35mm summilux pre-asph versions

[v3cron]

so after reading a bazillion threads on the topic here, and pouring over a gajillion images on flickr, i think my second leica lens (to go with my recently acquired 50mm DR and m4-2) will be a pre-asph 'lux 35.

now the question is, how do the different generations of this lens break down? there are all the different summicrons, but i never hear any mention of the summilux evolution except for having pre- or post-1966 coatings. any serial number ranges i should avoid or seek out? were these all made in germany?

also, i'm seeing prices of about $1200 on these. given the price difference of the new asph version and the cron asph, this seems reasonable for used ones since the crons are often selling for as much. am i right?

 

[Michiel Fokkema]

Hi,

As far as I know there are only two versions which share the same optical formula.
The first one was chrome the later ones were black. I think the black also has improved coatings. I've owned the first one and currently own the second one.
It is a very good lens when stopped down. At full aperture is however very dated.
If you are really looking for wide open performance a VC will be a better option at a lower price.
According to Puts it is the same from 2.8 as the summicron 3.
look here http://www.imx.nl/photosite/comments/paypal.html

Cheers,

Michiel Fokkema

 

[v3cron]

Hi,

As far as I know there are only two versions which share the same optical formula.
The first one was chrome the later ones were black. I think the black also has improved coatings. I've owned the first one and currently own the second one.
It is a very good lens when stopped down. At full aperture is however very dated.
If you are really looking for wide open performance a VC will be a better option at a lower price.
According to Puts it is the same from 2.8 as the summicron 3.
look here http://www.imx.nl/photosite/comments/paypal.html

Cheers,

Michiel Fokkema

thanks. i did a bit more reading yesterday (including the compendium you posted) and came to the same conclusion. i still think this is the lens for me, for now. wide-open isn't the priority, but its unique character at those settings may be something i exploit.

 

[v3cron]

My pre-asph 35 Lux looks almost like a soft-focus lens wide open depending on the light. It's not sharp, but if you like the dreamy/glowy look, it provides interesting results.

seems as though you get two lenses in one. sort of.

 

[35mmdelux]

wide open the 35mm pre-asph is somewhat soft/dreamy but it does get the picture AND its very compact. I think these were above most individuals buget historically so one does not see much ado about them.

I wouldn't want to pay more than $1000 w/ the hard -to-come-by lens shade. Some are flare prone.

In hindsight I'd really think hard and fast given that $1000-$1200 can get you a nice Summicron 4th version or 35 Aspherical. For $650 you could get a Summicron 3rd Version. The flare aspect of the 35mm Lux pre-asph really concerned me so I sold mine and bought a 35mm Lux Aspherical. good luck.

 

[v3cron]

wide open it is somewhat soft/dreamy but it does get the picture AND its very compact. I think these were above most individuals buget historically so one does not see much ado about them.

I wouldn't want to pay more than $1000 w/ the hard -to-come-by lens shade. Some are flare prone.

In hindsight I'd really think hard and fast given that $1000-$1200 can get you a nice Summicron 4th version or 35 Aspherical. For $650 you could get a Summicron 3rd Version. The flare aspect of the 35mm Lux pre-asph really concerned me so I sold mine and bought a 35mm Lux Aspherical. good luck.

many proponents of this lens (here on rff) argue that the flare probably varies from lens to lens and user to user, and that this lens is distinctly different from the "look" of the 'crons. this is what i need to test.

good news is, i can resell it for at least as much as i'm paying if it doesn't work out. these things are actually kinda hard to come by.

 

[Kim Coxon]

There will be a boxed black one with hood in the classifieds soon. 😉

Kim

 

[v3cron]

If money were no object (yeah, I know, it always is) I would save a bit extra and buy the ASPH. IMHO the 35 Lux ASPH is one of the most awe-inspiring lenses I have ever used on any system. I dunno really how to describe it. Black magic? That lens ALWAYS manages to surprise me in a good way. It's not compact but it would be the one lens I would keep if I could only keep one (and I own eleven).

actually, i've got the money for a used asph (selling my mamiya 6 system), but i'm not convinced that i like the modern look it seems to have.

 

[35mmdelux]

many proponents of this lens (here on rff) argue that the flare probably varies from lens to lens and user to user, and that this lens is distinctly different from the "look" of the 'crons. this is what i need to test.

I would really have to agree with this thesis. I didn't experience flare on my lens but could not take the risk on paid jobs. Without a doubt it has a different "look" and you'll have to determine for yourself if it works for you. Good luck - P

 

[J. Borger]

One of the last batches were the titanium version ..... they are very good and do not suffer from the flare issues we see sometimes on the forums in relation to the pre-asph lux. I own one ... and use it more than my 35 cron asph .. it's not the sharpest wide open in low light .... but in descent lightconditions it is not soft either but perfectly usable at 1.4 .
Only draw back of the lens is the 1m closest focussing distance.

 

[x-ray]

cbphoto:

I speak from a great deal of experience with the old summilux pre asph. While it was a fine lens in it's day it was the only game in town if speed is what you needed. By todays standards it's only a fair to less than average lens. I would'nt call it soft focus but i would say it's not a crisp lens and seriously suffers from flare under some conditions. I shot the old summilux along with the 60's and 70's summicron 50, 90 Elmarit v1, 21 super angulon and sometimes the 90 summicron old version. Of all these lenses the summilux was the least performer optically. I lost a number of excellent images due to flare caused from light sources either in or near the edge of the frame. If your light source is behind you or totally clear of the frame it can be a good lens. If you don't need the speed and want to stick to a Leitz lens I would suggest the summaron 2.8 35 or the 2nd or 3rd version summicron 35. The v1 and v4 have gone out of sight in price and not worth the money. I previously had a v1 summicron after the summilux v1 and then traded it for a v4 summicron 35. The v1 summicron was no great performer at F2 and I find the v4 subpar to the Zeiss Biogon that I also own. I find I rarely use the v4 and 99% of the time use the Biogon and when speed is needed the CV Nokton 35 1.2. The Nokton is light years ahead of the v1 summilux under these high flare conditions.

