Distortions with 35 summilux?

P

pmu

Well-known
Local time
12:30 AM
Joined
Jul 8, 2005
Messages
388
Yeah, what is the situation with non-asph 35mm summiluxes in terms of distortion (barrel distortion might be the term here...?)? How about sharpness in corners @ f1.4? How about distortions with 35mm non-asph summicrons?

I have 35/1.4 Nokton and sometimes I am little bit annoyed about not being able to have distortion free images.

Thanks in advance if you can help me...
 
The Summilux 35f1,4 Pre-asph does have significant barrel distorsion too and the corners at f1.4 are soft. It also has a rather pronounced field curvature (you focus in the center and the focus "bends" a bit - if your center is 10 ft away - the edges might be in focus at 9 ft). I have found that it varies within samples too. The early Summilux was more pronounced in these aspects - the later a bit better. Switching from a 35f1.4 Nokton to a pre-asph Summilux 35 will not significantly improve your images (if at all) and you will also have a lens that is more flare sensitive.
If you want less linear distorsion. look at ZM 35f2.0, also the later Summicrons (Version IV or Asph). The Asph Summilux 35 is very good in most of these areas, straight drawing, virtually no field curvature. However it is flare sensitive (as are most Aspherical lenses). You obviously are interested in a fast lens - try the 35f1.2 Nokton! If speed is not an issue - also consider the new ZM 35f2.8 - no distorsion, no flare - but slow!
I haven't shot enough with the Hexanon's to have an opinion on their performance related to distorsion or field curvature.
 
Erwin Puts reports "distortion is not detectable" with the pre-asph 'lux 35. I have never tested mine, but I've taken a lot of pictures with interior architecture and never noticed distortion problems. Sharpness in the corners at f1.4, no, but the vignetting will probably hide that. You will hear a lot of people put the 'lux down at f1.4. Personally I love it, but it's more about character than performance.
 
Last edited:
Photogs copy.jpg

I checked the straight lines on this shot with the crop tool in photoshop and they are pretty straight, if not perfectly level.
 
After hearing about distortion with the Nokton I took some sample photos just to test it. With full aperture and close distance there sure was some that one couldn't miss...
Maybe it isn't that bad stopped down, focused further and not-so-close to edges, but at those photos it was very visible.

I wonder how older Summicrons compare to the Nokton and 'Lux with distortion? How about sharpness wide open (maybe also compared to 35 Ultron?). The ASPH ones are too expensive for sure, so is the Biogon.

Currently I am shooting with an Ultron and I've been very happy with it, but a Summicron interests me because of it size. If it compares well to Ultron with flare, wide-open sharpness and distortions, I guess I would seriously have think about getting one. Theres not much difference in speed either anyway...
 
Last edited:
I cant say that the distorsion in the Nokton bothers me, but then I use them for "walk about" shooting, not architectural images. I find it sharper at f1.4 than my late Summilux 35 pre-asph ( and better corners at f1.4). Either lens does what it was supposed to do very well. It was originally designed for low light press photography. This is an area where edges are not super important and distorsion is not critical either.
Both the Summilux pre-asph and the Nokton are based on a similar formula, emphasis on speed. The more modern formulas (Summilux 35 Asph, ZM 35f2 and the later Summicrons are better in that area - but at a prize, both in $ and in flare (Asph's) and a "harsher" rendition.
I have both the Summilux Pre Asph 35 and the Nokton's and use them all.
The Summilux is prone to the curved field - not good for buildings, unless you stop it down to about f8 though. It has a look that is quite distinct and if you like it - it is the only game in town. The Nokton comes close to the look (and it was designed to do that!) and it has a better flare control.
 
I haven't detected distortion with my pre-ASPH 35mm Summilux (late version) either. It has a slightly light fall off in the corners at f/1.4 (which doesn't bother me at night) but performs better than the 35mm Summicron IV (both at f/2.0). Only drawback with the 35mm Summilux pre-ASPH is the minimum focus distance of 1m.

Cheers,

Gabor
 
I just noticed that curved field in my 1970-built pre-asph Summilux the other day; thought my eyes were giving out. Glad it's the lens! Also, it focuses fine from near to far on my M8; I understand that some of them don't like to focus to infinity on that camera.
 
I'm borrowing a pre-asph summilux, and like Melvin, I'm not seeing barrel distortion at f1.4. Light fall off in the corners, but no distortion. Just another data point.
 
nzeeman said:
i saw that didstortion in this thread
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=66203
first 2 photos are with summilux. i was pretty surprised because many people bashed nokton 35 because of same distortion...
Click to expand...

By the way, those two pictures were taken with 50mm summilux...not 35mm... I would like to see similiar kind of pictures with subject / focus being quite close with some straight lines close to the edges of the frame with the 35mm summi...
 
pmu said:
By the way, those two pictures were taken with 50mm summilux...not 35mm... I would like to see similiar kind of pictures with subject / focus being quite close with some straight lines close to the edges of the frame with the 35mm summi...
Click to expand...

i think distortion of this vertical bar is pretty obvious - no matter 50mm or 35mm...
 
Last edited:
When talking about distortion with a 35mm Summilux I guess it doesn't really matter if the 50mm keeps lines straight :).

But no, I see no distortion in those photos above...
 
It would be interesting to have Telenous contribute to this discussion for I know he has used both the pre-asph and asph versions of the summilux 35 extensively. Earlier this year he sold his pre-asph, keeping his asph version.

I use the asph version a lot. The lens is the same size-wise as the Zm 35/2. I like the way the asph version renders wide open, sometimes giving me the impression it is faster than f1,4. Strangely, its weakness seems to produce some sort of chemical fogging ---flaring?--- on the negative which lends the shadow details just more of a je ne sais quoi.
 
i think something is wrong with my brain - i was sure and very surprised and disappointed when i saw distortion. now i look it and no distortion - sorry for making a wrong statement. bar is absolutely straight but my brain is distorted. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom