Buying a Preasph 35 1.4 Summilux which one

same behavior with non-infinity lock v2s

same behavior with non-infinity lock v2s

I have a later one without infinity lock, but it has the same behavior. I can almost guarantee "the glow" at 1.4, but at f2 and smaller, just the 'cron-ish look. I use the 12526 hood with no filter, mostly b/w, but keep a 12504 w/ uv/ir filter VII (49mm) filter in it if I need color.

Tom Rymour said:
I have used the old 35mm Summilux back in the sixties, and still have some prints. But there is no comparison with the one that lives on my black M2: infinity lock, Series VII filters in hood, Canada ser.No 2222xxxxxx. It has a bit of "glow" wide open which is not without charm, and can flare if you point it straight at a spotlight. But from f2 it has top class tonality and sharpness. And it's compact. I recommend this particular version with all my heart.
Click to expand...
 
Sonnar2 said:
Erwin Puts don't mention two versions of the pre-asph. Summilux (1961, midland design) existing. Maybe they improved the coatings but the basic design should be the same..
Click to expand...

The pre-ASPH 50 Lux is also a similar riddle. Officially the optical formula did not change from the introduction of v02 (1962/63?), until end of production a few years ago. But it's difficult to imagine that while the basic formula may have remained the same, that they didn't tweak it intentionally or perhaps in response to the glass supply changing etc.

Who really knows?
 
I am assuming that all 35mm 1.4 pre-asph referred to as Version II are basically identical in performance no matter how large the serial number is.
 
raid said:
I am assuming that all 35mm 1.4 pre-asph referred to as Version II are basically identical in performance no matter how large the serial number is.
Click to expand...

This lens was made in very small numbers and was hand made. In the sixties 35mm f/1.4 was a very demanding construction. Therefore I think every single specimen is different from all the others.
I have two of them no. 2060691 (chrome) and 2221365 (black) and they are different. At 1 meter (3 ft) the chrome one is slightly sharper and has a flatter field.
I will do some more tests and publish them on RFF.

Erik.
 
Erik van Straten said:
This lens was made in very small numbers and was hand made. In the sixties 35mm f/1.4 was a very demanding construction. Therefore I think every single specimen is different from all the others.
I have two of them no. 2060691 (chrome) and 2221365 (black) and they are different. At 1 meter (3 ft) the chrome one is sligtly sharper and has a flatter field.
I will do some more tests and publish them on RFF.

Erik.
Click to expand...

This is rather interesting, Erik.
Is then the second version more uniformly made or was it also hand made and it has different variations from sample to sample too?
 
Erik van Straten said:
I think every single specimen is different from all the others.
Click to expand...

From my experience with this lens I completely agree. I currently shoot a late 80's version (#3433XXX) and previously used an early 70's version, (#2548XXX) and they are quite different- with the older lens having better up close performance than the newer. Coatings are certainly different between these two as well.
 
So there is less precision from lens to lens. Is this viewed as poor quality control or is it like someone is painting a masterpiece and you expect different paintings each time?
 
The Summilux 35f1,4 was never a huge volume seller. It was "batch" made at Midland - a couple of 100 at a time.
The Version I severely taxed their assembly skills. If not done right - it was awful, and even with careful alignment and checking - it was at best mediocre compared to what Canon and Nikon had at the time.
The Version II went through some changes in the mount (infinity lock, finish, etc) and also some minor "fiddling" with coating. Midland was well known for ignoring paperwork as to when something was changed or even what was changed - so a lot of Summilux 35 pre-asph information is speculation at best.
Generally though, the later version #3xxx xxx and above are good lenses, They still retain some of the optical aberrations that some people love, coma,flare etc - but it is a decent lens.
Of course, esthetics come into play too - it does look really good on a M2 or M4 - there is something with that "bulging" front element and the size of it that balances the size of the lens.
The best combination has to to be a version I in black paint and a battered, black paint M2. You truly looked like you knew what you were doing!! I used that combination until the lens meet with a side-walk and got crunched. Of course, you never told anyone how much you were swearing in the darkroom trying to burn down flare or finding something, hell anything that was sharp at f1.4!!!!!
 
The cheapest Lux 35 that I know (and the only one I could afford) was made by Canon ;).
Incidentally, it's quite sharp and beautifully made.
 
Filter size

Filter size

With winter coming I'm also on the lookout for a faster 35mm. What filter size does a late V2 summilux take? And the CV Nokton 35/1.4?

Thank you!
 
My Lux is from 1966 with a very heavy yet easy to maneuver Infinity Lock
Lets Spice things Up w/ some Color...

GORGEOUS Processing, Erik.....
 
Last edited:
ampguy said:
check out some of the online databases with a search engine.
Click to expand...

Have done. you seem to be right didn't think it was as new, seemed to remember there was a section on the leica site where you put in the serial number and it gave you the model etc but can't find that anywhere.
 
M6 35 summilux no.3253xxx kodak t-max at 800asa.

Taken with the lens wide open.
 

Attachments

  • rrf final.jpg
    rrf final.jpg
    26.9 KB · Views: 1
Tom A said:
The Summilux 35f1,4 was never a huge volume seller. It was "batch" made at Midland - a couple of 100 at a time.
The Version I severely taxed their assembly skills. If not done right - it was awful, and even with careful alignment and checking - it was at best mediocre compared to what Canon and Nikon had at the time.
Click to expand...

In UK in the mid-60s the 35 Summilux was very hard to get hold of, partly becuae of what Tom A mentions and partly because coming from Canada there was no import duty, which made it cheaper than a Summicron. I worked in a photo dealers and ordered one around 1965 and when it eventually arrived I thought it was the most gorgeous lens I'd seen - but when I got the first film processed I could have wept. At 1.4 it wasn't poor, it was gruesome! Images were best described as smudged, and they didn't really improve when stopped down. Clearly, a bad 'un. It went back to Leitz in Mortimer Street who were quite up front and said, yes, it's faulty, we have no idea when the next one will be available, here's your credit note. Very soon afterwards I bought a used 35mm Summicron and, perhaps sadly, never actually got a good chrome 35 Summilux.

Years later I got a black one, with infinity catch, which I thought better than the 8-element Summicron at equal apertures.
 
hey ERIK
just reread this Thread
and Noticed my blk 1966 lux is a relative
....#2221324....SWEEEEET !
 
interesting!

interesting!

Mike, by "bands" do you mean the round lens edge? I've only seen this once or twice (mine is a Canadian early '80s).

I have noticed that the "glow", when present, can be almost switched on/off by going from 1.4 to 1.7.

MikeL said:
I have a late version, and yesterday I mounted it on a GF-1. With the live view it was interesting to see when it would flare. Mine handles sun in the frame pretty well, but when at 45 degree angle or so to the lens axis the flare bands show up at f1.4 and to a lesser extent at f2. I have a summicron asph hood on it, and surprisingly the hood has little impact. Once direct sunlight touches the edge of the lens the bands show up (f1.4). At f2.8 and smaller apertures it is pretty flare resistant.

Playing around with a summilux asph, it can get ufo's when the sun is in frame, but I see almost no flare when the sun wasn't in the frame.
Click to expand...
 
if I understand what you're saying, I can confirm my lens is also the same. If the light source is in the frame then it's ok-ish. Only at a certain angle when it's outside the frame does it flare. And the hood makes no difference either way. By f2 it's getting alot better.

I wonder if it's worth it to use the hood at all? Can you run some more tests with your live view? Thanks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom