M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
Last edited:
Latest Leica 35mm F2 asph lens
- Thread starter tammons
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 41
- Views 4K
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
Last edited:
Honus
carpe diem
markinlondon said:
Mark's image helped convince me to purchase a tabbed 50mm 'cron.
Leica_Magus said:
I feel this way sometimes. I shoot only b&w (with film), and sometimes with the 50 @ f2.0, I find the images to be too contrasty and clinical, depending on the light source. I prefer the pre-ASPH 35 wide open because of the lower contrast (and in spite of the slight vignetting). With color, I might feel differently.
That being said, I probably get more keepers per roll from the 50 than the 35. The 50 'lux is very temping, though. The irrational side of me, however, wants to skip over the summilux and go all the way to a noctilux. My credit cards should be very afraid. 😱
Robert
telenous
Well-known
Earlier today I was searching for photos from the old summilux 35. I found a comparison among various lenses (including the older and the aspherical versions of the Summilux) in this thread
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00AOXk&tag=
which, I 'm sure some of you must have already encountered. Despite the near universal condemnation of the old Summilux 35, I find the flare of the lights in the night images strangely appealing. They are nowhere near the realistic drawing of the aspherical lenses but they lend the scene with a magical - and quite unrealistic - light that cannot be purchased by the newer designs.
Here's a simile that we owe to Erwin Puts for the signatures of the old Summilux 50 and the aspherical version of the same lens:
"What are the more subjective differences between the old and new versions of the Summilux-M? If you are familiar with Dutch painting, one could say that the older Summilux paints as Rembrandt, where the new one paints like Vermeer".
Following his lead, and staying with the Dutch masters, I think we can say that the asph. Summilux 35 is a Vermeer to the Van Gogh of the older version.
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00AOXk&tag=
which, I 'm sure some of you must have already encountered. Despite the near universal condemnation of the old Summilux 35, I find the flare of the lights in the night images strangely appealing. They are nowhere near the realistic drawing of the aspherical lenses but they lend the scene with a magical - and quite unrealistic - light that cannot be purchased by the newer designs.
Here's a simile that we owe to Erwin Puts for the signatures of the old Summilux 50 and the aspherical version of the same lens:
"What are the more subjective differences between the old and new versions of the Summilux-M? If you are familiar with Dutch painting, one could say that the older Summilux paints as Rembrandt, where the new one paints like Vermeer".
Following his lead, and staying with the Dutch masters, I think we can say that the asph. Summilux 35 is a Vermeer to the Van Gogh of the older version.
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
Last edited:
harmsr
M5 Nut
I have been trying to decide on which of the new 35 MM lenses that I like the best.
First I will tell you that I have the new 50 Lux ASPH. This was my choice after previously having the pre-asph Lux, borrowing a new latest version 50 cron, and also owning a 50 Cron DR.
I have the 35 Cron ASPH and the 35 Lux ASPH at the moment, but only want to end up with one of them.
The ASPH Cron is a very compact size and doesn't interfere with framing at all, however I find it too contrasty in bright sun and rather clinical in general.
The ASPH Lux seems to be the right combination for me. It is basically as sharp as the ASPH Cron but renders tone and texture in a more natural way, which is somewhat like the pre-asph lux. I would say it is much closer to the 50 Lux ASPH in image than the 35 ASPH Cron is.
I will try to scan some shots made with both the 35 Lux ASPH and the 35 Cron ASPH this weekend. Personally, I am leaning very heavily towards keeping the Lux and selling the Cron for what I like.
Best,
Ray
First I will tell you that I have the new 50 Lux ASPH. This was my choice after previously having the pre-asph Lux, borrowing a new latest version 50 cron, and also owning a 50 Cron DR.
I have the 35 Cron ASPH and the 35 Lux ASPH at the moment, but only want to end up with one of them.
The ASPH Cron is a very compact size and doesn't interfere with framing at all, however I find it too contrasty in bright sun and rather clinical in general.
The ASPH Lux seems to be the right combination for me. It is basically as sharp as the ASPH Cron but renders tone and texture in a more natural way, which is somewhat like the pre-asph lux. I would say it is much closer to the 50 Lux ASPH in image than the 35 ASPH Cron is.
I will try to scan some shots made with both the 35 Lux ASPH and the 35 Cron ASPH this weekend. Personally, I am leaning very heavily towards keeping the Lux and selling the Cron for what I like.
Best,
Ray
J. Borger
Well-known
harmsr said:
Looking forward to that comparison Ray!
Puts speaks about a different fingerprint of the Lux ... some others claim the Lux is similar to the cron Asph with just an extra top. The latter kept me from even trying the Lux asph!
Last edited:
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
Last edited:
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
harmsr
M5 Nut
KP,
I'll be interested in what happens with your ASPH cron. If you can rent a new Lux ASPH, please do for a comparison. I would be interested in what you see as a comparison between the two.
i normally just get my film developed at a pro lab and a contact sheet now. Everything gets scanned by me on a Nikon Super Coolscan 5000 ED. I will make prints on my Epson R800 of the keepers. Those which turned out really good, will go back to the lab for wet printing with a digital print from me to match for tone, color, etc..
I still like the signature of the Lux ASPH more than the Cron ASPH, plus I do use the extra stop.
