Harry Lime
Practitioner
Krosya said:
No problems with flare. It's actually quite flare proof. I have the last version of the pre-asph Lux with the collapsible hood. It focuses to .7 meters and it is phenominal for black and white work. A perfect balance between the classic look of the Summicron-DR and the modern incarnation of the Summicron. The lens was in production for 40 years and it is a Leica classic.
aizan
Veteran
neither lens will disappoint, they're both superb. i think the mechanical aspects are more important, such as whether you like a focusing tab or ring, or locking hood.
Harry Lime
Practitioner
Krosya said:
Of course they are the same. Chrome, silver - it makes no difference.
There are three versions of the Lux.
The fist version was in production for only two years in the very early 1960's and is quite uncommon.
It was recomputed and replaced by the pre-ASPH model that was in production for a little over 40 years, until the introduction of the ASPH model.
The pre-ASPH barrel and mount underwent several changes, the biggest one being the ability to focus as close as 70cm, as opposed to 1 meter in earlier versions. The model with the collapsible hood will focus the closest of the two. Versions with the clip on hood focus to 1 meter.
Last edited:
R
rich815
Guest
Harry Lime said:
I just got the same version as Harry recently and in the first few rolls find his description perfect. In fact I like that it sort of resembles the DR but perhaps a with a bit more contrast and of course more speed. Lighter too, at least feels that way. Attached are a few examples of my own from the pre-ASPH version with the built-in hood.
Last edited by a moderator:
R
rich815
Guest
jja
Well-known
I like my pre-asph a lot. I also like the looks for the Asph photos I've seen, they seem to jump out at you. Here's a photo in my rff gallery from the pre-asph Summilux:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=66933&ppuser=818
In soft light and wide open, it produces photos that look a little like paintings.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=66933&ppuser=818
In soft light and wide open, it produces photos that look a little like paintings.
Last edited:
R
rich815
Guest
ErikFive said:
Erik, even clicking on the links you see nothing? The Kite one is the only one showing as a thumb for some reason but click the link of the others should bring them up. No?
R
rich815
Guest
ErikFive said:
Strange. I just tried to upload them again and they still look problematic. Interesting that the largest file is the one that uploads successfully.
Anyway, I just emailed them to you Erik for your private viewing pleasure!
Marc-A.
I Shoot Film
Those pictures show me an aspect of the Summilux I haven't noticed before. In daylight, I find the pictures very pale. Is that my monitor which gives me this impression? Would you use the Summilux for street shooting or would you choose another lens like the Summicron/Elmar maybe Planar?
madsolitaire
Established
Hi Rich, visited yr Shooting on the Fly blog. I love yr pictures!! Brought back fond memories of SFO for me. Any pics on Fisherman's Wharf? ;-)
aizan
Veteran
film + dev, marc.
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
Marc-A.
I Shoot Film
You're certainely rigth Aizan, but I guess all Summilux users don't use the same film/dev.aizan said:
Anyway, question to all: do you use your Summilux for street shooting or do prefer another lens like the Summicron/Elmar maybe Planar?
ywenz
Veteran
It looks like the choice of film affects the level of "magic" more than the lens..
Tri-X is king
Tri-X is king
Harry Lime
Practitioner
Marc-A. said:
The pre-ASPH Lux has plenty of contrast to shoot any subject.
Elliott Erwitt has been shooting with his for the past few decades and did alright.
Roma
Well-known
Mark,
This is the reason I said that I don't like my negative scans. In order to hold detail in shadows and highlights on the scans (and it's still not good), I can't make the photos appear as contrasty as the can be if wet-printed.
I can make them look punchier, but that will require enough post-processing to completely turn me off from scanning negatives. In fact, it already did.
I almost have no control of the scans from my 35mm Lux ASPH and just gave up scanning them all together. They are too contrasty to the point of losing shadow detail. This even made me question if I liked this lens because the contrast is so high.
I'm going to try to print some shots taken with the 35 to know for sure what I think about it. Sharpness is definitely not everything to me; otherwise, I wouldn't be shooting Tri-x either.
The main use of my 50 lux is for candid/street portraits, but for more environmental street shots I'd use a 35 or 28mm lens. I've found that (at least for me) it's almost impossible to be unnoticed with a wide lens up close, no matter how large it is or how quiet the camera is to take a candid portrait.
This is the reason I said that I don't like my negative scans. In order to hold detail in shadows and highlights on the scans (and it's still not good), I can't make the photos appear as contrasty as the can be if wet-printed.
I can make them look punchier, but that will require enough post-processing to completely turn me off from scanning negatives. In fact, it already did.
I almost have no control of the scans from my 35mm Lux ASPH and just gave up scanning them all together. They are too contrasty to the point of losing shadow detail. This even made me question if I liked this lens because the contrast is so high.
I'm going to try to print some shots taken with the 35 to know for sure what I think about it. Sharpness is definitely not everything to me; otherwise, I wouldn't be shooting Tri-x either.
The main use of my 50 lux is for candid/street portraits, but for more environmental street shots I'd use a 35 or 28mm lens. I've found that (at least for me) it's almost impossible to be unnoticed with a wide lens up close, no matter how large it is or how quiet the camera is to take a candid portrait.
Last edited: