tbm
Established
Based on your using either or both of these lenses, which would you rate higher in consistent overall quality and on what basis or bases?
TM
TM
Standard 35mm Summicron-M or ASPH?
- Thread starter tbm
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 30
- Views 3K
sepiareverb
genius and moron
I think the 35/2 ASPH is one of the finest lenses for 35mm period. In shooting with this lens I am always taken by the precise yet lively quality of the images. High contrast yes, too high? no. Crisp lines, with beautiful rendition of tones throughout the range.
hdrmd
Member
I agree completely; a fine lens in all regards. DR
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
JNewell
Leica M Recidivist
I will add two more considerations against the "type IV" Summicron 35mm: (1) it seems to have one of the worst track records for build-quality problems and (2) it is noticeably smaller than the preceding three versions or the ASPH (all of which are approximately the same size). #2 may or may not be an advantage for you, but I found that the lens was simply too small for dependable use for me.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
endustry said:
I find the ASPH plenty compact- in fact smaller than this I start to have trouble focussing with the tiny ring/handle- my main gripe with the 40 'cron.
endustry said:
Couldn't be said more precisely than this.
Rico
Well-known
Here are some 35mm lenses sorted by length (as measured from mounting flange to filter ring). I don't own the ASPH, so it was calculated from engineering diagrams. All others were measured by ruler.
Length Lens
(mm)
------ ------------------
42.0 ..Canon EF 35/2
34.5 ..Leica 'cron-M 35 ASPH
29.0 ..Leitz 'cron-M 35 v3
28.5 ..Leitz Summaron 35/2.8
26.0 ..Leitz 'cron-M 35 v4
In use, both v3 and v4 feel equally compact.
Length Lens
(mm)
------ ------------------
42.0 ..Canon EF 35/2
34.5 ..Leica 'cron-M 35 ASPH
29.0 ..Leitz 'cron-M 35 v3
28.5 ..Leitz Summaron 35/2.8
26.0 ..Leitz 'cron-M 35 v4
J. Borger
Well-known
Rico,Rico said:
Could you tell me your experience with the differences between the v3 and v4. especially in the contrast department and B&W tonalities?
I am one of the rare people who does not like his 35 cron asph at all, especially not beyond f5,6 ...... 😱
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
waileong
Well-known
If all you're after is sharpness and contrast, Asph is the way to go. If other things matter to you-- size, weight, bokeh, glow, character, etc. then every lens has its redeeming qualities.
Like many people I started out worrying about which lens was the sharpest, most contrasty, best bang for the buck, least distortion, etc. I've now come to accept that (almost) every lens has its place.
For instance, I have both the 35/1.4 asph and the 35/2 IV. Obciously, the former is for low light, wide open shots. It's great for landscapes and plenty sharp.
The latter I use for general daylight shooting. At 5.6 and above it's great for its bokeh. Below f4 its soft, good for closeups when you don't want to be too harsh to the subject, and good for a classical look.
The asph is much heavier and bigger than the IV. That makes it less compact. If I want a kit I can put inside my jacket, the M4+35/2 IV is just the thing. In fact, if I had a Bessa or CL it'd be even smaller. So one is a more useful out and about lens compared to the other.
It's the same with my 90 mm. I have a Tele-elmarit, which I use when I go on vacations, and a AA which I use for landscapes and model shoots. Just because the AA is sharper and contrastier doesn't mean the TE has no place in the universe. Handheld at mid apertures, the difference in picture quality is minute due to camera shake and subject movement.
Thus there are reasons (other than optical qualities alone) for choosing one or both lenses. There's no such thing as a "best" lens for anything. What's best for you isn't best for me.
Like many people I started out worrying about which lens was the sharpest, most contrasty, best bang for the buck, least distortion, etc. I've now come to accept that (almost) every lens has its place.
For instance, I have both the 35/1.4 asph and the 35/2 IV. Obciously, the former is for low light, wide open shots. It's great for landscapes and plenty sharp.
The latter I use for general daylight shooting. At 5.6 and above it's great for its bokeh. Below f4 its soft, good for closeups when you don't want to be too harsh to the subject, and good for a classical look.
The asph is much heavier and bigger than the IV. That makes it less compact. If I want a kit I can put inside my jacket, the M4+35/2 IV is just the thing. In fact, if I had a Bessa or CL it'd be even smaller. So one is a more useful out and about lens compared to the other.