Best,
Ray
P.S.: Check out a recent post by Sean Reid on the Leica Forum where his opinion is the same. He states the 35 Lux ASPH is his favorite 35mm focal length length lens.
http://www.leica-camera.com/discus_e/messages/3/211615.html?1147009111
I'll be interested in what happens with your ASPH cron. If you can rent a new Lux ASPH, please do for a comparison. I would be interested in what you see as a comparison between the two.
i normally just get my film developed at a pro lab and a contact sheet now. Everything gets scanned by me on a Nikon Super Coolscan 5000 ED. I will make prints on my Epson R800 of the keepers. Those which turned out really good, will go back to the lab for wet printing with a digital print from me to match for tone, color, etc..
I still like the signature of the Lux ASPH more than the Cron ASPH, plus I do use the extra stop.
Best,
Ray
P.S.: Check out a recent post by Sean Reid on the Leica Forum where his opinion is the same. He states the 35 Lux ASPH is his favorite 35mm focal length length lens.
http://www.leica-camera.com/discus_e/messages/3/211615.html?1147009111
Last edited:
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
harmsr
M5 Nut
KP,
The link included these comments even though it was started about Digital M pricing.
Mark Norton (marknorton)
Senior Member
Username: marknorton
Post Number: 438
Registered: 11-2002
Posted on Sunday, May 07, 2006 - 02:53 pm:
Sean, I've signed up with your site, excellent reading and have been looking at your Zeiss Leica 21mm comparison. From what you know about the DM (and I am sure you are sworn to secrecy - I am not asking you to betray any confidences here), do you think a 21mm f2.8 ASPH and 35mm f1.4 ASPH would be sensible lenses to own for it?
Sean Reid (sean_reid)
Senior Member
Username: sean_reid
Post Number: 907
Registered: 11-2004
Posted on Sunday, May 07, 2006 - 03:38 pm:
Hi Mark,
Thanks very much. Yes, I think they both will be excellent lenses for you to use on both the R-D1 and the digital M. The 35/1.4 is my favorite 35 mm lens ever made (except in bright sunshine) and I slightly prefer the 21 Elmarit to the 21 Biogon for the former's lower contrast although I must say that 21 Biogon really is a compelling lens as well.
So far, I've published the 21 and 50 tests. Right now, I'm testing the following lenses for upcoming reviews in that series:
35: Canon 35/2.8, Leica 35/2.0, CV 35/2.5 Pancake II, CV 35/1.7 Ultron, Zeiss 35/2.0
28: Canon 28/2.8, Leica 28/2.0, CV 28/1.9 Ultron, Zeiss 28/2.8
24/25: Leica 24/2.8 and Zeiss 25/2.8
Leica is still Leica when it comes to lenses but I must say that Zeiss is coming after them with lenses that really do perform well. So far, as a group, the whole ZM series has performed very consistently.
Headed out to photograph with the 35s shortly.
Cheers,
Sean
Best,
Ray
The link included these comments even though it was started about Digital M pricing.
Mark Norton (marknorton)
Senior Member
Username: marknorton
Post Number: 438
Registered: 11-2002
Posted on Sunday, May 07, 2006 - 02:53 pm:
Sean, I've signed up with your site, excellent reading and have been looking at your Zeiss Leica 21mm comparison. From what you know about the DM (and I am sure you are sworn to secrecy - I am not asking you to betray any confidences here), do you think a 21mm f2.8 ASPH and 35mm f1.4 ASPH would be sensible lenses to own for it?
Sean Reid (sean_reid)
Senior Member
Username: sean_reid
Post Number: 907
Registered: 11-2004
Posted on Sunday, May 07, 2006 - 03:38 pm:
Hi Mark,
Thanks very much. Yes, I think they both will be excellent lenses for you to use on both the R-D1 and the digital M. The 35/1.4 is my favorite 35 mm lens ever made (except in bright sunshine) and I slightly prefer the 21 Elmarit to the 21 Biogon for the former's lower contrast although I must say that 21 Biogon really is a compelling lens as well.
So far, I've published the 21 and 50 tests. Right now, I'm testing the following lenses for upcoming reviews in that series:
35: Canon 35/2.8, Leica 35/2.0, CV 35/2.5 Pancake II, CV 35/1.7 Ultron, Zeiss 35/2.0
28: Canon 28/2.8, Leica 28/2.0, CV 28/1.9 Ultron, Zeiss 28/2.8
24/25: Leica 24/2.8 and Zeiss 25/2.8
Leica is still Leica when it comes to lenses but I must say that Zeiss is coming after them with lenses that really do perform well. So far, as a group, the whole ZM series has performed very consistently.
Headed out to photograph with the 35s shortly.
Cheers,
Sean
Best,
Ray
jim0266
Established
MIght be of interest: http://jimarnold.net/galleries/leica_35_test/
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Do you really NEED that extra stop, either for your subject matter or for your DOF?
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
ghost
Well-known
try the lux. you can always go back to the cron if you don't like it.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Leica_Magus said:
I'd say: if it is lust, gratify it, if it is need, take it. If the only sacrifice you have to make is stopping smoking, take it. If your wife will kill you if she finds out, take it on the sly. If it will put you and your family in a homeless shelter, don't take it or rob a petrol station and take it. On the other hand you might use the 300$ to go really classical and buy a Summaron, which will exhibit even more of the fingerprint you are looking for.
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
jim0266
Established
Is there any way you can rent an ASPH Lux for a few days? The Lux extends into the viewfinder more than the cron. If the ASHP cron were as small and light as the V4 it would be ideal.
