35mm summilux questions!

Thank you Magus. Tom, thanks for posting the link. Some very interesting pictures there. Now I want to go to Tibet...
 
im quite used to meter length min-focus after about a year with my jupiter 3, and that was a 50mm so i don't think that will be much of an issue (doesn't really get in the way of the kind of pictures i take).

anyway, any ideas on price ranges for the lens?
 
Kevin Camera's had several last time i looked around the $1300 US mark however i've seen them go for a little as $900 on EBay and i guess there is mine for sale now with my dealer friend in Bangkok which may be a bit less? You want to find one with the dedicated lens hood otherwise you can't use filters (which sit inside it as they are non threaded) and the hood is very expensive purchased on its own.
 
Threads like this one are what I like most about this board and its membership. Lots of help; interesting, differing opinions offered politely; no attitude.

And, I learned something. 300 grams? 310 grams? The asphericals are pigs! That's what my vintage 50mm chrome Summilux weighs!
 
I find the 1m minimum distance not a big issue, it's not even an issue come to think of it ... just go to joga classes and learn to arch your back back a foot or so to get within range . If you have big fingers .. you might this lens a bit slow to use. The rotating hood can easily be fixed my inserting a small piece of thin tape between the hood and the lens. Got mine (in nice condition) for about $1200 USD about a year ago .. and einolu: thanks :)
 
If you search the forum you'll see examples of how the summilux will act under conditions where light sources are in the frame or just outside the frame. When shooting with the sun behind you it's fine but if you get into conditions where light sources can hit the front element youre going to pay the price, flare. I trashed the files or i would post the images of how flare can kill an image with the v1 summilux. I've had many images destroyed by secondary images and flare with this lens. You may never shoot under these conditions but if you do you'll have the problem lake many of us. The only lens that I've owned that flared more with light sources in the frame was a 15mm 3.5 nikkor. I purchased my lens new in 1968 when there was a waiting list for them so I know it was post 66.

I never recommend this lens due to under performance and over price. I was thinking about purchasing one a year ago but found the cv 35 Nokton and bought one. What a fantastic lens even at 1.2. No regrets here. I ;ater added a 35 Biogon and won a 35 asph summicron in a contest. I wound up delling my v4 summicron becaue I like the Biogon much more. I even like the Biogon over the asph summicron. The Biogon has smoother tones and lower flare but is equally if not sharper then the asph.
 
The 1m min. focus distance was a big issue for me. It limits using the lens for portraits quite a bit. Which is why I picked the 40/1.4 (.7m min). The 35/1.2 was out due to size. OOF behavior between all three lenses seemed competitive to me.

Roland.
 
I had a pre-ASPH 35 lux a few years ago. It was VERY beat up, physically- at some point, somebody had tried to unscrew the front retaining ring, and scratched the hell out of the front of the lens. Luckily the glass was fine, but the lens looked like hell. Anyway, I was always very pleased with the results from it- as much as I have ever been with any 35mm lens. Then for some stupid reason, I sold it. I have an old goggled Summicron, too, which works well especially since I now only shoot with M3's, but I still wish I hadn't sold that 'lux! Especially for $600...sigh...
 
x-ray said:
If you search the forum you'll see examples of how the summilux will act under conditions where light sources are in the frame or just outside the frame. When shooting with the sun behind you it's fine but if you get into conditions where light sources can hit the front element youre going to pay the price, flare. I trashed the files or i would post the images of how flare can kill an image with the v1 summilux. I've had many images destroyed by secondary images and flare with this lens. You may never shoot under these conditions but if you do you'll have the problem lake many of us. The only lens that I've owned that flared more with light sources in the frame was a 15mm 3.5 nikkor. I purchased my lens new in 1968 when there was a waiting list for them so I know it was post 66.

I never recommend this lens due to under performance and over price. I was thinking about purchasing one a year ago but found the cv 35 Nokton and bought one. What a fantastic lens even at 1.2. No regrets here. I later added a 35 Biogon and won a 35 asph summicron in a contest. I wound up delling my v4 summicron becaue I like the Biogon much more. I even like the Biogon over the asph summicron. The Biogon has smoother tones and lower flare but is equally if not sharper then the asph.
Click to expand...

very interesting and good to know, i could see this being an issue... i might settle for f2. i know the cron's are pretty tiny, but i like what i have seen from the biogons, is the lens significantly bigger?
 
Biggles said:
Threads like this one are what I like most about this board and its membership. Lots of help; interesting, differing opinions offered politely; no attitude.

And, I learned something. 300 grams? 310 grams? The asphericals are pigs! That's what my vintage 50mm chrome Summilux weighs!
Click to expand...
The weight data for the ASPH Summilux on that KB Camera page is all wet. Neither the black nor the chrome lens weigh 310 grams. The current chrome Summilux ASPH weighs a whopping 415 grams :eek: and the black version weighs 250 grams.
 
I bought a pre-asph Summilux from Ebay a few weeks ago and have been using it a lot, mostly indoors. Wide open it glows, not unlike a softfocus lens, but still seems to hold information in details (unlike softfocus). A very special effect I rather like. At f2 this is gone and you have an excellent general purpose low light lens.
The 1 meter close focusing would be a little less in a perfect world, but I was used to it with the Voigtlander I used before getting the Lux.
$1200 dollar should indeed get you a decent sample. I got mine for 800 euro's from ebay.de (including a year Leica warrenty because it was just cleaned and adjusted in Solms).
I would buy one and if you don't get along with the lens you can always sell it again without loosing a great deal of money!
Regards, Nick
 
A well used 35 lux was my first Leica lens in 1990 and it's still one of my favorites. I only use my 35 lux asph if I think flare is going to be a problem. The only other problem I have with the old 35 lux is it's so small I have occasionally gotten a bit of vignetting from one of my fingers just barely getting in the way. My fault. It's a wonderful lens. Joe
 
The difference between V1 and V2 of the Summilux 35mm f/1.4 preasph is quite big. V1 uses the rare Ollux (12522H) shade, itself worth $400. V1 will cost you about four times the price of the V2. In fact the V2 is a cheaper reproduction of the lens, using cheaper glass. I have both versions and I can confirm that V1 is a much better lens.

Erik.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom