35mm - Summicron f2 or Summilux f1.4?

[woffle]

Sorry if this is covering old ground but I could do with some (more) advice. Following deep thought, and an even deeper dig into the wallet, I've just purchased a chrome .72 M7 (incidentally - thanks for previous advice all who contributed on this forum when I asked about the various M models - I decided to wait and hunt around for a decent deal on a used M7 over going immediately for an M6 classic of which there seem to be far more bargains about - transferrable passport cover helped swing it in the end).

I now need to find myself a lens. I'm returning to film from digital and have always favoured wide angle lenses - I had a 28mm prime and 17-40mm as favourites on my now-sold Canon 20D so I figure a 35mm is probably my best bet as a 'starter', rather than a 50mm.

So - the question is: what is the general consensus is on 35mm Summicron vs. Summilux? I know for the 50mm the judgement seems to be that for sharpness the 'cron has it but the 'lux is obviously faster with all the benefits this brings to low-light photography. Does this hold true of the 35mm also? There is also a (slight) price difference - it looks like I've probably got between £400-700 to spend on a 2nd hand lens and I'd prefer not to spend out...

All advice appreciated.


Joe

 

[Nachkebia]

If I had money I would go with 28mm Summicron and 35mm Summilux 🙂

 

[telenous]

For £400-£700 you are probably looking between a Summicron preasph. and Summilux preasph. E.Puts says that when stopped down to f2.8 the performance of the Summilux preasph. is very similar to that of the Summicron version of its day (I have tried both and I think he is right). The question then is how much do you expect to shoot in low light? If you find yourself shooting a lot indoors then the Summilux may be the lens you need. If not, you could opt for the Summicron and save yourself the price difference.

In a nutshell, I would go for the Summilux.

 

[jaapv]

Is 1.4 really much of an issue for you? Remember that the Leica M camera's are handholdable for quite slow shutterspeeds, many users manage 1/15th or even 1/8th or slower with the 35. The Summicron has an edge in contrast and resolution, but having said that, the Summilux is excellent in its own right and the advantage the Summicron has in quality might be easily be negated by the higher shutterspeed-camera stability. Sorry for the non-answer, but there it is.....

 

[Flyfisher Tom]

what is the general consensus is on 35mm Summicron vs. Summilux? I know for the 50mm the judgement seems to be that for sharpness the 'cron has it but the 'lux is obviously faster with all the benefits this brings to low-light photography. Does this hold true of the 35mm also?
Joe

Joe,

I assume you are referring to the asph versions.

The 35/lux/asph is arguably one of the best lenses in the Leica lineup. I've found that it matches the 35cron-asph at every aperture in terms of sharpness. In addition, at 1.4, the plane of focus subject is as sharp as at 2.0 (both on the lux and cron). It does have a different fingerprint/look than the cron-asph. Ever so slightly lower contrast relative to the cron (but it is so marginal you can only see it if you stare a long time).

35/lux/asph
pros:

1) sharp across all ranges
2) 1.4
3) smooth bokeh (I'd say equal to the cron/asph)

cons:

1) size (it is much larger relative to the cron-asph) 46mm filter
2) more expensive

35/cron/asph
pros:

1) also sharp across all ranges
2) slightly higher contrast (with a similar look to the 50/cron (IV and V) )
3) smooth bokeh (even more DOF than the 4th pre-asph cron)
4) compact size (about almost half the length of the lux) 39mm filter
5) less expensive

cons:
1) lacks 1.4

It all comes down to how often you need 1.4. For all intents and purposes, both lenses are equal in terms of sharpness, with slightly higher contrast in the cron. If you can live with the 2.0, the cron is more compact by far.

The good news is you can't go wrong with either lenses.

good luck

 

[Photar]

it looks like I've probably got between £400-700 to spend on a 2nd hand lens and I'd prefer not to spend out...

The ASPH Summicron 35mm just fits in your budget, the ASPH Summilux certainly not. This would determine the right lens for me.

 

[rover]

I have a Summicron which I like very much, and spent Saturday with a Lux. I scanned some of the shots this morning and will post them tonight, the Summilux is a wonderful lens as is the Summicron. Two points, I don't mind a larger lens, I think the Summilux handles much better than the Summicron, the Cron is too stubby. And, I love the images from my Summicron. Even though the Lux images are great, I couldn't justify spending new money on the Lux.

I guess I will add one more point, 1.4 is 1.4.

