35mm focal length (an Hexanon 35/2), but also wonder... when would I get to use the additional stop? If my hands were really shaky, granted, there'd be a reason, but I'm lucky enough to have a fairly firm grip, so...

But I'm rationalizing. Heck! If you see a Summilux and the price is right, grab it. Same applies for 'crons. And good luck shopping! 🙂

 

[furcafe]

If you have the money & can handle the (slightly) greater mass, I would go w/the Summilux. I'm w/rover--speed is good. I had the Summicron (my 1st Leica lens) & ended up having to sell it @ a considerable loss to get the 'lux. However, per mad_boy's post, I shoot a lot in bars & clubs, etc. @ night.

 

[peter_n]

My take on an f1.4 is that its for DOF, not speed for speed's sake. You can always use faster film if you want to shoot in low light. Neopan 1600 is a cracking film. I have a 50 Summilux and it is pretty heavy - not a travel lens. But the lens is indispensible for really shallow DOF. If you don't need the DOF at f1.4 I would say get the f2.

 

[richard_l]

as far as bw film goes, i think it'd be great to use the 'lux stopped down to f2.8, 1/60 using tri-x in diafine or neopan 1600. this is for home interiors at night. but i'll have to look into fast colour films. i'm presuming the two stop rule of harsh bokeh: that it smoothes out real nice two stops down. if i can find an acceptable iso 3200 for at least 5x7 or 6x9, i could do with the 'cron. i guess i'll find out which in the meantime!

I should think that the main reason for spending a small fortune on an ASPH Lux or Cron would be for the superb wide open performance. If you don't like the wide open OOF performance of these lenses, why not save a heap of money and get a pre-ASPH Cron or Lux? 😕

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

According to E. Puts' semantical maze (it's not even James Joycian), the Asph Summilux at f/2 and beyond has the same fingerprint as the Asph Summicron at the same apertures, with just some faint differences in the field and corners that are obviously "aberration leftovers" in the Summilux, but only discernable at very close inspection (i.e. with a loupe on a blown-up print).

If I had the money, I'd get an Asph Summilux and a Color-Skopar.

 

[aizan]

i've managed to collect almost 400 photos taken with the asph 'lux wide open or near wide open, and the "stop down a little to clear up harsh bokeh" rule seems to hold up pretty well. same goes for the other 35-50mm lenses i'm looking at. not everyone noted the aperture used, so maybe you only need to stop down one aperture, which means either version of the 'cron could be fine for me. throw in some neopan 1600, set the shutter speed to 1/60, and i'm all set.

regarding the 'lux, i really just have to decide whether using iso 400 film instead of 1600 is a compelling reason to put up with more irksome bokeh. the case might be stronger when doing color, which i'm gonna try out.

 

[aizan]

here are some completely unscientific, non-random rejection rates from pics taken wide open, or nearly so, that i've collected from the net.

summicron pre-asph: 5/44, 11.36%
summilux pre-asph: 6/29, 20.68%

summicron asph: 3/57, 5.26%
summilux asph: 32/338, 9.46%

summicron-c, m-rokkor: 4/73, 5.47%
nokton classic: 15/52, 28.84% (probably skewed by people recently demonstrating it's bokeh)

hexar af: 6/61, 9.83%

hmm...maybe i'll get a hexar.

 

[CZeni]

The 1.4 is a pretty big hunka glass. Really big if compared to the 4th gen 35/2 non-asph. I had simultaneously a chance to buy a 35/1.4 asph and a 50/1.4 asph...I went for the 50. I have the 35/1.2 Nokton for when I feel the need for wide speed but use a 35/2 non-asph much more often due to its tiny size and great bokeh.