Damaso
Photojournalist
SO at some point I would love to get a Summilux. Most of what I see on eBay are the older pre-aspherical models, does anyone have any experience with both, is there much of a difference? Sorry if this has already been covered in another thread, thanks in advance for your time and help....
x-ray
Veteran
I shot the pre for years and by todays standards it's very lack luster particularly at 1.4. Soft contrast and soft images wide open and flares like crazy. No experience with the current asph summilux but love my Biogon over my asph summicron.
Ororaro
Well-known
I like the pre-asph a lot. By today's standards, it's probably the only one which will give you that je-ne-sais-quoi many asph lenses lack. Some call it "clinical", I call it "lack of soul".
This is probably why I love the imperfect super angulon f3.4! It's just magical.
Of course, if you're into shooting lanscapes at noon and at f1.4, then it's prbably the wrong lens.
This is probably why I love the imperfect super angulon f3.4! It's just magical.
Of course, if you're into shooting lanscapes at noon and at f1.4, then it's prbably the wrong lens.
Joop van Heijgen
Established
NB23 said:
In fact the third type Summicron 2,0/35 at nr. 2.4...is the best lens.!
The depth of field, the relation between foreground and background is beautiful with this lens. Typical Leica lenses!
The Summilux older type and new fashion are not very sharp!
I agree, that the latest types of the 35 'lack of soul'!
maddoc
... likes film again.
I second this. Having both, 35 Summilux pre-asph. and Super-Angulon f3.4, these lenses have some special character. If you are into the maximum sharp picture ... better go with a Biogon 35mm...NB23 said:
Gabor
JNewell
Leica M Recidivist
I owned a very early Summilux and it frankly wasn't really worth using at wider apertures, for the reasons stated by X-ray above.
Turtle
Veteran
If I want ready made soul, I shoot a Holga 
At 15 quid it is much cheaper and less bother when it gets lost or broken. Originally people bought Leica because they did offer amongst the optically best lenses at the time, as they do now with some of their asphs, which granted are an acquired taste for some. Not being funny here but surely there are far cheaper lenses out there that give the same unsharp flary look ie possess the same optical weaknesses without having to pay Leica prices? I am totally serious, surely there are russian ltr lenses that would give that look? What about buying a used and beaten CV and buffing the front element with denim
For smooth images with resolution and not a touch of harshness, buy a ZM. You can always stretch some stockings over the front!
I'll get my coat.
At 15 quid it is much cheaper and less bother when it gets lost or broken. Originally people bought Leica because they did offer amongst the optically best lenses at the time, as they do now with some of their asphs, which granted are an acquired taste for some. Not being funny here but surely there are far cheaper lenses out there that give the same unsharp flary look ie possess the same optical weaknesses without having to pay Leica prices? I am totally serious, surely there are russian ltr lenses that would give that look? What about buying a used and beaten CV and buffing the front element with denim For smooth images with resolution and not a touch of harshness, buy a ZM. You can always stretch some stockings over the front!
I'll get my coat.
Last edited:
R
rich815
Guest
Turtle, are you saying unless a lens is tack sharp edge to edge you can use most anything, it does not matter? I know your post is part in jest but really to me what results I get from a lens go far past what performance I can get shooting a test chart and whether those lines are really black vs. the background and are sharp right to the corner.
When I want what I consider to be the utmost in sharpness, contrast and color saturation I shoot my Contax G2 kit and 28 Biogon and 45 Planar lenses. But the reason I expanded into Leica mount cameras (I have an MP, CL and Cosina 107 SW with a 15mm Super-wide Heliar perm-affixed) is to go beyond that ultra-sharpness and contrast, especially in desiring more "character" for some of my B&W work. To that end when I researched everything I read and saw it told me that indeed I do NOT want the latest and greatest ASPH lenses, but instead should examine the lenses from the 80's or even 70's on back. After much experimentation and trying many lenses I have settled on a few that have become my favorites as they have a bit more "roundness" to certain edges, yet still maintain an excellence in sharpness and tonality, while often bringing a wonderful tonal gradation and look that is perfect for me. These have been primarily 50mm lenses such as the 50/2 Summicron DR, the 50/1.5 Summarit and 50/1.4 Summilux, late pre-ASPH. (and I recently purchased the 35/1.2 Nokton and find at many apertures it too has same great character that I am looking for.) And lastly the 90/4 Elmar.
