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

[Erik van Straten]

From what I've read, they're using the sane optical formula as the original lens. Don't know about what glass they're using.

Jim B.

The glass is what's important. Because lead-containing glasses are not available anymore, modern lenses are aspherically ground. That's why modern lenses are bigger and heavier. Compare a modern 35mm f1.4 with a steel rim!

Erik.

 

[Noserider]

I would think a weight comparison between the old and the new is in order.

I think that the glass issue for this lens would not be consequential, Marco Cavina has a good article about Leica glassworks and the glass formulas they worked on to make the Noctilux f/1. I'm pretty certain that this version of the 35/1.4 originally did not include such exclusive glass, recall that both the 'cron and lux were pretty close in optical formula, the 1.4 being somewhat of a 'speed stretched' f/2, and both f/2 and 1.4 were made in very large quantity.

I think this is Leica's way of cutting into VC's "classic' line of lenses.

 

[james.liam]

That would be my question; this lens has a "classic" look but there are fast VC lenses that are similarly designed. Does this one have more/less focus shift? Is resolution adequate at ƒ/1.4 or 2? Is it a curiosity of its time superseded by more capable glass? Don't know that much about this lens other than the original couldn't be mounted on digital M's

 

[dourbalistar]

I would think a weight comparison between the old and the new is in order.

According to the Leica USA webpage, the reissue is:
Approx. 200 g/221 g/214 g (without lens hood/with rectangular lens hood/with round lens hood)
https://leicacamerausa.com/leica-summilux-m-35mm-f-1-4.html

 

[Richard G]

I’ve got the version 2 original. At f1.4 in anything but dim dim light it’s awful.

 

[Mackinaw]

The glass is what's important. Because lead-containing glasses are not available anymore, modern lenses are aspherically ground. That's why modern lenses are bigger and heavier. Compare a modern 35mm f1.4 with a steel rim!

Erik.

Well, optical glass science and technology have come a long way in the past 60 years. I trust Leica has found a suitable replacement for the older glass that is no longer available. No matter, I'm pretty sure I'm going to sell my 35 Summicron ASPH and spring for this new 35/1.4 Summilux.

Jim B.

 

[Erik van Straten]

According to the Leica USA webpage, the reissue is:
Approx. 200 g/221 g/214 g (without lens hood/with rectangular lens hood/with round lens hood)
https://leicacamerausa.com/leica-sum...5mm-f-1-4.html

My v1 No. 17772XX weights 220 grammes (without hood & caps).

gelatin silver print (summilux 35mm f1.4 v1) leica m2

Erik.

 

[Erik van Straten]

I'm pretty certain that this version of the 35/1.4 originally did not include such exclusive glass, recall that both the 'cron and lux were pretty close in optical formula, the 1.4 being somewhat of a 'speed stretched' f/2, and both f/2 and 1.4 were made in very large quantity.

I think this is Leica's way of cutting into VC's "classic' line of lenses.

No, the 35mm f1.4 v1 steel rim wasn't made in a large quantity and neither was the v2. The earliest number of model 1 I've seen is 1730015 and the last 1785614 -many gaps do exist, small batches throughout- and of the model 2 the earliest is 2060541 and the last 2167547 -many gaps do exist, small batches throughout- so there aren't many around.

The Summicron was made with eight elements and the Summilux steel rim with seven. Given the fact that the Summilux steel rim was made with only seven elements we can be sure that the glass of certain elements was very special. Ordinary glass was used with the later 35mm Summiluxes. These can't be compared with the steelrims in my opinion, not optically and not mechanically.

Erik.

 

[brusby]

The Summicron was made with eight elements and the Summilux steel rim with seven. Given the fact that the Summilux steel rim was made with only seven elements we can be sure that the glass of certain elements was very special. Ordinary glass was used with the later 35mm Summiluxes. These can't be compared with the steelrims in my opinion, not optically and not mechanically.

Erik.

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

 

[Bill Blackwell]

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

Thoughts? ...

I've owned two copies of the original over the years. I bought the second thinking there was something wrong with the first (there wasn't). If I could pick a "worst-ever" Leica lens, this would be it.

 

[yossi]

......

The Summicron was made with eight elements and the Summilux steel rim with seven. Given the fact that the Summilux steel rim was made with only seven elements we can be sure that the glass of certain elements was very special. Ordinary glass was used with the later 35mm Summiluxes. These can't be compared with the steelrims in my opinion, not optically and not mechanically.

Erik.

From Leica M COMPENDIUM, by Jonathan Eastland. p.50-51.

This book said that the 35mm Summilux 7-element structure is based on an earlier optical design of Summicron (not sure it refers to which version of summicron.) From the above diagrams however, the 35mm Summilux and the 35mm Summicron v4 (aka Bokeh King) are of the same optical formula: 7-elements in 5 groups. The book further mentioned that in 1966 (from serial no. 2166702) the lens was re-computed with a marked improvement in image quality.

This is quite different from what we heard over here about the superior quality of the steel rim version.

Anyway, it is really a good thing that Leica bothers to re-issue this classic/legendary Summilux steel rim at this price point. Those already owned the original version would like to believe that this can't be the "real" thing. Those who couldn't afford the original one would hope that the re-issued one is the same as the original one but at the fraction of the current asking price (I am one of those).

I quote Leica's own words here about this re-issued Summilux for reference. It does say quite clearly about this lens' performance and formula:

"Since its launch in 1961 and after more than 35 years of almost unchanged production, the M lens has been enjoying great popularity up to the present day. The world’s fastest wide-angle lens at the time has also always been very compact and extremely light with a weight of only 200 grams. Last but not least, it convinces with its imaging performance and the unique image effect. Photographing with maximum aperture creates pictures with an especially soft, almost magical bokeh which is hard to achieve even with digital image processing. Its extraordinary pictorial look earned the Summilux-M 35 f/1.4 the title “True King of Bokeh”. Photographing at open aperture in backlit conditions creates intended lens flares that can be used for specific creative effects. At the latest after stopping down to f/2.8, it produces very sharp and particularly distortion-free pictures which also meet modern requirements for image quality.

Its relaunched edition is made in the Leica manufacture in Wetzlar – in the original vintage design and with the identical optical calculation of the first Summilux-M 35 f/1.4. Furthermore, the stainless steel front ring known as “Steel Rim”, the lockable focus ring and the black attachable lens hood are also modelled on the original. What is new, however, is the second, round lens hood with E46 thread which enables the use of filters and is also included in delivery. "

(Intesting/amusing parts are highlighted in RED)

 

[brusby]

The book further mentioned that in 1966 (from serial no. 2166702) the lens was re-computed with a marked improvement in image quality.

This is quite different from what we heard over here about the superior quality of the steel rim version.

Contrary to this article, I don't see any significant improvement or any real change in image quality with the lenses made post 1966 after the end of production of the steel rim version. But I also haven't noticed that the steel rim lenses seem any sharper, more detailed or different in nature from the subsequent non-steel rim version.

I've tried to be as objective as possible, comparing primarily how soft and detailed the images shot at wide apertures seem from both versions of this lens. But I've had to judge by looking at images posted by others including the many very nice images posted here by Erik. The amount of "glow" or softness or haze -- whatever you'd like to call it -- seems very similar to what my lens produces at wide apertures. And so does the basic sharpness.

Maybe a much more controlled side by side test would produce different results. I'd love to see a more detailed comparison if someone has access to good versions of both lenses. I'm not pulling for either version. Just trying to cut through the BS.

BTW, I love the multifaceted nature of this lens and the ability to change the mood of the photos with a simple twist of the aperture ring.

 

[Richard G]

What will this do to prices of the original non-steel rim Summilux? They have been going for ridiculous prices. The main reason I have kept mine is for the compactness and lightness. I mostly shoot it at f5.6. And I always know I can go up to 11 if I need to....

 

[Erik van Straten]

Contrary to this article, I don't see any significant improvement or any real change in image quality with the lenses made post 1966 after the end of production of the steel rim version. But I also haven't noticed that the steel rim lenses seem any sharper, more detailed or different in nature from the subsequent non-steel rim version.

I also have the "follow up" version of the steel rim, no. 22213XX. It is a black lens, made in Canada, weights 185 grammes, has an "infinity stop" but no filter thread, the filters had to be mounted in the shade. For this purpose, the lens hood could be unscrewed. This must be the recomputed version referred to in the contribution of Yossi. The lens is sought after by collectors. It is not a bad lens, but has some strange characteristics. The plane of sharpness is not flat, but curved, in the center the sharpness is OK, but the plane of sharpness curves to the back on the sides of the image, quite disturbing in fact. It seems to be a reporters lens, the subject had to be in the center of the image. It does not compare to the steel rims. Mechanically it is not bad at all, but to me it is clearly a cheapened version of the steel rims. It used to be very sought after in the 1980's I remember, nicknamed "infinity stop". However, I remember reading too that the later "Made in Germany" 35mm f1.4 was much better, but that lens I've never owned.

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

https://www.flickr.com/photos/erik_van_straten/50085057211/in/dateposted-public/

Erik.

 

[ptpdprinter]

I have both the first and the second versions; bought them long ago when they were still affordable, nrs 17772XX and 20606XX. They are the most incredible 35mm's I've ever used. The second version is better than the first, but the first has a charm all its own. I hope the new one is NOT an ASPH. I guess these lenses are made with very special glasses. They are made with only seven elements. I prefer them to the eight elements 35mm f2.

Erik.

v1:

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?

 

[ptpdprinter]

I also have the "follow up" version of the steel rim, no. 22213XX. It is a black lens, made in Canada, weights 185 grammes, has an "infinity stop" but no filter thread, the filters had to be mounted in the shade. For this purpose, the lens hood could be unscrewed. This must be the recomputed version referred to in the contribution of Yossi. The lens is sought after by collectors. It is not a bad lens, but has some strange characteristics. The plane of sharpness is not flat, but curved, in the center the sharpness is OK, but the plane of sharpness curves to the back on the sides of the image, quite disturbing in fact. It seems to be a reporters lens, the subject had to be in the center of the image. It does not compare to the steel rims. Mechanically it is not bad at all, but to me it is clearly a cheapened version of the steel rims. It used to be very sought after in the 1980's I remember, nicknamed "infinity stop". However, I remember reading too that the later "Made in Germany" 35mm f1.4 was much better, but that lens I've never owned.

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

Erik.

If this photograph is any indication, this version of the lens doesn't look like anything special - not particularly sharp and low contrast.

 

[luuca]

I've owned two copies of the original over the years. I bought the second thinking there was something wrong with the first (there wasn't). If I could pick a "worst-ever" Leica lens, this would be it.

I think it's quite good for such a tiny f1,4 old lens, usable on my M10r too

 

[ptpdprinter]

I think it's quite good for such a tiny f1,4 old lens, usable on my M10r too

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.

 

[Bill Blackwell]

If this photograph is any indication, this version of the lens doesn't look like anything special - not particularly sharp and low contrast.

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.

+1

Please - I mean no disrespect, but this lens has never impressed me by any measure; if you like it, knock yourself out.

 

[bob338]

Funny all the comments about sharpness. This lens embodies the Leica aesthetic, in my opinion, and my biggest photography regret is having sold mine a few years ago.
I will buy the first copy of this lens I can get my hands on.