35mm Summicron Asph vs. 35mm Summilux Asph

[Sailor Ted]

OK I've narrowed my search down to these two lenses as my low light standard lens for the M8. What I'm wondering - does anyone have practical experience regarding the subjective differences between these two lenses? Sharpness, color, OOF, or any thing else that will help me make a final decision will be appreciated.

Thanks in advance,
Ted

 

[Tony C.]

Routing

Routing

Ted,

Please clear some space, as I need to contact you (re: routing).

Tony

 

[StuartR]

All I can say is that the 35/1.4 ASPH is an astonishingly good lens. I have used it in every situation I can think of and I have not had a complaint. Along with the 50/1.4ASPH and 75/2 APO ASPH, you have what are the best normalish focal length lenses available for 35mm photography. There might be some better long lenses (the Leica 100mm APO and 180/2.8, 280/4 come to mind), but for standard focal lengths they are unbeatable. I would say get the summilux for the extra stop and ability to have shallower depth of field, but that is just me. Here are a few sample shots. Forgive me if I have posted some in other threads about the lens:

Granted, not every shot shows off the technical abilities of the lens, and I don't think any were taken on a tripod, but they embody my attitude towards the 35/1.4 ASPH which is "Don't leave home without it!". I have tons of cameras and lenses, and if I had to have only one lens for the rest of my life it would be the 35/1.4 ASPH.

All that said, I am a little disappointed to see it turn into a 50 on the M8, but it will make a great 50...it's too bad Leica doesn't make a 24mm f/1.4...

 

[Nachkebia]

35 lux is on my 2007 list 😀

 

[Flyfisher Tom]

all of David Allan Harvey's work before his recent digital switch were done with the 35 summilux asph.

 

[Fred]

Some cracking examples of the OOF there Stuart.

 

[LKSC]

Here is a casual comparison of the close-up performance of both lenses on the RD-1s, wide open. A friend brought his MP w 35/1.4 ASPH along for coffee and I tried the same shot with both.

 

[Sailor Ted]

35 lux is on my 2007 list 😀

Better add an M8 to that list- then perhaps we can see a little more of your work 😀

 

[Sailor Ted]

Lloyd- thanks for the shots (can't see much difference from the samples though : ) So which lens is which?

 

[LKSC]

Cron first, then Lux.

 

[furcafe]

I've owned both lenses, & IMHO there is very little difference between the 2 lenses on a stop-to-stop basis, whether you're talking technical performance or "fingerprint." I believe even super pixel-peepers like Erwin Puts acknowledge that any differences are pretty minor (e.g., the Summicron is a bit more flare-resistant @ f/2). I 1st owned the Summicron & then replaced it w/the Summilux because I do a lot of low-light photography & don't mind a moderately larger lens (everything seems small compared to the Noctilux & 75/1.4 Summilux). However, I recently acquired a new Summicron (@ a great price thanks to Tony Rose) to use w/my M8 & R-D1.

Here are examples from my Flickr uploads, although there will be many more 'lux examples per my equipment history:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/furcafe/tags/leica3514summiluxmasphc1997/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/furcafe/tags/leica352summicronmasphc2000/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/furcafe/tags/leica352summicronmasphlhsahammertonec2003/

My bottom line: for all practical purposes, the 'lux is just a faster version of the 'cron & I would make my decision based on whether you need the extra speed & have the extra money ('lux) or whether you need a smaller/lighter lens & if you want/need to spend less money ('cron).

OK I've narrowed my search down to these two lenses as my low light standard lens for the M8. What I'm wondering - does anyone have practical experience regarding the subjective differences between these two lenses? Sharpness, color, OOF, or any thing else that will help me make a final decision will be appreciated.

Thanks in advance,
Ted

 

[retrocam]

The 35 'lux asph is a great lens...for size, weight and of course, the quality of the pictures taken with it. You can't go wrong with the 'cron asph either although it's a stop slower; you can just compensate with faster film.

The 35 'lux asph is quite expensive but I found a second hand one for less than half the actual price. 😀

Here's a pic from my gallery where I used the 35 'lux asph: photo link

EDIT: My apologies, I didnt' realize I was in the Digital M8 thread when I replied and mentioned film. Nevertheless, I'd say go for the 'lux asph because the crop factor affects the DOF; the 'lux asph is not rendered as f/1.4 but smaller.

