35mm Summicron ASPH: The ugly lens?

[ZebGoesZeiss]

First of all, I have owned the Summicron ASPH. And I have taken some great photos with it, and it is better at photography than I am. However, I spent last night at the Leica M-mount flickr group (http://www.flickr.com/groups/m-mount/), and found it to be great fun looking around, seeing if I were able to cure some GAS. Had a look at some of the Zeiss lenses (which I love), the new Nokton 50mm f/1.1 and the Nokton 35mm f/1.2 (beautiful!). Then the 35mm Summicron ASPH, which I have owned previously. Recognized some of the tonality, not to mention sharpness that you could cut yourself on. Poured a glass Ardbeg and congratulated myself on:
a) Buying the 35mm Nokton, and
b)contemplated on the possibility of getting a new Summicron ASPH down the road.

Then I checked the gallery for the 35mm Summicron pre-ASPH. Wow. Two hours later I had been through all the ASPH and pre-ASPH images. And there was no contest, the pre-ASPH was by far the lens I preferred. Well, not preferred really, as much as "loved". And the ASPH? I wouldn't touch it with a stick. Where the pre-ASPH demonstrated capabilities as a b&w and color lens, the ASPH seemed to turn b&w into "1bit images": Black and White. No tonality.

I have never owned the pre-ASPH. I have looked at the prices for it going up, reaching Summicron ASPH level. And I didn't get it.

This is all subjective, I know. Like I said, I have owned the ASPH myself, and liked the images it gave me. But looking at them now, it's like I suddenly have grasped the concept of "contrast". And it is ugly. The images are sharp, sharp, sharp. But tonality? I just don't see it. Only Black and White.

I know there are a lot of factors in my comparison: Photographer, digital/film, film type, developer, post processing, light. But I have never seen anything so consistent.

Sorry if this sounds like trolling, it isn't my intention. I guess I've gotten my "Leica ASPH" bubble blown away, once and for all. I can't see myself going down that road again. Now, all I have to do is to find the money needed to get that pre-ASPH. 🙂

So, what say ye? Those of you that has owned both. Which did you keep, and why?

 

[nobbylon]

Sum asph is IMO the best 35 made. Atleast they don't fall apart like the previous version seemed to. So called king of bokeh is IMO just one of those overpriced, over hyped lenses .

 

[peter_n]

I've kept both because they're so different. I use a pre-ASPH v.1 for when I want a vintage look, and the ASPH for when I want sharp. Both terrific lenses in their own way. If you're inclined to the pre-ASPH, take a look at the 8-element v.1. Not as trendy as the v.4 but a lens with beautiful rendition. And built like a brick.

 

[Tom Diaz]

First of all, I have owned the Summicron ASPH. And I have taken some great photos with it, and it is better at photography than I am. However, I spent last night at the Leica M-mount flickr group (http://www.flickr.com/groups/m-mount/), and found it to be great fun looking around, seeing if I were able to cure some GAS. Had a look at some of the Zeiss lenses (which I love), the new Nokton 50mm f/1.1 and the Nokton 35mm f/1.2 (beautiful!). Then the 35mm Summicron ASPH, which I have owned previously. Recognized some of the tonality, not to mention sharpness that you could cut yourself on. Poured a glass Ardbeg and congratulated myself on:
a) Buying the 35mm Nokton, and
b)contemplated on the possibility of getting a new Summicron ASPH down the road.

Then I checked the gallery for the 35mm Summicron pre-ASPH. Wow. Two hours later I had been through all the ASPH and pre-ASPH images. And there was no contest, the pre-ASPH was by far the lens I preferred. Well, not preferred really, as much as "loved". And the ASPH? I wouldn't touch it with a stick. Where the pre-ASPH demonstrated capabilities as a b&w and color lens, the ASPH seemed to turn b&w into "1bit images": Black and White. No tonality.

I have never owned the pre-ASPH. I have looked at the prices for it going up, reaching Summicron ASPH level. And I didn't get it.

This is all subjective, I know. Like I said, I have owned the ASPH myself, and liked the images it gave me. But looking at them now, it's like I suddenly have grasped the concept of "contrast". And it is ugly. The images are sharp, sharp, sharp. But tonality? I just don't see it. Only Black and White.

I know there are a lot of factors in my comparison: Photographer, digital/film, film type, developer, post processing, light. But I have never seen anything so consistent.

Sorry if this sounds like trolling, it isn't my intention. I guess I've gotten my "Leica ASPH" bubble blown away, once and for all. I can't see myself going down that road again. Now, all I have to do is to find the money needed to get that pre-ASPH. 🙂

So, what say ye? Those of you that has owned both. Which did you keep, and why?

I have not owned both. However, I have the 35mm ASPH, which I love for its unbelieveable sharpness. I also have a Hexar AF; I am not putting much stock in the claim that its lens design is derived from the 4th-generation (pre-ASPH) Summicron. However, evidently that story got started because its images resembled those from the older lens. So that's just one more reason to own a Hexar AF.

