Goldorak
-
There!!!!!
kipkeston
Well-known
I think the last one I saw in the ads was $1900. Nice price.
jaap
Jaap
sepiareverb
genius and moron
Big performance difference between the 35 ASPH and pre ASPH Summiluxes? In one word, yes. In two words, yes huge. In a sentance, LFI 2/06 says "while the above (Summilux ASPH) cleanly reproduces unsharp light sources, differentiating between far-away details with superb contrast the old Summilux's image drowns in diffuseness and coma"
The pre-ASPH Summilux is a 1961 design.
The pre-ASPH Summilux is a 1961 design.
kevin m
Veteran
The Aspherical 35 Summilux is arguably a perfect lens, whose only drawback is its somewhat large size.
The pre-Aspherical Summilux 35 is, to be kind, a less-than-perfect lens whose chief virtue is its compact size.
The pre-Aspherical Summilux 35 is, to be kind, a less-than-perfect lens whose chief virtue is its compact size.
Last edited:
telenous
Well-known
I agree with the comments above. I have tried two copies of each (Summilux 35 Asph and preasph.), still have the Asph. They do discernibly different work on the negative, and very obviously so in the wider apertures. Only you can answer for yourself which is the one you like better. If though, as you say, you are not happy with your CV 35 f/1.4 my guess is that you are not going to be happy with the preasph. either (quite a lot more soft wide open and flarier at all apertures.) On the other hand, to get an idea of what sort of beast the Asph. is, when I was using it concurrently with a EF 35 f/1.4 L (a good lens by all accounts) the Asph. seemed to me to have more bite in contrast. I thought it was also a tad less flare prone.
It all has to do with the kind of photography you are pursuing, and the preasph. certainly contributes a characteristic look to the photos but it is also thought of as more difficult and rather unpredictable to use in adverse conditions. The lens very often suffered from rings agaisnt very bright light sources, for example. A lens that has been the cause to lose a photo that mattered or two, is a lens you may increasingly not feel confident to use. There's a rumour that Leica improved incrementally the coatings so that there are preasph. copies that behave in a more modern manner. I 've not been lucky to have found one, but apparently others were. If you are adamant on getting the preasph., make sure to try it first, it may make all the difference.
As for the Asph., the price you mention is very nearly the one for new. You can find a better price than that, not that it will not be eyewateringly expensive, however you look at it. Having said that I bought mine about two years ago for a price one third less what it goes now in the used market. So, as it often happens in the crazy Leica second-hand market, you pay through the nose but you lose very little, if at all, when you sell.
.
Last edited:
J J Kapsberger
Well-known
buckpagoo, don't listen to jjkapsberger.
I'll spare you since you're new and still learning how to use a camera.
Goldorak
-
I'm here to learn. But I'll trust buckpago on this. He sounds like he knows his stuff. For sheer resolution one should go with the preasph. You can always bump the contrast in potoshop at the simple click of the mouse or use a filter and be done with it.
Leica knows that but they have a base of very rich people wanting the newest and best every year so they accept to pay the price even thopugh it is not the best.
The definitive answer is buy the preasph and you have the most versatile lens. The asph is too brutal. Ask the experts who used the lens. I trust some of them. Ask buck...
kevin m
Veteran
A laughable statement. Functioning eyes and a pair of 4x6 prints from each lens shot wide open will disprove it in an instant.
If one's definition of "versatile" means hopelessly soft, flarey and dreamy wide-open, but perfectly useable by somewhere between f2.8 and f4.0, then yes.
thomasw_
Well-known
I agree with Telenous' remarks on the ASPH version, and I would like to emphasize the detail the ASPH version can find in the shadows with very lowlight; this lens just does what it is advertised to do. As kevin m stated, it is about the size of the ZM biogon 35/2 in size. For me, the only downside to this lens is the cost for obtaining it. kevin m has described the facts about pre-asph version accurately; it is inaccurate to say that the pre-asph version renders with a higher resolution. One can easily verify this fact by viewing some images from both lenses in the m-mount group on flickr.
cmogi10
Bodhisattva
I hope you're not falling for that troll.
Actually I hope it's a troll...
The 35 Summilux pre asph is awesome for the same reasons I havn't taken my summarit off my MP in the past month.
The asph is awesome because it's perfect. (Opinion!)
Actually I hope it's a troll...
The 35 Summilux pre asph is awesome for the same reasons I havn't taken my summarit off my MP in the past month.
The asph is awesome because it's perfect. (Opinion!)
kevin m
Veteran
In these discussions problems invariably arise because people confuse their personal preferences with objective reality. If one likes a lens, that's the end of the discussion from the speakers point of view; it doesn't matter how it performs scientifically. But if one likes a lens so much that one says things in public like "the pre-aspherical out resolves the aspherical," that's just a silly statement, and one easily shown to be false.
It's a relatively new development in lens craft that designers can engineer out measurable flaws in a lens, and the Apherical Summilux 35mm is a remarkable technical achievement. The center is sharp wide open and, shockingly, the corners are, too. You could shoot landscapes wide open and get away with it, although the lens does get a bit sharper stopped down.
I think what some people are saying, though, myself included, is that now that we have the option of perfection, some of us are opting out. Soft corners wide open are, IMO, a good thing, because they draw attention to the (usually) centered subject. And a lens that's a bit soft wide open, particularly one used as a portrait lens, can be more flattering to a subject with less-than-perfect skin. (Which is most of the human race. )
Anyway, it's nice to have options. All lenses are compromises, just find one whose compromises match your vision and you're all set.
It's a relatively new development in lens craft that designers can engineer out measurable flaws in a lens, and the Apherical Summilux 35mm is a remarkable technical achievement. The center is sharp wide open and, shockingly, the corners are, too. You could shoot landscapes wide open and get away with it, although the lens does get a bit sharper stopped down.
I think what some people are saying, though, myself included, is that now that we have the option of perfection, some of us are opting out. Soft corners wide open are, IMO, a good thing, because they draw attention to the (usually) centered subject. And a lens that's a bit soft wide open, particularly one used as a portrait lens, can be more flattering to a subject with less-than-perfect skin. (Which is most of the human race.
)Anyway, it's nice to have options. All lenses are compromises, just find one whose compromises match your vision and you're all set.
Nugard
Elvis lives!..
Here you go:
Leica M 35mm f/1.4 ASPH SUMMILUX-M E46 Black EXCELLENT-
http://cgi.ebay.com/Leica-M-35mm-f-...|66:4|65:12|39:1|240:1318|301:0|293:1|294:200
Leica M 35mm f/1.4 ASPH SUMMILUX-M E46 Black EXCELLENT-
http://cgi.ebay.com/Leica-M-35mm-f-...|66:4|65:12|39:1|240:1318|301:0|293:1|294:200
dof
Fiat Lux
Just to take a step sideways in this discussion and illustrate that results are a product of usage, here's an example of the "brutal sharpness" of the 35mm Summilux ASPH. Of course I'm joking - obviously this image takes advantage of the full aperture, low light and their attendant longer shutter speeds, but isn't that one of the reasons people use high-speed lenses in the first place?
Attachments
MikeL
Go Fish
Recently I've had the opportunity (to some) to use 2 pre-asph summiluxes. Both late versions from Germany. The first one with barely visible haze, the second clear as can be. The first was better wide open than I'd seen, but did have some softness and glow wide open.
The second has a little glow wide open, and better resolution. From my limited experience, I'd conclude that condition (haze and collimation) plays a role in it's reputation and peoples experiences with it. If you like the pre-asph look that Gabor and Telenous and Kevin mention (from f1.4-f4) and you find a good one, it's a sweet little lens. If you don't need f1.4 often, or don't mind coma at f1.4, you can't beat the size. How big you print might influence whether the resolution is enough for you at f1.4-f2. With the second one I used by f2.8-f4 the difference between it and the asph is pretty much moot.
If you want/need sharp at f1.4, the asph delivers.
The second has a little glow wide open, and better resolution. From my limited experience, I'd conclude that condition (haze and collimation) plays a role in it's reputation and peoples experiences with it. If you like the pre-asph look that Gabor and Telenous and Kevin mention (from f1.4-f4) and you find a good one, it's a sweet little lens. If you don't need f1.4 often, or don't mind coma at f1.4, you can't beat the size. How big you print might influence whether the resolution is enough for you at f1.4-f2. With the second one I used by f2.8-f4 the difference between it and the asph is pretty much moot.
If you want/need sharp at f1.4, the asph delivers.
Last edited:
Melvin
Flim Forever!
I appreciate Leica for old school, classic film photography. I like glow, flare and even a bit of grain. Hypothetically, if I were to get the best 35/1.4 outfit made today, it would be a Canon EF 35mm f/1.4 on a 5D. Fortunately for my savings account, I'm a film buff.