35mm summilux questions!

E

einolu

Well-known
Local time
9:03 AM
Joined
Feb 27, 2005
Messages
776
View My Gallery
so come the summer i am planning on buying an m6 (if i can find a decent one in chrome around here or on ebay) and a 35mm summilux after that. i was wondering how many different variation there are and which one would be the least expensive. i am not as concerned with image quality as i am with the speed and size of the lens. the recent summiluxes look huge compared to some of the vintage ones. i am just not sure which one i should be looking for, maybe one of you leica experts can help!
 
Hi Einars,

Puts reports only one design for the preasph. Summilux 35. It was introduced in 1961 and phased out nearly thirty-five years later. While most say there was only one optical formula, the Cameraquest site refers van Hasbroeck, who claims that "it was recomputed in 1966 from # 2166702 onwards with noticeably improved performance".

I have used a very early Summilux 35 (first year of production). At f1.4 it was fairly low contrast and vignetting on the high side, still perfectly usable in my opinion. It's supposed to be flary, still I didn't have any issues with it for night time, high contrast situations, for the little time (about two months) I had the lens. From f2.8 down it seemed to me very similar to the Summicron 35 IV.

Best,
 
I think your choice is the pre-ASPH Summilux or the current ASPH version. I've not used the pre-ASPH but have read many comments similar to Alkis' on it's characteristics. I use the current lens and it is very good indeed but not that big. Mike Bard has has left Newtonville Camera and bought into a partnership at EP Levine. He's a great guy, you might want to give him a call and ask him to keep an eye out for you. The least expensive will be the pre-ASPH.
 
thanks guys! i thought there were more versions (like the summicron) but i guess not. the m6 will come first, then i will have to give my bank account some time to recover, and then i will start looking around for the lux.
 
any other options for a 1.4f'ish 35mm lenses? the 1.2 voigtlander is kind of bulky... are there any other vintage options?
 
Magus

Mine is 25xxxxx it can do nice high key shots, I sometimes use my J12 instead, it is a little cheaper, and ok smaller then f4 if you are not on a tripod. It is a good J12, so I some times clean it instead of trashing it, cause it is dirty. Yes the j12 will misbehave sometimes if you are doing a cloudscape with sun breaking through, but the lux is not without problems either on same scene.

I think for its day it (the lux) was a statement lens, the collectors have made it near impossible to replace, mine is mint optically, I dont recall having cleaned it, the barrel has finger prints, and black paint thin over sharp edges. It still will do 1.4.

Noel
 
i'm in the same boat ... after getting my M6 (and when my bank account recovered ...) I'll get me an 35mm 'lux. Since I shoot mostly under "no-light" conditions but don't like carrying a big lens aka 35 F/1.2 Nokton, so the 35mm F/1.4 is my only choice. I already have a CV 35 F/2.5 PII which I like for it's small size but sometimes one stop faster would make the difference between shot and missed chance for me. (Using Neopan 400 only)

Cheers,

Gabor
 
When I bought my Summilux a year ago the shop had both the 'lux and the Voigtlander 35mm f1.7, which was a lot cheaper. But you get what you pay for; the lens just felt right on the camera, there was no intrusion into the VF frame, tiny, light, good feel to aperture and focus rings. In contrast the CV lens had a little slop in the focus and I just knew if I bought it I would be back in a year's time to trade it for the summilux. There has been just one photo I took since where the lower contrast and vignetting at full aperture is troublesome. Even half a stop down from wide open both improve and you would only see the difference in resolution against the Summicron using fine-grain film with the camera on a tripod. Is that how you intend to use the lens?
 
I have been using the 35/1.4 pre ASPH lux for the last couple of years and found it an excellent lens even at 1.4. I recently had to sadly let it go as i acquired some other kit. My only niggles were these three:

- having to unscrew the lens hood assembly to change the series VII filters
- the vented hood would rotate.
- the aperture was not to adjust with large fingers!

All three slowed me down when i had to work quickly.

Small points against an otherwise excellent lens.
 
Just wanted to say yay to the vote for the 35Lux non Asph. It's my favourite lens .. has great ergonomics and a certain charming signature. When the light starts to fall, it goes to work.
 

Attachments

  • 278208835_f5ec6188eb_o.jpg
    278208835_f5ec6188eb_o.jpg
    96.9 KB · Views: 0
Simon

Sounds like you had the same version that I have and your comments mirror my experience with the lens.

Bob
 
As far as i Know Bob wasn't there only one version? apart from the very expensive single element ASPH version that came out early on.....
 
thanks guys, i plan to use the lens as my everything lens, the one that will stay on the camera most of the time. oh and anhtu, i just found your photos on flickr the other day. fantastic stuff! i haven't had a chance to look through all of it yet. and also, the prices for m6s seem to be pretty good recently so i am not very worried about that, but how much should i expect to spend on a 35 lux in usable condition?
 
Simon Larby said:
As far as i Know Bob wasn't there only one version? apart from the very expensive single element ASPH version that came out early on.....
Click to expand...

You are probably right but this link has some interesting info http://www.leicagallery.com/summilux35mm.htm . There was a version with E41 filter thread and the example shoe has no infinity lock on the focus tab. That may or may not qualify as a different version, but at least there are some differences for the same model. If yours had the infinity lock then it was the same as my Midland made one.

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