 

[Tim Gray]

I've not owned either Summicron. However, from looking at the images, I do feel like the pre-ASPH summicron is a bit overhyped. Also remember, a lot of contrast in posted (and printed) images is down to the processing/printing, and not due to the lens.

 

[Mackinaw]

I would never buy a lens based on images I see on Flickr or any other image hosting site. Just too may variables involved (type of film, scanner, software, viewing screen, etc.) to make an informed decision.

Jim B.

 

[35mmdelux]

Ive owned the mentioned lenses. The 4th gen didnt produce the snap in color work I sought. Didnt work enough with Cron ASPH to form an opinion. I prefer the 35 Summilux ASPH -- I find color has more snap; sharp, and exc bokeh.

For B&W you may want to check 1st gen 8-element Cron. It renders much better B&W tonality.

EDIT: these are my subjective opinions. YMMV.

 

[J J Kapsberger]

And the ASPH? I wouldn't touch it with a stick. Where the pre-ASPH demonstrated capabilities as a b&w and color lens, the ASPH seemed to turn b&w into "1bit images": Black and White. No tonality.

...it's like I suddenly have grasped the concept of "contrast". And it is ugly. The images are sharp, sharp, sharp. But tonality? I just don't see it. Only Black and White.

So, what say ye?

I say that because you clearly suffer from blindness you should sell your photographic equipment while it's still worth something.

 

[b.espahbod]

Sum asph is IMO the best 35 made. Atleast they don't fall apart like the previous version seemed to. So called king of bokeh is IMO just one of those overpriced, over hyped lenses .

True, I have the King of Bokeh solms chrome edition which i was told about its unique character but i think 35lux, 35lux asph and 35cron asph are far better lenses. the real bokeh king is 35lux pre-asph imo.

 

[ChrisN]

I haven't compared, but I'm perfectly happy with the ASPH version for my taste. Is this "too sharp"?

 

[35mmdelux]

the real bokeh king is 35lux pre-asph imo.

Isn't this the truth!

 

[CK Dexter Haven]

I couldn't disagree more. It's the best all-around 35mm rangefinder lens i've ever used. No problems with tonality. I love the contrast and bokeh. In fact, after starting with it, selling it and trying the 35 Summilux-ASPH and 35/1.2 Nokton, as well as various SLR 35s, i bought another 35 Cron-ASPH. My favorite 35mm pictures were shot with it.

 

[sleepyhead]

Even though some say that you can't judge a lens from online photos, it sure would be nice to see some of your best examples, ye Summicron ASPH devotees.

 

[x-ray]

Ugly, not at all. I have the asph and sold my v4 shortly after getting the asph. Also owned the pre asph summilux, v1 summicron and currently have the summicron asph, Nokton 1.2 and Zeiss Biogon. No question the asph is a sharper lens than the v1, v4 and pre asph summilux. My personal opinion is you have to work to get what you want out of any lens. I shoot virtually no color in my 35mm's and by no stretch of the imagination are the asph summicron images excessively contrasty compared to other lenses. It's what I call edgy with sharply defined edges but not a lens that renders without a lovely pallet of tones between black and white. The spread of tones is more a function of film, developer, development technique and printing or scanning and editing. I can take any of my other lenses and make them look contrasty but that's not my style. IMO the ZM Biogon is the lens with fantastic sharpness without being harsh or edgy and with a beautiful tonal range not to mention superior contrast / flare control. I've yet to own a Leica 35 with the superior flare resistance of the Biogon.

It's a personal thing and really depends on your wants and skill to make it happen.

 

[thomasw_]

I have owned and used both the v4 and the asph; the asph is the best 35/2 lens made. Love the contrast, the tonal range, the bokeh, even the sharpness 🙂 Excellent all round lens, being nice and compact. But to each his own.

Here's one from earlier this week:>

 

[x-ray]

Even though some say that you can't judge a lens from online photos, it sure would be nice to see some of your best examples, ye Summicron ASPH devotees.

I can guarantee that I can put a dozen 11x14 silver gelatin prints in front of you shot with the v1, v4, sumilux pre asph, Nokton, Biogon, Distagon, asph summicron and throw in a canon and vintage slr and RF nikon 35 as well as new Nikon glass and you will not be able to identify what was shot with what. Given the variety of subjects I don't believe you could identify even brands or vintage other than the subject giving away the vintage. I'm completing a collection of my work for a museum with images shot with all formats from 35mm to 8x10. the 35mm was mainly shot with M's and Leica glass but spanned a period of forty plus years. I used a wide variety of cameras and lenses over that period. I never made notes as to shooting data but I even have trouble defining what lenses / makes of lenses were used for what shots. The only way I can determine with any certainty is to look at the date I shot them and recreate what lenses or cameras I had at the time. The differences IMO even between brands is way over stated.

