Leica announces new steel-rim Summilux 35mm f1.4 lens

[Richard G]

Here's f2 outdoors in shade admittedly the Beleuga behemoth of a Jaguar Mark X. Very glowy at f2 still.



Mark X by Richard, on Flickr


Here is f5.6 outdoors in sun, contrasty subject. No glow, sharp enough, and tamed the contrast all things considered.


Untitled by Richard, on Flickr

Both on the Monochrom M.

 

[Richard G]

Wide open in subdued light, white pages and specular highlights almost: not too much glow. Not sharp.



35 Summilux wide open. Too much 'glow' with this lens. by Richard, on Flickr


Same subject stopped down to f2: definitely sharper and less glow:



35 Summilux stopped down to f2. That right page is much sharper and contrastier and less milky. by Richard, on Flickr


So it's a beautiful, little lens, offering f1.4 if you really need it, and that comes at a price. It is compact, light and not too contrasty. At f4 and above it's sharp or sharp enough.

 

[luuca]

Again, what are those photographs supposed to show about the lens. They don't look particularly sharp. I guess the illuminated areas in the third image show what some people call glow.

I'm not a scientist.
I don't look for razor sharpness from this lens or perfect rendition, I have my lux 35 asph for that.
Those images just show that the lens can be used without any problems on modern digital camera too.
I never pixel peeped images, if a lens has the right rendering for me, it's ok.

from your posts it seemed that no one could use this lens because it's not sharp.

 

[x-ray]

Can you provide any support for your claims that the later non-steel-rimmed Summiluxes have a different formula and/or different glass than the steel rimmed ones? My understanding is that all the 35mm pre-asph Summiluxes use the same 7 elements in 5 groups. By your own reasoning, they would all require the use of special glass to pull that off.

I see no significant difference in image quality between properly cleaned and adjusted examples of any of the 35mm pre-asph Summiluxes -- steel rimmed or not. They are all a little soft and slightly low in contrast wide open, while having decent center sharpness. And they all become quite sharp with improved contrast with just a bit of stopping down.

A few examples of the later non-steel rim here -- NSFW: https://flic.kr/s/aHBqjAc5dS

I was a photo journalist working my way way through school from 1968-72. In 68 I purchased a new 35 Summilux from Ritz Camera in DC for $333. My younger brother bought a used chrome version steel rim just after I did. I shot a lot with my Summilux and shot occasionally with my brothers. I really got to know these lenses and their strengths and issues. Critically looking at the images from both I could see no difference and could see no difference in their behavior.

Several years later while talking to our Leica rep I asked him if there were any differences and his answer was no. Other than the Mount he said the lenses were exactly the same.

as mentioned above my brother had the chrome with steel rim and locking tab infinity lock. The one I had was anodized or painted, don’t remember, barrel with chrome plated bayonets mount and locking focusing tab.

At that time there wasn’t much choice in a fast 35mm. Nikon had the 35mm f1.8 for the SP and a 35 f2 for the F. There wasn’t much to choose from so the Summilux was pretty earth shattering at the time.

I’ve gone full circle and have rebuilt my original Leica kit with a few exceptions. Originally I had a 35 Summilux but now have a 35mm Summicron v1. The Summicron is far better wide open and at f2 vs f2 on both lenses. Aberrations wide open are much better controlled in the v1 Summicron. The Summilux could destroy your image when shooting wide open with a point source light in the frame. It happened to me more than once.

Somewhere I have a book published in the 60’s stating the Summilux 35 had one or more rare earth elements. I can’t remember which but it was either lanthanum or thorium.

 

[brusby]

Thanks x-ray I appreciate hearing your first hand experience with early versions of the 35mm Summilux. It jives with my impression although I find mine quite useable and very pleasing at f2. I haven't done a direct comparision to the v1 Summicron at the same aperture but just have the general impression they render very similarly with the edge going to the Summilux for contrast, maybe due to fewer elements. I'll have to do a direct comparison. Thanks for raising the issue.. I'd love to hear more actual user data.

 

[das]

I would have rather seen a resurrection of the Summaron with modern multi coating. A niche, focus-shifty lens like the early Summilux is good for lightening the wallet but not for everyday photography.

 

[ptpdprinter]

I'm not a scientist.
I don't look for razor sharpness from this lens or perfect rendition, I have my lux 35 asph for that.
Those images just show that the lens can be used without any problems on modern digital camera too.
I never pixel peeped images, if a lens has the right rendering for me, it's ok.

from your posts it seemed that no one could use this lens because it's not sharp.

Lots of 35mm lenses can be used without problem with digital cameras so that is not special. I did not see any special rendering in the images presented. If you have images in your portfolios which demonstrate special rendering, by all means continue to use and enjoy your lens.

 

[james.liam]

I would have rather seen a resurrection of the Summaron with modern multi coating. A niche, focus-shifty lens like the early Summilux is good for lightening the wallet but not for everyday photography.

That would be a nice addition; It has a higher-contrast, more modern and punchier look than the 8-element produces. Some (IIRC, the late Erwin Puts) report it higher in resolution at ƒ/2.8 than the Summicron.

 

[Richard G]

The only revival lens I have is the Summaron M 28mm 5.6. That is special. And tiny. I think I will likely pass on the steel rim 1.4.

 

[CLAdictic]

Pricing at close to $3,800.00 I'll pass. My f 2 asph has traveled with me since 2004 over a lot of Europe and the state of New Mexico just to name some places. DAG just performed a CLA'd on it so it will one fine for another twenty or so years.

 

[james.liam]

The only revival lens I have is the Summaron M 28mm 5.6. That is special. And tiny. I think I will likely pass on the steel rim 1.4.