Some people are quick to pooh-pooh many of these "older" 1960's designs and they can indeed point out the "flaws" vs. the latest 100% flare-free and better MTF graphs, etc of the newest and latest ASPH lenses. But sometimes too "good" is too clinical, IMHO. I used and sold off a few lenses, since although finding them fine performers, I found them somewhat bland and lacking in the unique character I was after, these included the 50/1.8 Canon LTM, and 40/1.4 S.C Nokton. Fine lenses indeed but not unique or special enough in my PURELY subjective opinion of what I wanted in the end result of my Leica RF work.
It sounds like the 35 Summilux ASPH vs. the pre- may be this kind of comparison and one must decide from what they are after in the end result of the look as to which would better suit them.
To often people equate sharpness or contrast with "better" and that makes little sense to me in subjective photographic pursuits.
When I want what I consider to be the utmost in sharpness, contrast and color saturation I shoot my Contax G2 kit and 28 Biogon and 45 Planar lenses. But the reason I expanded into Leica mount cameras (I have an MP, CL and Cosina 107 SW with a 15mm Super-wide Heliar perm-affixed) is to go beyond that ultra-sharpness and contrast, especially in desiring more "character" for some of my B&W work. To that end when I researched everything I read and saw it told me that indeed I do NOT want the latest and greatest ASPH lenses, but instead should examine the lenses from the 80's or even 70's on back. After much experimentation and trying many lenses I have settled on a few that have become my favorites as they have a bit more "roundness" to certain edges, yet still maintain an excellence in sharpness and tonality, while often bringing a wonderful tonal gradation and look that is perfect for me. These have been primarily 50mm lenses such as the 50/2 Summicron DR, the 50/1.5 Summarit and 50/1.4 Summilux, late pre-ASPH. (and I recently purchased the 35/1.2 Nokton and find at many apertures it too has same great character that I am looking for.) And lastly the 90/4 Elmar.
Some people are quick to pooh-pooh many of these "older" 1960's designs and they can indeed point out the "flaws" vs. the latest 100% flare-free and better MTF graphs, etc of the newest and latest ASPH lenses. But sometimes too "good" is too clinical, IMHO. I used and sold off a few lenses, since although finding them fine performers, I found them somewhat bland and lacking in the unique character I was after, these included the 50/1.8 Canon LTM, and 40/1.4 S.C Nokton. Fine lenses indeed but not unique or special enough in my PURELY subjective opinion of what I wanted in the end result of my Leica RF work.
It sounds like the 35 Summilux ASPH vs. the pre- may be this kind of comparison and one must decide from what they are after in the end result of the look as to which would better suit them.
To often people equate sharpness or contrast with "better" and that makes little sense to me in subjective photographic pursuits.
Last edited by a moderator:
Damaso
Photojournalist
If anyone has any pics lease post them! I like the idea of a slightly softer or less clinical look but I also shoot under tough lighting conditions so flare might be an issue. I suppose I can always pick up a pre-asph and if I don't like it sell it for about what I paid for it...
R
rich815
Guest
Damaso said:
Always worked for me! Sometimes I sell for even more.
steve garza
Well-known
The 35 'lux asph produces gorgeous images in B&W and color. It does flare a bit....usually on the shots I really like!!!
Ororaro
Well-known
This lens talk generally is total Bulls**t.
Here's an example: The Nokton 50 1.5 is sharper wide open then any 50 Lux except maybe the asph. Altough I liked its boke, some people "reported" that it's "bad". Still, the 50 asph we're never renown for their boke. And the Nokton is cheaper.
As unbelievable as it is, even though the Nokton is cheaper and sharper, people choose the 50 Lux over it.
Supposedly, the 50 Lux lovers appreciate its soul more then the Nokton's sharpness wide open.
So, who is wrong now? No, really! Anyone can answer this?
I have tons of other illogical but truthful examples of extremely subjective lens comparisons that are supposed to be "objective".
Me, I know the answer: People just want the latest and most expensive. It's all extremely subjective. That I am 500% sure. This is why I don't really debate over this kind of stuff anymore.
