How good is the 35/1.4 lux ASPH?

F

fbf

Well-known
Local time
4:25 PM
Joined
Mar 14, 2007
Messages
1,274
View My Gallery
I have seen completely opposite reviews: some claims it as the best 35mm lens leica ever made; some states the lens is not much better than the pre-asph, plus the larger size/weight,price tag.

I have been using the pre-asph for quite a while and am very happy with it. I am just curious if it's worth "upgrading". I searched some photos on flickr and honestly, the pictures from 35/1.4 asph don't impress me much so I turn to you folks. I know many of you have been in my boat. Please let's hear it...

Would appreciate any input.
Thanks.
 
I have no direct experience using the pre-aspherical version, but I love my 35/1.4 ASPH. It's 1 of my "go-to" lenses & has never let me down; boke seems fine to me, no problems w/flare, etc. Size/weight has never bothered me, but then I have no problem w/the Noctilux; the most important factor for me is that it performs well wide-open (almost all lenses are @ least pretty good @ f/8). As to price, I was fortunate to get a great deal off eBay back in 2001.

My examples on flickr:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/furcafe/tags/leica3514summiluxmasphc1997/

However, if the old version is working for you & your photography, I see no reason why you should spend the money for a new lens.

Obviously, much depends on your personal taste. I'm more of a fan of post 1980s Leica lenses (older than that & I'm more of a Zeiss & Nikkor guy) & have had the opposite experience--I've yet to be impressed w/shots that I've seen from the pre-aspherical 'lux.

fbf said:
I have seen completely opposite reviews: some claims it as the best 35mm lens leica ever made; some states the lens is not much better than the pre-asph, plus the larger size/weight,price tag.

I have been using the pre-asph for quite a while and am very happy with it. I am just curious if it's worth "upgrading". I searched some photos on flickr and honestly, the pictures from 35/1.4 asph don't impress me much so I turn to you folks. I know many of you have been in my boat. Please let's hear it...

Would appreciate any input.
Thanks.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I have and like the 35/1.4 pre-ASPH, the advantage of the ASPH (higher contrast @ f/1.4 and closer focus distance) don't justify the price (and higher weight + larger size) for me.

Many may don't like him but I found Ken Rockwell's review and comparison of both lenses very interesting.
 
In the debate between the 35mm summilux asph and pre asph, I think the main question you should ask yourself is what is the look you want your pictures to have at F1.4?

I have both the pre asph and asph and I've settled on the asph because I like the sharp look at F1.4 versus the glowy look of the pre asph at F1.4. I just posted an image shot on a 35 summilux asph with Neopan 1600 at F1.4 on my blog at http://www.39eastvision.com

It's a black and white image taken recently at a protest for education reform in San Francisco and the sharpness of the main subject is indicative of the look for the summilux asph.

The size of the pre asph is nice but not a deal breaker for me choosing the asph over it.
 
The reason why I am willing to spend the money for Leica lenses is because of wide open performance. The 35mm Summilux asph is sharp all over and I can shoot at max aperture all the time with complete confidence. I shoot slow film and don't want an f/1.4 that is a so called "portrait lens" until stopped down. I also have the first pre-asph version and it is marvelous at f/2 and in Leica speak has that glow at max aperture. I can get that glow for a lot less money in a Nikkor 35/1.4 ais.
 
Thank you guys for the posts and opinions.

Nice pictures, Christopher. It seems like you used it exclusively in low light. very impressive.

Another thing that attracts me to the asph is the .7m focus distance. That's what made me switched from older 50 lux to the newer e46 50 lux pre-asph.

I don't mind the size/weight much because it's nothing compares to the cv 35/1.2 I used to own.
 
Colin Corneau said:
Nice shot, but it's hard to think that's made wide open @1.4 - a lot's in focus. Is that typical?
Click to expand...

Depends on distance to the subject, as with any other lens.

551870325_qZRS6-XL.jpg
 
Again, I havent used the pre-Asph but the 35mm Asph Lux is my primary lens. As others have mentioned, overall very sharp (maybe clinically sharp). The things I dont like about it is that it can render OOF areas from nice creammy smooth through to very harsh; eg, the image above from Semilog has what I would consider very harsh bokeh on the left side; bright objects and elements against bright objects/skies. I tend to use this lens in close to my subjects so Im not usually bothered by it.