If I did not already own the 28 Summiliux and CV 3,5/28, would definitely have gone for the Summaron. Love the image rendering and tiny size--one of the virtues of the CV.

 

[Erik van Straten]

The steel rims are NOT about extreme sharpness at full aperture, of course, just like the Noctilux f1.2. A 35mm should be without any distortion. The steel rims are without any distortion and have a just acceptable full aperture. f1.4 for a 35mm lens was 45 years ago extreme. The lenses are just usable. They have a wonderful tonality, no distortion and a just acceptable sharpness. This one is just a little bit stopped down.

gelatin silver print (summilux steel rim 35mm f1.4) leica m3

https://www.flickr.com/photos/erik_van_straten/51158213928/sizes/l/

Erik.

 

[Erik van Straten]

The only revival lens I have is the Summaron M 28mm 5.6. That is special. And tiny. I think I will likely pass on the steel rim 1.4.

A 35mm is much more useful for general photography than a 28mm in my opinion.

Erik.

 

[Erik van Straten]

The lady's face doesn't really look like it is in focus. Was V1 all bokeh and no resolution? Are you scanning from a negative or a print?

I always scan from a print. Compared to the Leitz 35mm f3.5 the Summilux steelrim v1 was all about bokeh, but the resolution is acceptable in my opinion. I prefer it to the eight elements Summicron 35mm f2. Of course at full aperture the dept of field is very small.

Stopped down the Summilux 35mm f1.4 steel rim is super for architecture.

gelatin silver print (summilux steel rim 35mm f1.4) leica m3

https://www.flickr.com/photos/erik_v...posted-public/

Erik.

 

[Erik van Straten]

Can you provide any support for your claims that the later non-steel-rimmed Summiluxes have a different formula and/or different glass than the steel rimmed ones? My understanding is that all the 35mm pre-asph Summiluxes use the same 7 elements in 5 groups. By your own reasoning, they would all require the use of special glass to pull that off.

I see no significant difference in image quality between properly cleaned and adjusted examples of any of the 35mm pre-asph Summiluxes -- steel rimmed or not. They are all a little soft and slightly low in contrast wide open, while having decent center sharpness. And they all become quite sharp with improved contrast with just a bit of stopping down.

What I see from the lenses I have is that the v2 (20606XX) is improved insofar that the sharp spot at full aperture is larger in diameter than that of the v1 (17772XX).

The later lens I have (no steel rim, but an "infinity lock" Summilux 35mm (22213XX)) does not have a flat field of sharpness, it is curved to a rather strong degree. When you focus to a subject that is close to te camera the plane of sharpness curves at the sides towards the background of the image.

Erik.

 

[yossi]

I used to own a new 35mm Summilux (non-steel rim version) briefly. I found it glowed strongly wide-open and also at f2 (less so). I sold it in favour of a type 4 Summicron (aka BK). So I don't have any sample image from the Summilux to show here for illustration. However, years later, I chance upon the work of Steven Tanno, a street photographer from JP, who shoots mostly with an M6+35 Summilux combo. I must admit that he has used this character-lens Summilux with great success.

For the skeptics, you may want to take a look at his work. In particular, he shot many rolls of Kodak Double-X with this combo in Israel/Palestine,2017, just beautiful! Take a good look before you dismiss this lens:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/caione...h/33215989361/

 

[steveyork]

Stopped down most lenses look good, but you get a 1.4 to shoot wide open, and with film the pre-asph Summilux is something you either love or hate. I have a later German one, but much prefer the Voigtlander Nokton II interpretation, either SC or MC. But I'll follow this one, because love small, character lenses.

 

[das]

Stopped down most lenses look good, but you get a 1.4 to shoot wide open, and with film the pre-asph Summilux is something you either love or hate. I have a later German one, but much prefer the Voigtlander Nokton II interpretation, either SC or MC. But I'll follow this one, because love small, character lenses.

This. Those super fast 35s of the late 50s early 60s were about the speed and sacrificed alot to get there. The Summaron was your everyday, all situations lens. The 35mm f/2.5 Nikkor was also a great "all around" 35mm. The lauded 38mm f/1.8 Hex from the Konica S3 was also in this family. For the target market of these reissues (putting pure collectors aside), for actual shooters, the Summaron would be a better choice. The only thing that holds the Summaron back is the lack of modern multi coating. For instance, the VC 35mm f/2.5 outperforms the Summaron only because it has better coatings.

I have no experience with the 35mm f/2.4 Summarit - maybe that is kind of like a modern Summaron - but it has a much different design.

 

[james.liam]

Personally, I've got a 35 Summaron ƒ/2.8 for 'character' shots and the ZM 2,8/35 for everything else. A faster 35 would be nice but this lens seems just too, too soft wide open to consider that sort of expense.

If I were in the market for 35's, I'd sooner go for a CV ƒ/1.5 or for the speed, perhaps add an MS ƒ/1.3 for 'character' and take a trip somewhere with the remainder of money..

 

[Bingley]

I used to own a new 35mm Summilux (non-steel rim version) briefly. I found it glowed strongly wide-open and also at f2 (less so). I sold it in favour of a type 4 Summicron (aka BK). So I don't have any sample image from the Summilux to show here for illustration. However, years later, I chance upon the work of Steven Tanno, a street photographer from JP, who shoots mostly with an M6+35 Summilux combo. I must admit that he has used this character-lens Summilux with great success.

For the skeptics, you may want to take a look at his work. In particular, he shot many rolls of Kodak Double-X with this combo in Israel/Palestine,2017, just beautiful! Take a good look before you dismiss this lens:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/caione...h/33215989361/

Thanks for this reference! His work w/ the ‘lux is very expressive and atmospheric, IMO. He also seems to shoot a lot with Nikon SLRs. A very fine photographer and I have followed him on Flickr.