I can't understand why some of thse older lenses have taken on cult status like the v1 and v4 summicrons. I think the v1 summilux 35 is about to achieve the same status and for what reason?

My advice is to buy a v2 or 3 summicron if you want a Leica lens or if not buy the Biogon or a CV Ultron.

When I made the decision to buy the Nokton it wasn't based on money. The decision was based on performance. It offers better speed at 1.2 vs 1.4 and the flare seems to be less under higher flare conditions. I've seen numerous images with considerable flare well beyond whar I would expect of of a lens of this status.

 

[v3cron]

thanks, x-ray, for the thoughtful post. this certainly is a confusing topic for a leica newbie who only has experience with one lens (50 dr summicron). on the one hand, i don't want a modern look - i have japanese medium format cameras or can rent asph m-lenses if necessary. on the other, these vintage lenses are expensive and opinions vary wildly.

 

[x-ray]

I also have explored the vintage look. To me the 60's / 70's lenses don't really have the look that I'm looking for. I've been shooting with my IIIC and uncoated 28mm Hektor, 50 elmar and 90 elmar. I shoot on Bergger 200 and process in DK-50 or shoot Fortepan 100 and process in Rodianl. Bergger 200 and if I'm not confusing things Fomapan 200 are remakes of the old Super XX film. DK-50 and Rodinal are the developers of choice in that period and the uncoated lenses give a truly beautiful look. Printed on fiber base Ilford Warmtone gives a stunning image that could pass for being shot in the 40's or 50's.

If you don't want to go that far keep the DR summicron and buy a 35 summaron 2.8 and 90 elmar or elmarit v1. If you could get by with F 2.8 go for the 35 Summaron. I had 3.5cm elmar ltm and then purchased the 3.5 ltm summaron. No question the summaron is a fine lens of that vintage and the elmar 3.5cm really gives the look of the 30's and 40's. The M versions of the summaron 3.5 and 2.8 are very reasonable compared to any of the summicrons and particularly the v1 summilux.

I'll also add that the IIIC and vintage lenses are a great deal of fun to shoot.

 

[v3cron]

that summaron is tempting due to the price. i may try one out one of these days.

i'm going to try the lux, just because i can buy it local with a return policy. i may return it for a 'cron if i don't like my test rolls.

i should be clear that i'm not going for a vintage look necessarily - i just don't like the harsh literal rendition of some modern optics for all subjects. i LOVE what i get from my dr summicron.

if you're so inclined, i'd love to see what you're doing with these different emulsions (and the lenses, of course). i'm primarily a tri-x and rodinal guy, but i just ordered a bottle of the foma r09 to test out. haven't used the film.

 

[x-ray]

Later this week I'll scan a couple of images and post them. I have one in particular of a Eastern European dog circus act shot at night. The bare light bulbs around the circus ring have that beautiful vintage halo of flare around them and the grain and tonality is beautiful. It esily looks 50 years old.

I've given this look a great deal of thought and tried to reproduce the look from my childhood. My first images that I shot were at the age of 5 with my mothers Ansco box camera with Verichrome ortho (not pan). I agree that sometimes the modern lenses are just too good. I also have feturned to shooting with a 1933 worlds fair art deco box camera with pan film but will probably add a heavy blue filter to approach the non red sensitivity of orth. I've also shot with my 4x4 rollei from 1933 with all it's lens fog and light leaks. Beautiful images.

 

[x-ray]

I should make a comment about the current Tri-X. I shot Tri-X for many years and probably shot over 10,000 rolls. I processed in a modified Rodianl 1:100 with 10% sodium si=ulfite for 13 min at 68F. Some years ago I drifted to slower films because of shooting in a studio with 50,000 wat seconds of strobes. I no longer needed 400 asa so I wound up with Agfa 25 and 100 as my standards. After shooting thousands of rolls of 120 in those emulsions I was luck enough to become a trade trial tester for both Kodak and Ilford. I shot and tested films before they were introduced to the market if they even were. I tested the hand coated emulsions of T-max 100 and 400 and wrote reports and tested some more. I really dislike thaose films with a purple passion. Later i extensively tested the Ilford Delta 400 and then later 100. I guess I shot 200-300 rolls of each and wrote more reports for Ilford. I totally fell in love with those films and primarily use them even to this day. In addition I shoot Adox KB 25 and Ilford HP-5 pushed.

Just a little background before I comment on todays Tri-X. Tri-X drastically changed about 6 years ago. Other than the name there is nothing about the new film that reminds me of the original. It no longer processes well in my old modified Rodianl and I absolutely can not get more than ISO 250 out of it. I can not understand why Kodak would trash the most popular film in photographic history except tey have a death wish. If you're looking for a true vintage film with all it's grain go for something like Fortepan 100 or 200. I is stunning in Rodinal but does have grain. If you want a more traditional film on the order of a 60's or 70's emulsion then go for HP-5. Many folks still shoot Tri-X and love it but it's not the same in any way other than name.

 

[v3cron]

interesting. i guess i've only ever used the new stuff, but i get tons of speed out of it - i often use it at 3200 and semi-stand develop in rodinal 1:100 for about an hour, agitating twice. very nice negs. i've heard about lack of speed in the txp 320 version, but not the tx400. anyway, i still love the blacks and weird highlights i get from it:

ricoh gr-1