Opened up, this lens is a little prone to flare especially with filters on. The shot below is at f/1.4 with a B&W MRC UV filter attached (mea culpa) and the circular flare visible in this shot actually became very obvious and almost a 3D sphere in appearance in many of other frames tken at the same time.

Still, my bottom line is that its a great lens...

1436597230_a5ee523260_o.jpg
 
I have had the 35f1.4 ASPH and still have a late pre-Asph 35f1.4. My first 35f1.4 Asph flared so badly that it would opaque out the image (just the corners were visible). It was returned to Leica - and after 4 month came back. Slight improvement - but would still exhibit serious flare. I had it exchanged for a new one through Leica and though better, it still would flare with a light source at the edge of the image. In the end I did not trust it and got rid of it.
When it works, it is very good, Sharp at f1.4 - contrasty (almost too contrasty for black/white). I found it's size OK and the close focus was nice - though not too important to me.
For color it works very well, great "snap" to the image.
The pre-Asph I have kept as a sentimental lens - had it since new and occasionally I like to take it out. Not as sharp as the Asph at 1.4 or f2 - but smoother tonality. Also quite compact.
I tend to use my Nokton 35mm f1.4 more than the pre-asph though. Better flare control, sharper @1.4 (though not as sharp as the Asph).
If you are buying a used Asph - check it first. Early versions had flare problems ( and in one case the aspherical element de-laminated and it looked like a mirror lens with dough-nut shaped highlights!).
There are persistent rumours of a replacement this year ( it is a Photokina year after all) and I would not be surprised to see a new 35 f1.4 with the flare problems under control - shudder to think of the price though. I think the VC 35f1.2 put some pressure on them in this regard.
 
bwcolor said:
I thought that a replacement was about to be introduced by Leica. Is this just a rumor, or a soon to be reality?
Click to expand...
Nothing from Leica yet but dealers have been taking pre-orders for a while. There was a photo of the lens on the LUF before it was pulled both from the forum and the blog in which it originally appeared.
 
I had a 35 Summilux pre-ASPH. It started as a loaner from Leica. Had planned on a new Summicron (we're talking mid 70s here) switching from a googled version I had for my M3, and the Leica rep suggested I try the Summilux. When it came time to turn it back in the rep asked if I'd like it for a great price and so it became my main lens for about 20 years.

When the ASPH version came out I traded it for one thinking I just wanted a lens that 'did it' without thinking about stopping down for sharpness. It wasn't long and I was thinking I'd made a mistake, I liked the compact size of the pre-ASPH and it had a look I liked or was just used to maybe. The pre-ASPH 35 Summilux I've described as an 'art-lens' and 'two for one'. Opened up it has a beautiful feel and look and gives a special image quality, 'dreamy or 'atmospheric' could describe it, stopped down to f5.6-8 it can be as sharp as you probably need and contrast is greatly improved. And yes, it can flare, and you can't see this with any knowledge of what it is doing with a rangefinder. If you use one its just part of its characteristic you except.

I did buy another pre-ASPH at one point and used it. One thing to keep in mind too is there are sample variations. Some are just 'better' than others.

As for my ASPH... I've had a couple, both in the heavier brass mount titanium and chrome. Its a great lens and you don't need to think about sacrificing image sharpness and contrast in the f1.4-f2.8 range like you do with the pre-ASPH. Never had a problem with 'crazy' flare and I'd sometimes be using it without the hood.

I'm finally with a 35 Summilux I really like, the 1st version 'aspherical'. At 300grms its only about 50grms heavier than the pre-ASPH, not as compact of course, but acceptable, and (like the ASPH) its sharp and good contrast at any aperture with a nice look, smooth bokeh, and handles nice with its tab (smaller and more comfortable than the edged new style tab) AND focus ring.

So I would say going through all 3 versions of the 35 Summilux... if you want a unique look, compact, fun lens that can challenge to 'think like the lens' you go for a pre-ASPH. If you don't mind a bit more size (its still not a big lens), but just want a lens what will optically do it all the ASPH is a fantastic lens. Price and availability aside, the 'aspherical' is my favorite 35 Summilux, optically about the same as the ASPH, but handles better (for me), and a bit better built, no problems with 'crazy' flare like the pre-ASPH, but still has a bit of that old school glow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom