johnastovall
Light Hunter - RIP 2010
I've reached [SIZE=-1]paralysis by analysis in my quest to add a used 35 to my kit. I'll continue to use my Nokton 35/1.2 for when I need speed.
It's down to a 35 IV Summicron or the 35 Summicron ASPH. I see the delta in used prices is about 500 dollars.
What have you all done when looking at this situation? Is the Bokeh worth forgoing newer technology?
Here's is my folio of the type of shot's I would be using it for, Texas Cafe Life.
[/SIZE]
It's down to a 35 IV Summicron or the 35 Summicron ASPH. I see the delta in used prices is about 500 dollars.
What have you all done when looking at this situation? Is the Bokeh worth forgoing newer technology?
Here's is my folio of the type of shot's I would be using it for, Texas Cafe Life.
[/SIZE]
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
I have the Summicron 35asph and I feel it is the last lens I would sell. I particularly like the way it renders even the smalles nuances in both colour and detail. If it is a question of money, the SummicronIV might be the better choice, and the bokeh is a bit smoother, but you lose out on fine drawing of the plane of focus. All this is of course rather marginal, and I'm sure you would be happy with either lens.
harmsr
M5 Nut
Choosing a 35 is also a big problem for me.
I had the 35 Lux ASPH which I loved on film, but even after tuning in Solms was only on at 1.4, then 5.6 and smaller. At 2.0 to 5.6 it focus shifted. When I use the 35 on the M8 it is normally at fairly close distances and the rearward focus shift really bothered me.
I switched to a 35 Cron ASPH, which Leica adjusted for me so well that it really never causes any issue for the focus point at any aperture or any distance. I really like the size of this lens, its sharpness, and bokeh. However, It can be too contasty and transitions to the OOF bokeh are too abrupt for my taste.
The 35 Cron IV is a little less contrasty compared to the 35 Cron ASPH, but has the Nocti type bokeh in some instances and flares more than the ASPH. So it is out, as I just can't deal with the Nocti bokeh it gives sometimes.
The new Summarit is not in contention for me, although it is a good lens I truly believe that the Cron ASPH gives more fine detail and should be better in the corners with a future full frame camera (lets hope one comes along eventually). The MTF curves also substantiate this.
The Zeiss Biogon is out as it is even more contrasty than the Cron ASPH, and uses a different thread for the filters than a 43 mm Leica does. That means you have to use B+W filters which give a different filtering / in camera correction than the Leica filters do.
I have not tried the CV offerings in 35, but just seeing the size of the 35 1.2 knocks it out of consideration for me.
At this point, the 35 Cron ASPH stays in the bag but I normally shoot around it with the 28 Cron ASPH or the 50 Lux ASPH.
My wish is that Leica would reformulate the 35 Lux ASPH to give the same rendering & contrast it does now but without the focus shift issue. If they do, I'm buying it.
Ray
I had the 35 Lux ASPH which I loved on film, but even after tuning in Solms was only on at 1.4, then 5.6 and smaller. At 2.0 to 5.6 it focus shifted. When I use the 35 on the M8 it is normally at fairly close distances and the rearward focus shift really bothered me.
I switched to a 35 Cron ASPH, which Leica adjusted for me so well that it really never causes any issue for the focus point at any aperture or any distance. I really like the size of this lens, its sharpness, and bokeh. However, It can be too contasty and transitions to the OOF bokeh are too abrupt for my taste.
The 35 Cron IV is a little less contrasty compared to the 35 Cron ASPH, but has the Nocti type bokeh in some instances and flares more than the ASPH. So it is out, as I just can't deal with the Nocti bokeh it gives sometimes.
The new Summarit is not in contention for me, although it is a good lens I truly believe that the Cron ASPH gives more fine detail and should be better in the corners with a future full frame camera (lets hope one comes along eventually). The MTF curves also substantiate this.
The Zeiss Biogon is out as it is even more contrasty than the Cron ASPH, and uses a different thread for the filters than a 43 mm Leica does. That means you have to use B+W filters which give a different filtering / in camera correction than the Leica filters do.
I have not tried the CV offerings in 35, but just seeing the size of the 35 1.2 knocks it out of consideration for me.
At this point, the 35 Cron ASPH stays in the bag but I normally shoot around it with the 28 Cron ASPH or the 50 Lux ASPH.
My wish is that Leica would reformulate the 35 Lux ASPH to give the same rendering & contrast it does now but without the focus shift issue. If they do, I'm buying it.
Ray
venchka
Veteran
What Ray said
What Ray said
Ray answered while I was thinking. Also, there obviously are different considerations with the M8 versus film.
If it must be Leitz, 35mm ASPH.
The prices have soared since last year. Why didn't I buy Ray Harms' 35 ASPH??????????? :bang: :bang: :bang:
What Ray said
Ray answered while I was thinking. Also, there obviously are different considerations with the M8 versus film.
If it must be Leitz, 35mm ASPH.
The prices have soared since last year. Why didn't I buy Ray Harms' 35 ASPH??????????? :bang: :bang: :bang:
peter_n
Veteran
Bought a Konica UC Hexanon 35/2. Seriously. BTW the 35 Summicron ASPH is heavier than the 35 Summilux ASPH...johnastovall said:
tbarker13
shooter of stuff
I also bought a 35 UC hexanon which I just love. Enough, in fact, that I'm planning to sell my 35 summicron IV.
venchka
Veteran
Hmmmm...maybe I did the right thing afterall. Having one very nice 35mm lens for both Leica mounts does make a wee bit of sense, hey!
Dektol Dan
Well-known
Right Application Right Time
Right Application Right Time
Ray:
Not having your money it's hard to fault what your personal experiences with these lenses are whether the are street shooting, indoor, low light, bright sun, sun over the shoulder, sun at 20 degrees off, in shade, against bright color and so on.
No lens in my experience is great for all situations. Criteria like 'sharp to the corners', and 'Nokti bokeh' are like obsessing with a pimple that should be popped on a beautiful girl's nose. True, there are some characteristics that just have to remain personal.
Here's my evaluation of the Biogon, just to give you an example of what I believe helps others in a lens evaluation. Of course you may say these are just personal opinions and not emperical, but I'm going to try my best after shooting about 20 rolls behind it.
The Biogon is a lower contrast lens compared with later model Summicrons. It has very even and broad tonality given by its wider range of depth of field. It has excellent microcontrast, and scanned from film with middle to lower contrast films reders with little noise. I have no digital camera experience with it.
The Biogon is not in its element in bright sunlight with color film. It gives a very substantial blue coloring that when corrected in Photoshop subtracts some important information. This blue is part of the even tonality that is this lens' forte. Warming filters help but I prefer not use them. Even with the factory hood it can exhibits curtain flair 20 degrees from a bright light source, and moderate veiling flair that erases shadow detail.
The Biogon is very good in evenly lit situations and indoor shots. It is very kind to women and a wonderful portrait lens.
Not withstanding its blue cast (red rocks appear pink) it is a good landscape lens. Like the 3.5 35mm Summaron, its imagery is like that of a 4x5 or other larger format camera as it's lack of distortion is remarkably flat so that it is very good for architecture and indoor scenes.
All in all the Biogon is very unique but is rather large. The 28 will fit into a traditional eveready case, the 35 will not. If you hike, use public transportation, photograph in crowds or like to toss your camera under a car seat, it may not be the right choice for you. It is a good value, but for a more adaptable and smaller lens an older Summicron or Summaron might be a better choice if one is on a tight budget. I like my Biogon but I don't think I would buy one again.
Ray, I am sorry that you had focusing issues with your Summilux. Not owning one I can only judge its imagery from what I see on the net from others. It would be my choice if I had your money. I know from experience that all lenses of one model are not created equally. The old adage of the best lens is one that is a bit shop worn with perfect glass is correct. Those are signs of lens that was loved by an owner who knew what he had and evidently he had good one. Of all my lenses I have three that are more than perfect in construction which I will never sell. I think you may have had some bad luck with your Summilux.
Right Application Right Time
harmsr said:
Ray:
Not having your money it's hard to fault what your personal experiences with these lenses are whether the are street shooting, indoor, low light, bright sun, sun over the shoulder, sun at 20 degrees off, in shade, against bright color and so on.
No lens in my experience is great for all situations. Criteria like 'sharp to the corners', and 'Nokti bokeh' are like obsessing with a pimple that should be popped on a beautiful girl's nose. True, there are some characteristics that just have to remain personal.
Here's my evaluation of the Biogon, just to give you an example of what I believe helps others in a lens evaluation. Of course you may say these are just personal opinions and not emperical, but I'm going to try my best after shooting about 20 rolls behind it.
The Biogon is a lower contrast lens compared with later model Summicrons. It has very even and broad tonality given by its wider range of depth of field. It has excellent microcontrast, and scanned from film with middle to lower contrast films reders with little noise. I have no digital camera experience with it.
The Biogon is not in its element in bright sunlight with color film. It gives a very substantial blue coloring that when corrected in Photoshop subtracts some important information. This blue is part of the even tonality that is this lens' forte. Warming filters help but I prefer not use them. Even with the factory hood it can exhibits curtain flair 20 degrees from a bright light source, and moderate veiling flair that erases shadow detail.
The Biogon is very good in evenly lit situations and indoor shots. It is very kind to women and a wonderful portrait lens.
Not withstanding its blue cast (red rocks appear pink) it is a good landscape lens. Like the 3.5 35mm Summaron, its imagery is like that of a 4x5 or other larger format camera as it's lack of distortion is remarkably flat so that it is very good for architecture and indoor scenes.
All in all the Biogon is very unique but is rather large. The 28 will fit into a traditional eveready case, the 35 will not. If you hike, use public transportation, photograph in crowds or like to toss your camera under a car seat, it may not be the right choice for you. It is a good value, but for a more adaptable and smaller lens an older Summicron or Summaron might be a better choice if one is on a tight budget. I like my Biogon but I don't think I would buy one again.
Ray, I am sorry that you had focusing issues with your Summilux. Not owning one I can only judge its imagery from what I see on the net from others. It would be my choice if I had your money. I know from experience that all lenses of one model are not created equally. The old adage of the best lens is one that is a bit shop worn with perfect glass is correct. Those are signs of lens that was loved by an owner who knew what he had and evidently he had good one. Of all my lenses I have three that are more than perfect in construction which I will never sell. I think you may have had some bad luck with your Summilux.
Last edited:
tbarker13
shooter of stuff
That was certainly part of my thinking. I have it on good authority that my wife is getting me a Canon P (LTM) for Christmas. The UC hex will work on both.
venchka
Veteran
There you go!
There you go!
My thoughts exactly. Equally at home on my VI-T or Bigfoot or Bubba.
There you go!
tbarker13 said:
My thoughts exactly. Equally at home on my VI-T or Bigfoot or Bubba.
Marc-A.
I Shoot Film
I saw your picture, and I wonder why do you need another 35mm, since the Nokton seems good from what I saw. Do you need something smaller than the Nokton to be more discreet?
peter_n
Veteran
How true this is. My best Leica lens is a 35/1.4 ASPH that I bought from a wedding photographer in Newport, RI. I drove down to his office to pick it up and was treated to a sorrowful eulogy on the lens and some of his framed shots taken with it on the walls of his offices. He brightened up when I told him why I needed such a fast lens, he clearly realized it was going to a good home. He obviously loved the lens and now I do too.Dektol Dan said:
mfogiel
Veteran
I've read recently Sean Reid's analysis of 35mm lenses, including the new Summaron. It looks like the main difference among the best lenses is the price. For the type of shots you do, why don't you buy the CV 35/2.5 ? It has resulted to be the sharpest lens of the lot in the center of the image, and costs 1/5th of the so called "economical" Summaron, not to mention the Summicron... I think this Leica desease should be an interesting case study for anthropologists.
ampguy
Veteran
yeah
yeah
Nice photos there. I also wondered if a new lens would do much better than your already existing photos.
Keep in mind the asph is heavier and longer (about a cm) than the V4, but with the types of photos you're taking, I'd be very interested if you can tell a difference between the v4 and asph, though if you only shoot color, the asph may give better color rendition and less flare, but try to handle both, the size difference alone may have you leaning towards a pre-asph, or if you have big hands, you may prefer the handling of the larger asph.
Haven't used the Zeiss, but some folks on this forum like it a lot.
yeah
Nice photos there. I also wondered if a new lens would do much better than your already existing photos.
Keep in mind the asph is heavier and longer (about a cm) than the V4, but with the types of photos you're taking, I'd be very interested if you can tell a difference between the v4 and asph, though if you only shoot color, the asph may give better color rendition and less flare, but try to handle both, the size difference alone may have you leaning towards a pre-asph, or if you have big hands, you may prefer the handling of the larger asph.
Haven't used the Zeiss, but some folks on this forum like it a lot.
Marc-A. said:
Steve Bellayr
Veteran
First consideration is what camera will you be placing the lens onto. Secondly, what will be the eventual outcome...print vs. digital image & size of the print. Consider, too, that the asph will be ever so slightly heavier. And, lastly, more costly.
If you will be shooting under low light you will have a narrower depth of field (duh) hence more out of focus area. But, the subject matter will be more important than the bokeh...Isn't that always true.
If you will be shooting under low light you will have a narrower depth of field (duh) hence more out of focus area. But, the subject matter will be more important than the bokeh...Isn't that always true.
harmsr
M5 Nut
Dan,
I agree and disagree with your evaluation of the Biogon.
I use the M8 for color, and agree that I don't like the Biogon in color but that it does do nicely in B&W on film. (But then again, I can adjust contrast on film by film type, developer, and processing.) I was able to use one for 2 weeks in comparison to Cron ASPH and truly did find it more contrasty than the Leica. You mention that the Biogon does not do well in bright sun, but rather in indoor & subdued lighting. That to me means that the contrast is very high. The Biogon does render very nicely in how it draws, and is consistenly sharp across the frame. My issues with it are the high contrast in bright sun (I live in AZ.) and the filter issue for use on the M8. You have to use a B+W IR filter vs. the Leica, and that does make a difference. Additionally if you read Sean Reid's site, it also exhibits some focus shift.
I truly miss what my Summilux ASPH was capable of on film, and just wish it could do the same on the M8.
Relative to your comment about whether the "nocti" type bokeh is important, I have to say "to each his own". Personally, that is a deal breaker for me. I just don't like it.
Best,
Ray
I agree and disagree with your evaluation of the Biogon.
I use the M8 for color, and agree that I don't like the Biogon in color but that it does do nicely in B&W on film. (But then again, I can adjust contrast on film by film type, developer, and processing.) I was able to use one for 2 weeks in comparison to Cron ASPH and truly did find it more contrasty than the Leica. You mention that the Biogon does not do well in bright sun, but rather in indoor & subdued lighting. That to me means that the contrast is very high. The Biogon does render very nicely in how it draws, and is consistenly sharp across the frame. My issues with it are the high contrast in bright sun (I live in AZ.) and the filter issue for use on the M8. You have to use a B+W IR filter vs. the Leica, and that does make a difference. Additionally if you read Sean Reid's site, it also exhibits some focus shift.
I truly miss what my Summilux ASPH was capable of on film, and just wish it could do the same on the M8.
Relative to your comment about whether the "nocti" type bokeh is important, I have to say "to each his own". Personally, that is a deal breaker for me. I just don't like it.
Best,
Ray
johnastovall
Light Hunter - RIP 2010
Steve Bellayr said:
Isn't the Leica M8 form? :bang:
Matthew Runkel
Well-known
It doesn't seem to me that bokeh enters into the equation much for images of this kind. You could get a Contax T3 for less money and give up nothing to either lens.
crawdiddy
qu'est-ce que c'est?
Hello John. I don't have a comment on which 35, but I just looked at your portfolio, and it's very nice. I enjoyed your documentation of the "Dairy capital of north Texas," as I often think of Dublin. The cafe photos are great. Reminds me of home, as I'm a native Texan.
Avotius
Some guy
cant go wrong with the 35 asph if you ask me. People talk about weight and size and what not, its much much much smaller then the hasselblad lenses (2) I carry around. As for out of focus areas I dont think there is much in it personally, seeing prints from both lenses and have a hard time telling them apart from bokeh alone.