 

[harmsr]

Sailor Ted,

Do a search in the Leica M forum and you will several discussions relative to this.

I had a 35 Cron ASPH that I sold after purchasing the Lux ASPH. IMHO they are two completely different lenses.

I live in AZ which has very contrasty light, that just does not work well with the Cron. The Cron was too contrasty, and blocked up the shadow detail. I also did not like its OOF rendering as well, since it did not transition slowly at all but rather a sharp cut-off.

The Lux is less contrasty, but just as sharp. It provides a little more shadow detail and I much prefer its transition from focused to OOF areas. You also have the extra stop which is very useable.

I think that you will find the contrast and rendering of the Lux much more pleasing on the digital sensor.

Check out some of the posts by Magus on this subject as he is much more eloquent than I am. We had this discussion before here on this forum and the LUF also. Just before selling the Cron, I did a direct set of comparison photos for him between the two lenses.

Do some searching of photos and pick which ever suits your taste the best.

The Cron & Lux are NOT the same lens with only a stop difference. They render completely differently.

Best,

Ray

 

[furcafe]

Interesting. Our experiences are completely different, perhaps because we shoot in different environments (or it's been so long since I had the 'cron 😉 ) . . .

Sailor Ted,

Do a search in the Leica M forum and you will several discussions relative to this.

I had a 35 Cron ASPH that I sold after purchasing the Lux ASPH. IMHO they are two completely different lenses.

I live in AZ which has very contrasty light, that just does not work well with the Cron. The Cron was too contrasty, and blocked up the shadow detail. I also did not like its OOF rendering as well, since it did not transition slowly at all but rather a sharp cut-off.

The Lux is less contrasty, but just as sharp. It provides a little more shadow detail and I much prefer its transition from focused to OOF areas. You also have the extra stop which is very useable.

I think that you will find the contrast and rendering of the Lux much more pleasing on the digital sensor.

Check out some of the posts by Magus on this subject as he is much more eloquent than I am. We had this discussion before here on this forum and the LUF also. Just before selling the Cron, I did a direct set of comparison photos for him between the two lenses.

Do some searching of photos and pick which ever suits your taste the best.

The Cron & Lux are NOT the same lens with only a stop difference. They render completely differently.

Best,

Ray

 

[haagen_dazs]

Here is a casual comparison of the close-up performance of both lenses on the RD-1s, wide open. A friend brought his MP w 35/1.4 ASPH along for coffee and I tried the same shot with both.

curious, where are you located?
that was taken at coffeebean-tea leaf! 🙂 yummy!

 

[haagen_dazs]

Here is a casual comparison of the close-up performance of both lenses on the RD-1s, wide open. A friend brought his MP w 35/1.4 ASPH along for coffee and I tried the same shot with both.

Lloyd
Your pm box is full.
Cant pm
but to answer your question, YEAH YUP

 

[peter_n]

I use the Summilux which I like a lot. Closest focus on that lens is 0.7M which is very useful on a WA lens. Don't know that the closest focus distance on a Summicron is.

 

[edlaurpic]

I have both of them, but I tend to leave the 35/2 on my M8 (as I did before on my R-D1) because it is more compact than the 35/1.4, but I choose the 35/1.4 when I know light will be scarce for whatever I am shooting.

I think I might favor the 35/1.4 if it had a much smaller lens hood. For that reason I ordered, but haven't yet received, a 46mm screw-in WA hood which I intend to try.

Because the 35/2 is my default lens, most of my best shots have been with it.
Here's a favorite which I took in a architect friend's study with the R-d1 two years ago. You can cut yourself on those edges.

 

[Flyfisher Tom]

I think I might favor the 35/1.4 if it had a much smaller lens hood. For that reason I ordered, but haven't yet received, a 46mm screw-in WA hood which I intend to try.

I don't know which brand you ordered, but the 46mm wide-angle metal hood from Heavystar is very good, and much less intrusive than the original rectangular hood.

cheers

 

[Sailor Ted]

Thanks for all the info guys. Contrast is an issue (never lacking in digital photography) and so is lens speed. For these reasons I have decided to go with the Summilux.