It's the same with my 90 mm. I have a Tele-elmarit, which I use when I go on vacations, and a AA which I use for landscapes and model shoots. Just because the AA is sharper and contrastier doesn't mean the TE has no place in the universe. Handheld at mid apertures, the difference in picture quality is minute due to camera shake and subject movement.
Thus there are reasons (other than optical qualities alone) for choosing one or both lenses. There's no such thing as a "best" lens for anything. What's best for you isn't best for me.
x-ray
Veteran
I sold my v4 when I purchased a Biogon and won a asph summicron. My v4 had l problems in the focusing helix. Build quality is rather poor compared to earlier lenses. Optically it's OK but not up with the asph or Biogon and certainly not deserving of it's reputation. I'm afraid it's some more of that old Leica myth. Don't get me wrong because I made some great images with it but it's seriously over rated. Now owning and using both the Biogon and asph summicron I like the Biogon just a little better than the asph although the asph is superb. There isn't a great deal of difference but the Biogon is a little more classic looking in image quality and has better flare controll. I describe the biogon as more organic and having more rounded tonality but razor sharp at all apertures.
35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
both top drawer, with pre-asph (IV) being more compact. To some of us, the compact attribute is important.
Most of the improvement of the Asph would be lost in handheld photog anyway.
Most of the improvement of the Asph would be lost in handheld photog anyway.
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
sepiareverb said:
One word: Sam Abell.
erikhaugsby
killer of threads
35mmdelux said:
From wikipedia:
". For efficiency he prefers 28 mm lens, a 90 mm lens two cameras and only one film type. However, on an assignment Sam takes substantial back-up gear including various Canon cameras and lenses ranging from 24 mm-90 mm and 180 mm. Depending on the requirements of the shoot he will use a rangefinder or slr camera."
That sure doesn't sound like a Leica M on a tripod, at least to my ears.
Never Satisfied
Well-known
Hi, I have the Gen IV and have to agree that the build quality isn't really up to the traditional Leica standard. I had to have mine repaired when all of the diaphram blades collapsed into the centre of the lens. I saw the lens whilst it was in pieces at the Dr's. and was surprised when I saw that the cage that contains the diaphram blades was made from plastic and had cracked!
As far as image quality is concerned, it seems fine, but it is its OOF areas that makes this lens stand out; soft and dreamy.
Unfortunately now my Gen4 has stiff spot in the Helix similar to X-Rays and it'll have to go back to the Dr's.
Cheers, Andrew.
As far as image quality is concerned, it seems fine, but it is its OOF areas that makes this lens stand out; soft and dreamy.
Unfortunately now my Gen4 has stiff spot in the Helix similar to X-Rays and it'll have to go back to the Dr's.
Cheers, Andrew.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
In my experience 'efficiency' & 'tripod' are on opposite ends of the spectrum.
Rico
Well-known
First, I appreciate the inclusive attitude of "waileong", and agree with his post. 🙂 Between the v3 and v4 optically, I see no difference: sharpness, bokeh, illumination are the same. Handling is slightly better with the v4, specifically the aperture ring (but don't attach the hood). My v4 is early and has the convex focussing tab which I quite like. The v3 has a DOF scale which is much more readable (similar to v2 and v1). The build quality is also a half step better. Of these two Summicron versions, I prefer the v3, and own two copies (one was tested by Raid in his big 35mm comparison). Finally, I must confess that I am smitten by the Summaron 35/2.8, and the 'crons see little action anymore. Chrome is king!J. Borger said:
TJV
Well-known
I'm borrowing a friends ASPH at the moment. I own a Lux ASPH but thought I'd give the Summicron a try. I'm blown away by it's overall quality. I see how people describe it as sterile but also believe, like those above, that that's the nature of the tool and it can be easily shaped using certain techniques. I still have dreams about my old Version II SUmmicron. It was a pain to use because of the little f stop tab but I loved the tones it got. Admittedly that was due to things like spherical abberations and como, no really what you'd want in a lens, but I loved it dreamy look wide open none the less. I've never used a version IV.
If I was buying a 35mm lense again now, I'm not sure which way I'd go. I love the Summilux but think the Summicron ASPH would probably win out because of its size.
If I was buying a 35mm lense again now, I'm not sure which way I'd go. I love the Summilux but think the Summicron ASPH would probably win out because of its size.
haagen_dazs
Well-known
may i clarify
so the IV cron 35 that is often claimed to be the "bokeh king" is over rated?
so the IV cron 35 that is often claimed to be the "bokeh king" is over rated?