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request

 

[J. Borger]

I use a 35 lux pre-asph and a cron asph and could not part with either one.
Very different lenses .. different signature .... for different purposes.
Do you like old style (street)photography ... go with the pre-asph lux
Do you like as sharp as possible with zero distortions .,,, go for the cron asph.

Wide open there is no discussion .. the cron is sharp .. the lux pre-asph is 'soft' ... but in an "artsy: way!

The samples below hopefully illustrate the difference in fingerprint stopped down (although the subject might ad to the feeling)

1 = 35 lux pre-asph
2 = 35 cron asph

For additional samples check my gallery here at RFF if you like

 

[steve garza]

I use a silver 'lux asph ( it is a little heavy) and I love it. I'm sure any difference in contrast in comparison to the 'cron is does not make enough difference for consideration. I love shooting low light and lens is terrific for everyday use as well. The only other 35 that interests me is the Suammaron.

 

[Photar]

I use a silver 'lux asph ( it is a little heavy) and I love it.

Me too. I think it balances perfectly with the camera.

I love shooting low light and lens is terrific for everyday use as well.

This lens was the reason for me to get into the M system and it has never disappointed me. I recently spent a week in Venice and limited myself to just this lens. I never missed another lens. Shooting 100 ASA film I used the 1.4 aperture a lot: be it to take pictures of Venice's great paintings (like Titian's Assumption of the Virgin in Santa Maria Gloriosa dei Frari) or to catch the musicians outside the cafes on St. Mark's Square in the late evening. For me this lens - like no other - represents all what M photography is about.

 

[jtm]

If you think it will take you a while to come to the right decision, you could get a CV 35mm Ultron (f/1.7) to use until you know if you want a Lux or a Cron. For sure, it would help you keep your budget.

 

[Nachkebia]

J. Borger : lovely samples :angel:

 

[woffle]

thanks for all the advice folks. As previously the help is greatly appreciated.

I'm not a complete newbie - started with my Dad's japanese SLR when at school, then joined the herd going with digital and, when I could afford it, medium format. Rangefinders and the somewhat bewildering array of Leica glass is a whole new area to explore - with Canon digital lenses it's relatively simple - bog standard zooms + primes, then USM and top of the pile are the L's. Hasselblad lenses are relatively simple to get your head around. But there have been endless permutations of lens since the first M, the majority of which are compatible with the latest Leica bodies.

Takes a little getting your head around.

I'm a photographer rather than a collector so obscure rarity matters a whole lot less that performance - I need the help to ensure I get something approaching the best for my money rather than paying for historical value! Looking at used stock lists leaves me scratching my head at times!

Anyhow:

I'm currently looking at a 'cron ASPH - if I can get it within my budget then I think that's what I'm going to go for. Seems to be the balance of opinion as best bang-for-buck.

Thanks again - looking forward to pairing lens with body and then getting out and taking some photos! Just got to be a good boy and wait for my birthday as the kit'll be a present from my wife when I've got it all togther - it's going to be difficult ;-)


Joe

 

[MCTuomey]

i think j borger nailed it:

soul vs matter

real vs rational

pre-asph 'lux vs asph 'cron

 

[stric]

I use 35mm Summilux 1.4 ASPH and sometimes I wish it were a smaller and lighter lens... it is a big and heavy lens... but hten again nobody is perfect. Get the 4th generation pre-ASPH Summicron.

 

[Fred]

I've not used the Lux but my regular lens on my M is the ASPH Cron, very small, light and works for me. I've not done much low light work recently though so F2 is OK. Bottom line for me would be the following:

Max aperture of 1.4, do I need it
Extra weght
Intrusion into the viewfinder.

I can't afford both the Lux and Cron, but I do have the wonderful CV 35 Ultron for that extra light that I could borrow from my Bessa R kit.

 

[Flyfisher Tom]

As Fred said above, the 35/cron-asph is a great lens.

This might be interesting to you:

http://www.jimarnold.org/galleries/leica_35_test/

Surprisingly, the asph has greater DOF relative to the 4th cron. Personally, I prefer the asph, others will differ 🙂

cheers

 

[xabi]

I have never used the 35 cron ASPH. In my opinion the 35mm lux actually has really nice bokeh. Here is an example shoting wide open at 1.4. The kid in the picture wasn't in focus because of the viewfinder flare problem of my M6.

 

[edodo]

very nice shot xabi!
Woffle I vote for neither the cron or the lux because it depends on a simple equation: If size is an important factor then go for the cron, if money is no object then go for both. I would go for the cron in black with a black body, but I know yours is a nice timeless chrome M7