35mm Summilux ASPH

[Sputty]

I'm wondering about the difference between the 35mm 'lux pre-ASPH and post. What difference does the aspherical element make in terms of image rendition. I gather that some people prefer the pre-ASPH version - why is this? Looking to buy a 35mm 'lux soon, and curious as to which versions are known for what qualities.

Thanks for any help.

Best,
Jonathon

 

[Huck Finn]

The consensus seems to be that the ASPH is sharper & that the pre has better bokeh. Although preferences vary, the ASPH seems to be generally regarded as the better all-around lens

 

[Flyfisher Tom]

The asph is definitely sharper. Even at 1.4 it is equal to 2.0 on the asph-cron (which is a great lens in and of itself).

Size wise, the pre-asph is small, the asph is larger ( a bit longer than the 50cron). But still very ergonomically well thought out.

Bokeh is subjective, but I happen to think the asph lux has some incredible bokeh 🙂 See Stuart Richardson's gallery for some fine asph/lux examples.

 

[telenous]

I have some (limited) experience with the preasph Lux 35. I liked very much the way it handled and the compact size. I never had any issues with the kind of flare that seemingly bedevils some of the specimens. Wide open it was less contrasty but perfectly usable. Stopped down (from f4 say) it seemed to me similar with the preasph. Cron 35 which I also had at the time. I sold both to save myself from testing them all the time and got an asph. in their place.

The asph. has been an absolute delight. Sharp, contrasty, with spectacular 'sparkle' and a 'liquid' bokeh which I tend to associate with all the asphericals. Compared to the previous version, it is 'hotter' in the sense that it pushes highlights towards white but in a much more milder way than other Asphericals I have tried. Bear also in mind that it is larger than the preasph., so it handles differently, and it extends into the frame, significantly so if you also use the hood.

BTW I forgot to add that the preasph. Summilux 35 had what seemed to me pretty high vignetting when wide open. Not so, with the asph.

 

[Michiel Fokkema]

Hi,

I have the pre asph and hardly ever use it at full opening.
Stopped down a bit it is very nice and certainly has nice bokeh. If you really want a fast lens that is usuable at full opening go for the apsh.
Did you consider the CV35/1.2 or the 40/1.4?

Cheers,

Michiel Fokkema

 

[dreamsandart]

I used the pre-ASPH Summilux as my standard lens for a couple decades till the ASPH Lux came around and I felt I could stop thinking 'compromise' opened up or near there.

But all that time with the compact Lux got me spoiled and what I should have done is kept it AND the ASPH - which is the way it is now.

The ASPH is just fantastic, great at any aperture, and my comparison shoots with the ASPH Summicron show contrary to popular opinion the ASPH Lux better at back-light flare control. I also like how it rendered B&W better than the ASPH Summicron with more shadow detail. Close-up performance is good to.

But the pre-ASPH strong points; compact-compact-compact, beautiful smooth transition of focus, 'classic' Leica good tonality with B&W, and opened up an image that no other lens has and stopped down a very well corrected lens, my 'art' lens I call it. It can be flare prone with bright light on the front element, but on overcast days and in less challenging light can be just beautiful.

 

[J. Borger]

But the pre-ASPH strong points; compact-compact-compact, beautiful smooth transition of focus, 'classic' Leica good tonality with B&W, and opened up an image that no other lens has and stopped down a very well corrected lens, my 'art' lens I call it. It can be flare prone with bright light on the front element, but on overcast days and in less challenging light can be just beautiful.

Well said ... THE reasons it is one of my my favourite lenses and i use this lens far more than my 35 cron asph.

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request

 

[x-ray]

Magus and others rave about the pre asph but I shot one for many years as a documentary and PJ shooter. While a good lens in the 60's and 70's it's just not up to the task by todays standards. It suffers terribly from excessive flare. See my examples which are not unusual for this lens. Double imafes and flare were common. The CV nokton is a far superior lens to the pre and gives the asph a real run for the money. I previously owned the 50 1.2 noctilux and now shoot the nokton 1.2 for speed. The Nokton 35 CV is even superior to the 1.2 Noctilux 50.

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request

 

[Sputty]

Thanks for all of the advice. Sounds like the ASPH is the one to get.

Best,
Jonathon

 

[sleepyhead]

Hi Sputty, depending on your style of shooting, don't underestimate the "compact-ness" factor. I have thought on several occasions over the past year of selling my pre-ASPH summilux for the ASPH version, but I like a camera that can fit in a large coat pocket. The pre-ASPH can, and the ASPH cannot. For me, it makes all the difference. You've gotta have the lens with you in order to use it...

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request

 

[telenous]

The Lux 35 Asph. looks and feels like a 50mm lens. At infinity (i.e. at its shortest) it protrudes mildly into the 35 framelines without however being a compositional compromise. The hood, when in use, does block quite a bit of the viewfinder (almost the entire lower quarter). Thankfully you don't have to use it very often as the lens suppresses flare adequately.

Yes, the size of the Lux 35 is inconvenient when compared to the preasph. But it''s like that: its size inconveniences me but it has never stopped me taking the camera out.

 

[dreamsandart]

Not sure if x-ray agrees with "his lens was probably a pre-1966 example ", but there do seem to be sample varition with the Summilux, even in the later lenses with the coating changes

As for the ASPH Summilux "That, by the way, is not actually shadow detail but a slightly higher propensity for veiling glare than the ASPH 'cron." that just isn't so, the blacks with the ASPH Summilux are still there along with the shadow detail, and some lenses are know to just give better shadow detail. In my sid-by-side shoots with the 2 ASPH 35s the Summicron had deep blacks and that's about it, and the ASPH Summilux was even better with diffecult back-light where the ASPH Summicron DID wash out with vailed flare in the imediate area, althought the ASPH Summicron did control the vailed flare well over the rest of the frame. It surprised even me.

The ASPH Summilux is an expensive lens, but still maybe the best all-around 35 Leica has ever made.

 

[Simon Larbalestier]

I use the 35 lux pre ASPH and have found it to flare very little, using it on a current project involved a lot of backlight shots where it was unavoidable not to shoot into the window light. Taking off the UV filter did make a difference.

 

[Harry Lime]

The ASPH Summilux is an expensive lens, but still maybe the best all-around 35 Leica has ever made.

I second that opinion. The 35 Lux ASPH is easily among the best lenses Leica has ever made.

Here are some shots I took with mine (M7/Tri-X/DDX):


http://www.elanphotos.com/ElanFotos/New_Orleans_2006/Pages/slides/slide_290.htm

http://www.elanphotos.com/ElanFotos/New_Orleans_2006/Pages/slides/slide_380.htm

http://www.elanphotos.com/ElanFotos/New_Orleans_2006/Pages/slides/slide_390.htm