 

[Turtle]

Ugly, not at all. I have the asph and sold my v4 shortly after getting the asph. Also owned the pre asph summilux, v1 summicron and currently have the summicron asph, Nokton 1.2 and Zeiss Biogon. No question the asph is a sharper lens than the v1, v4 and pre asph summilux. My personal opinion is you have to work to get what you want out of any lens. I shoot virtually no color in my 35mm's and by no stretch of the imagination are the asph summicron images excessively contrasty compared to other lenses. It's what I call edgy with sharply defined edges but not a lens that renders without a lovely pallet of tones between black and white. The spread of tones is more a function of film, developer, development technique and printing or scanning and editing. I can take any of my other lenses and make them look contrasty but that's not my style. IMO the ZM Biogon is the lens with fantastic sharpness without being harsh or edgy and with a beautiful tonal range not to mention superior contrast / flare control. I've yet to own a Leica 35 with the superior flare resistance of the Biogon.

It's a personal thing and really depends on your wants and skill to make it happen.

MOST of the problems associated with asphs/ZMs that leave people cursing the contrast is due to the number of people owning super expensive kit but getting their film developed and printed/scanned by a lab. Go and shoot a ZM or asph and get the film developed by a lab using more average times and no human oversight and the higher contrast of these lenses will be a problem.

I do not use a 35 asph, but would bet my cotton socks that with correct exposure, development and printing the tonality would be there, but those who say it is not are often set up for their pre-asph 50, their V1 35 cron and 75 summilux. If I develop for my ZMs and then develop some canon consumer lens negs in the same tank, the canon negs are flat and lifeless. If I were to develop for the canon negs the ZMs would be be hot as hell.

PS if you want a 35 with more modest contrast but with a warranty and recent build, the 35 summarit might be worth a look.

 

[Tim Gray]

xray, I love your posts and how you cut through the crap. 😀

 

[x-ray]

MOST of the problems associated with asphs/ZMs that leave people cursing the contrast is due to the number of people owning super expensive kit but getting their film developed and printed/scanned by a lab. Go and shoot a ZM or asph and get the film developed by a lab using more average times and no human oversight and the higher contrast of these lenses will be a problem.

I do not use a 35 asph, but would bet my cotton socks that with correct exposure, development and printing the tonality would be there, but those who say it is not are often set up for their pre-asph 50, their V1 35 cron and 75 summilux. If I develop for my ZMs and then develop some canon consumer lens negs in the same tank, the canon negs are flat and lifeless. If I were to develop for the canon negs the ZMs would be be hot as hell.

PS if you want a 35 with more modest contrast but with a warranty and recent build, the 35 summarit might be worth a look.

You brought up a good point here. I agree many of the RFF's are shooting c41 B&W film and taking it to Costco, Walmart or some other amateur lab with little to no QC and people who couldn't care less and have no knowledge or drive to keep a process in control. Scanning is another issue too vs silver gelatin printing. To my knowledge none of the current traditional process B&W films were designed for direct scanning but rather to wet print in a darkroom. How many people or labs scanning negs do anything other than use the canned generic profiles if any profile at all? How many people really know anything about scanning negs other than feeding them in and saving the image. Every film has a different profile / scanner curve / profile set and every scanner is different. Scanning is different on a drum vs a low end flatbed (under $8,000) vs a high end dedicated scanner like the Imacon (over $10,000). You're not going to get the same results from a $800 scanner vs a $$30,000 scanner and just sticking negs in and expecting results to pop out is no more realistic than than expecting your camera to make you a great photographer. It up to the person running the equipment to make it deliver the goods.

I don't know the percentages are but I would guess a large percentage here are doing the Walmart type lab process / scan deal. I would also venture to say the ones running film themselves scan direct on inexpensive scanners with canned generic profiles and the remaining number who run their own film and wet print really only go through the motions without a real understanding of the process. How many of you who wet print ever pull your print from the developer early if it looks like it's coming up too fast and getting too dark? Do you try to force a print if it's too light? Are you tempted to use old developer, outdated film or paper. Is your safe light really safe? Do you know how to test your safelight and paper? Do you settle on one film developer combo or do you skip around and never settle on anything? How many of you can really get everything out of a neg that's in the neg? Dodge, burn, bleach, tone, ever do that? It takes more than putting your film in a can of chemical and shaking it around to be a good lab man and more than sticking a piece of paper under an enlarger to be a good printer. How many here that run their own film ever tweak the process or know the relationship between development, exposure, contrast and density?

I've run my film since I was 9 years old and printed it as well. That makes almost 52 years as a printer. It's more than time doing it, it's understanding what I'm doing and developing a refined technique. When you think about this what's the point in owning great equipment if you let Walmart or the drug store run/ ruin your film and you don't understand how this effects the final result.

 

[sleepyhead]

Hmm, cheery, thanks.