Here's an example: The Nokton 50 1.5 is sharper wide open then any 50 Lux except maybe the asph. Altough I liked its boke, some people "reported" that it's "bad". Still, the 50 asph we're never renown for their boke. And the Nokton is cheaper.
As unbelievable as it is, even though the Nokton is cheaper and sharper, people choose the 50 Lux over it.
Supposedly, the 50 Lux lovers appreciate its soul more then the Nokton's sharpness wide open.
So, who is wrong now? No, really! Anyone can answer this?
I have tons of other illogical but truthful examples of extremely subjective lens comparisons that are supposed to be "objective".
Me, I know the answer: People just want the latest and most expensive. It's all extremely subjective. That I am 500% sure. This is why I don't really debate over this kind of stuff anymore.
Last edited:
R
rich815
Guest
NB23 said:
No one! You appreciate the Nokton for it's wide open sharpness and may find that most important. I appreciate the Summilux for it's character other than that. Although I personally find more than sharp enough anyway. And hand-held at 1/30th or less I'd be willing to bet even the slightest camera shake renders any differences marginal or almost non-existent.
Xmas
Veteran
The old lux is really compact, a problem if you have large hands, optically it will flare, especially with floods pointing at it, as you get in live shows. It is a collectors piece for volume made so expect to pay >>$
If you want an out door lens a J12 f/2.8 is ok, as compact, it can flare as well but is real cheap.
A compromise is a Canon f/2, again pretty compact, good optically, between the other two on price.
If you want big and heavy, the asp or CV can be considered.
Noel
If you want an out door lens a J12 f/2.8 is ok, as compact, it can flare as well but is real cheap.
A compromise is a Canon f/2, again pretty compact, good optically, between the other two on price.
If you want big and heavy, the asp or CV can be considered.
Noel
RichardB
Well-known
When i put together my M3 kit many years ago, I chose to go with the 35mm Summicron RF preciesly because the 35mm Summilux RF was no match in shaprness. I guess I must be the odd man out but I always thought the best lens was the sharpest lens and it was only lately 3 years ago I started hearing about bokeh this and bokeh that. Doesn't impress me one bit and wouldn't impress any editors and supervisor either. Sounds like a marketing gimmick to sell older lenses.
When I purchased an M6, looked around for the latest 35mm and shaprpest. From what I read, the 35mm Summilux Asph was just about the best. My purchase has been justified many times over and I subsequently acquired 90mm and 75mm Asph Leica lenses. Soft images and dreamy out of focus circles hold zero attraction for me. Fast, sharp lenses get the job done.-Dick
When I purchased an M6, looked around for the latest 35mm and shaprpest. From what I read, the 35mm Summilux Asph was just about the best. My purchase has been justified many times over and I subsequently acquired 90mm and 75mm Asph Leica lenses. Soft images and dreamy out of focus circles hold zero attraction for me. Fast, sharp lenses get the job done.-Dick
Last edited:
Ororaro
Well-known
RichardB said:
What's strikes me is you've carefully disregarded fast lenses in your kit, and yet you state that as one of the most important feature?
And no worries, all Leica lenses are plenty sharp.
Just trying to understand the logic here.
R
rich815
Guest
NB23 said:
That, plus some of the most amazing photo work in history are images that were far from considered sharp. And yes, THOSE images impressed "editors and supervisors".
Amazing how HCB, Brassai, Steiglitz, Strand, Doisneau, or any of their ilk ever got good photos without ASPH lenses!
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
I have never had any problem liking my pre asph 35 Lux and what it puts out. Sharp enough for me especially stopped down. I don't do much available dark shooting so performance at 1.4 is not critical and neither is some flare. If I were to replace it today it would be with a VC 40/1.4. The 40/1.4 looks to be as compact as the old lux and may even out perform it being a newer design for a fraction of the cost of either lux models.
Bob
Bob
Damaso
Photojournalist
So much food for thought! I really wish more shops rented Leica gear so I could shoot a few rolls before buying but I am sure whatever I end up with I know that will be happy with. I am not a sharpness Queen, after all I am using tri-x so if I buy a pre-asph I know I will still knock it out, thanks for all the feedback!
