Summicron 35 Asph vs Summicron 35 pre

[albertospa]

Show me some pictures with Summicron 35 Asph and 35 Summicron IV (pre-asph) with the Leica M9. I'm really torn between these two lenses. I will like too much your considerations. I'm interested in using this lens for people and street, from F2 to F4.
Thank you.

 

[lawrence]

Hi Alberto

I have both lenses but I only shoot film, so I can just give you a quick summary of the differences as I see them (of course you may get better advice from someone who's used them on the M9):

• Both are a joy to focus via their tabs.
• Both of my copies are very well built although ASPH feels more solid with extra weight.
• IV is really compact & light. Smaller and lighter even than the C Biogon 35mm.
• IV doesn't have the sharpness of ASPH at wider apertures, particularly wide open.
• IV vignettes quite a lot wide open (unlike some people, I don't like vignetting).
• Bokeh on both is excellent (some people don't like ASPH bokeh but I do).
• ASPH has more micro contrast but it's not overly contrasty.

In summary, these are two of the nicest lenses you can find and I think your choice may depend on what kind of image you like -- technically perfect (ASPH) or more traditional (IV).

Lawrence

 

[Ansel]

It depends on the rest of the imaging chain... For jpgs on the web either is good. Get the best condition lens you can. But if you are going to be printing large etc and want sharpness between f2 and f4, and sharpness in the corners then the ASPH is clearly going to be ahead. They look pretty much the same otherwise. I don't find the ASPH to be any way clinical (on film at least - cant say for the M9, but most things look clinical with digital to my eye...), in fact it reminds me a lot of the 38 mm Biogon for Hasselblad. Lovely lens.

I see a lot of folks going for the IV with digicams to emulate the film look.

 

[zleica]

Hi Alberto

I have both lenses but I only shoot film, so I can just give you a quick summary of the differences as I see them (of course you may get better advice from someone who's used them on the M9):

• Both are a joy to focus via their tabs.
• Both of my copies are very well built although ASPH feels more solid with extra weight.
• IV is really compact & light. Smaller and lighter even than the C Biogon 35mm.
• IV doesn't have the sharpness of ASPH at wider apertures, particularly wide open.
• IV vignettes quite a lot wide open (unlike some people, I don't like vignetting).
• Bokeh on both is excellent (some people don't like ASPH bokeh but I do).
• ASPH has more micro contrast but it's not overly contrasty.

In summary, these are two of the nicest lenses you can find and I think your choice may depend on what kind of image you like -- technically perfect (ASPH) or more traditional (IV).

Lawrence

Lawrence summed up the comparison very nicely!

 

[albertospa]

Thanks for the replies. But I would like to see some pictures.
I currently have version Asph. I notice an abrupt transition between focus zone and the area out of focus that I do not like. I think that in the pre-asph the passage between the focus area and out of focus area is more gradual. I would like to see how much I lose in definition with the pre-asph to f2.

 

[Ansel]

Thanks for the replies. But I would like to see some pictures.
I currently have version Asph. I notice an abrupt transition between focus zone and the area out of focus that I do not like. I think that in the pre-asph the passage between the focus area and out of focus area is more gradual. I would like to see how much I lose in definition with the pre-asph to f2.

I suggest you close the lens down and increase depth of field. Same as with any lens. The version IV has a slightly wider angle of view than the ASPH so that also slightly affects depth of field at any given f stop (less than half a stop in it IMO).

DOF is also a function of subject distance. Very close subjects will have sharp dropoff.

p.s. perhaps if you Google "M9 Summicron IV f2" you will find some images?

 

[tuanvinh2000]

I own the v4 for brief amount of time, image quality wise i dont see much difference since i shoot BW film with both and they both perform more than i ever needed. Construction wise the v4 i had has a loose barrel and doesn't feel as solid as the asph, also asph has a very smooth focus feel to it. I kept the asph in the end since i see myself using it more due to tactile feel. I would be satisfied with both in term of image qualities though. For digital, i suggest the asph since they seem to match digital better. Dont worry too much about bokeh of a 35mm lens, there aren't much and both of them are about the same to my eyes. I actually prefer the asph bokeh.
In the end though for more shallow depth of field and an extra bit of light, i got a nokton f1.2. it's quite special at f1.2, i like the look of it.

 

[CK Dexter Haven]

Keep that 35 ASPH. I've long since sold out of Leica, but that was the lens i most miss. Not the handling, but the rendering. Check out this guy's stuff. He does a lot of very nice personal stuff with the 35ASPH:

Peter Eavis —
http://www.flickr.com/photos/eavis/

 

[Tom Niblick]

For some odd reason my posted photos always come out as thumbnails in this forum, so I'm not going to bother.

The ASPH version is slightly sharper in the corners at F2 and F2.8. Not enough so to make me even think about selling my 35 Summicron Type IV. No, I love the Type IV. It is compact, light and sharp enough to make you say "wow" when you see a 24x36 inch print.

On the other hand, the type IV is so desirable that used prices are totally out of line and frequently as much as a nice used ASPH version. At approx. $2,200 you might as well get the ASPH.

 

[Ansel]

Have a look here:

http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=800703

 

[albertospa]

Thank you all. I think I'll buy a 35 IV compare directly with my 35 Asph. In these cases it is personal taste.

 

[Fraser]

I have neither only the 35mm pre asph summilux, but if I was to choose one I would go for the pre asph summicron just for the compact size.

 

[Pete B]

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/customer-forum/240778-35mm-f2-asph-vs-35mm-f2.html

There's very little in it. I like the slight background rotational blur of the pre asph, and the manner in which it flares, but I tend to use the asph more as I prefer its ergonomics.
Pete

 

[Ansel]

They have slightly different focal lengths, thereby affecting DOF slightly, therefore it really is very hard to compare things like bokeh because what you are actually seeing is differences in DOF.

ASPH is 35.3 mm
IV is 35 mm

 

[helen.HH]

Purely Subjective
my vote for the 35 Asph...just something special to my eye
the only lens i regret selling
that and the 35 c biogon are my FAV's / if i ever go back to 35 i would get BOTH of them, love them both and be done

have had
v1...loved it cept for the googles / wish i had the non google version
v3....very nice
v4... it was fine not impressed for 'bokeh king' title , plasticky in ergonomics
Asph... Sublime

yummy good asph

Castles made of Sand... by helenhill_HH, on Flickr

 

[LCT]

I own both lenses and will second the advices given above for the most part. In one word, you will need the asph if you shoot a lot at full aperture but otherwise the tiny v4 is a joy to use if you're not disturbed by its slight focus shift around F/4.

 

[__--]

This series of 16 color pictures was shot with the M9 and the Summicron-35v4, and the link below my signature is for the download of an 80-page book project that was also shot with this lens (except for the chapter title shot with the text "Chiang Tung/Kentong," which was shot with the Summilux-50 pre-ASPH).

—Mitch/Paris
Chiang Tung Days [direct download link for pdf file for book project]