35mm f/1.4 Summilux; Your Thoughts...

check out these threads

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=49501&highlight=35mm+preasph

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=57713&highlight=35mm+preasph

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=49382&highlight=35mm+preasph

you can check my "Paris by night " album on my website http://www.samysnider.com , all shots were taken with the 35mm preasph summilux
some of the subway shots were also taken with the preasph

I own the 35mm summicron v4, the 35mm Summilux ASPH, and the 35mm preasph: the preasph is my favourite, not the sharpest lens @ f/1.4 but the most pleasing in terms of character and bokeh IMHO
 
First version is the chrome one.
I had that one in the M3 version. Very VERY soft wide open. I traded it for the black version and that is also quit soft wide open. But others seem to have better ones than I have. For some reason I think mine is a bit out of spec.
For me the 1.4 is almost not usable. But it is a nice lens and stopped down a bit it renders very nice. I use it as a 2.0 lens with some reserve when really needed.

Cheers,

Michiel Fokkema
 
My first Leica lens was a 35 Summilux #2347624. I think that's around 1969 vintage. I've found it to be a wonderful lens and still use it often, partly because it's so nice and small compared to my 35 Summilux ASPH. It's not the best performing lens in the world but has always been excellent for the family photos I mostly do. Mine has the infinity lock and I got used to it quickly. My only complaint is my fault, every now and then the photographer gets a fat finger in the way, the lens is so compact. I bet you'd enjoy one. Joe
 
Micheal is right on the button with the first version Summilux. It is NOT a very impressive lens by todays standards. It was a bit of a desperate gamble by Leica in the late 50's to have something to fight off the Nikon 35f1.8. The Summilux 35f1.4 with a # over 2.000 000 is one to go for. For one reason, the hood is less than $300 and stays on (the first version 35f1.4 had a hood than was very prone to falling off and getting lost). The later version has a clip-on hood that it shares with the Summicron 35.
Unfortunately, the Summilux 35f1,4 from the 60's,70's and 80's is a highly priced collectible and priced accordingly. It is a nice lens, but not at the prices they ask for it!
Today we have alternatives that are a/better or equal to it and b/much more reasonably priced.
Voigtlanders 35f2.5 and Nokton 35f1.4 (which was designed and produced as an improved version of the pre-Asph Summilux, Better flare control and sharper at f1.4 but otherwise very much like the old Summilux) . The Zeiss Biogon 35mm f2/0 (I call it "the Summicron killer"). Kind of big, but very.very good.
If you like shooting at ragged edge in low light, there is the 35f1.2 VC - cutting edge quality in a largish package. Unique lens!
You also have the Hexanon 35f2's - my favourite is the small UC version in screw-mount. Nice qualiity but a bit of a collectible and hence difficult to find.
What is amazing is that if your heart so desires, you can get the 35f1.2 VC, the Zeiss 35f2 Biogon and the 35f2.5 VC or the 35f1.4 Nokton for less than a used 35f2 Asph Summicron!!!!
 
Michiel Fokkema said:
First version... Very VERY soft wide open... But others seem to have better ones than I have... I think mine is a bit out of spec... the 1.4 is almost not usable... I use it as a 2.0 lens with some reserve when really needed.
Click to expand...

Be assured your lens is not out of spec. Over the years I have had two of them; I only bought the second because, like you, I thought there was something wrong with the first (there wasn’t). IMHO, the 1st version 35mm Summilux is completely worthless below f/4. The 2nd (black) version is improved to being worthless below f/2.8.

If you must have a "vintage look" you'll be much happier with a 35mm CV Nokton f/1.4 - it has a similar footprint to the pre-asph Summilux, reasonably sharp wide-open, and will cost considerably less compared to a pre-asph Summilux.

Otherwise, give yourself a treat and get the latest 35mm asph Summilux.
 
I 've had two copies of the Summilux preasph. One from the early '60s with goggles for an M3; and another from the mid-'80s. They behaved similarly - lots of flare and rings when used wide open and against light sources. When there wasn't flare @f/1.4, the image was 'soft'. Better behaviour closed down but still needing a hood. I 've pitted the second one I had against the Summilux Asph., and there was no comparison. The preasph. would flare like mad when the Asph. just wouldn't. Overall I lost a good few frames when I was pushing it against some light source and in the end didn't trust the lens any more. Knowing now what I didn't then, I think I 'd opt for the CV 35mm f1.4, if I had to have a small, ultrafast 35mm lens. And Multicoated, just to be on the safe side.
 
i have a later version pre-asph (1983). i tested it against the ASPH and, while definitely softer wide open, it was pretty damned close stopped down. i love the character and draw of this lens and almost wish i had been able to find an older version which seems to have a more center pull. but it has slightly less of a "glow" than the ones from the 60's, more contrast, and much less flare prone.

i've only had one really bad instance in impossible lighting conditions (i was just messing around) where i ended up with spaceships in every pic (saucer-like flare). other than that, i've had very good luck with it, even using it without a hood (i bought one that had enhanced focusing apparatus that makes a hood impossible).

i honestly love this lens and it's vintage look but if i'd had the money, i probably would have gone for the ASPH. that said, i'm not beating myself up about it. mind you, i'm using it on digital (Epson R-D1) so i can cheat and check on screen if the lighting is tricky. and, in several instances, i find the softness wide open much more pleasing.

Dante Stella has a very fun write-up on this lens, The legend of Lux-Do, that i think sums it up better than anything i've read.
 
Tom A said:
Micheal is right on the button with the first version Summilux. It is NOT a very impressive lens by todays standards. It was a bit of a desperate gamble by Leica in the late 50's to have something to fight off the Nikon 35f1.8.
Click to expand...
And, not to forget, CANONs 35/1.5 screwmount as well (I've seen a prototype 35/1.4 too)
 
For me, the deal breaker on the 35/1.4 pre-asph is the min. focusing distance. With a 35mm lens, the difference between .7m and 1m is, in my opinion anyway, very significant.
 
I have the Canon 35 f1.5 screwmount and I prefer my old 35 Summilux (1969). Yes the Summilux pre ASPH has some flare but if you are using a rangefinder you probably have the skill to watch out for that. My 35 Summilux ASPH is incredibly flare resistant but then I got it when prices were a little less crazy. Joe
 
I have the Summilux 35/1.4 pre-asph. and the Nokton 35/1.4, plus the Summicron 35/2 Asph. The latter is my favorite; it can do no wrong. I highly appriciate the Nokton, which is overall a better lens than the Summilux. But the Summilux has a certain pleasant signature when it is not flaring and ghosting. I took it and the Summicron to Paris last winter, using it primarily on the M7 and the Summicron on the M8. Paris was dark and so the Summilux behaved quite well.
 
Rafael said:
For me, the deal breaker on the 35/1.4 pre-asph is the min. focusing distance. With a 35mm lens, the difference between .7m and 1m is, in my opinion anyway, very significant.
Click to expand...
35mmdelux said:
I'd go for the 35 'lux ASPH, even if I had to part w/ some gear to cover the extra charge. Its sharp, its fast, and the hood does not fall off.
Click to expand...
I definitely agree here and the 0.7M closest focus is key. The lens draws very nicely too, it has a bit of character to it.


attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • R2269_16x530W.jpg
    R2269_16x530W.jpg
    127.2 KB · Views: 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom