Summicron 35mm f/2 v4: overpriced and overrated? Prove otherwise with Photos please.

I'm glad that Roland posted the link to Mike Johnson's piece. He originated the term "bokeh king" and the label stuck, for better or for worse. I'd like to offer three observations and one illustrative anecdote: 1) no web presentation is going to "prove" anything with respect to high quality lenses, 2) the quality of out of focus areas can be markedly different in front of the zone of best focus, when compared to the area behind -- even on a great lens, and 3) the version of the Summicron you are discussing has many virtues, including compact design. It really is a great all-around lens. There are others, of course and which is best is mostly a matter of taste and intended use.

True story: I was taking pictures of a friend's wedding back in the good old days of film. Must have been in the summer of 2000. I had a Nikon F4 and a Leica M6, both with 35/2 lenses and Delta 400 film in them. I took two pictures of the bride and groom and all their friends, standing in the open shade on the steps of a church in San Francisco. It was a large group and my pictures from that weekend were to be part of my wedding gift for the couple. All images were printed full frame on 11x14 Ilford Multigrade paper, with just the smallest amount of white space between the black frame's edge and the paper's edge. So I could actually see two prints of pretty decent size with a Nikon and Leica lens right next to each other. Holding the prints veeery close to my nose and squinting at the guests faces in the corner of the frame, the barest edge went to the Leica in terms of the amount of detail rendered, the lack of distortion and image sharpness. But I do mean the barest advantage. And that's what we are talking about here: tiny differences at the edges of the frame. Now to some it matters. Me: I choose the Leica glass over the Nikon, when I can. If it has got to be an SLR, I am fine with slapping that 35mm AF-Nikkor on there. But I know, based on my experience, that the Leica is going to give that 1/1000th extra bit of oomph, given the limitations of the way I work. But is this "proof"? Nothing like it brother.
 
This debate gives me bokeh in the brain.

I like mine, I replaced a version 3 with a 4. I don't know if it is worth the money. I really can not say, but I love the size and usability of it. The lens can add some magic to a photo that I didn't expect.

The ideal range for the out of focus areas that this lens is famous for is supposed to be f5.6 - f8. I know that seems a contradiction since 35 is a fairly wide lens in depth of field. But if you are focusing close (backgrounds can still be blurry) or have something close to the camera (which can blast out into blur) with the focus at mid-distance...that explains it for me.

The Canadian designer of the optics of this lens was supposed to be hot stuff...He won some internal Leica competition for the optics of the glass design. Makes me proud to be Canadian.

Wide open, this lens obviously fairs poorly to modern lenses...distortion, coma, vignetting... They just could not do in 1989 what they could with lens design in 2000's. But for me, I like the rough qualities of the lens. Modern digital can be so clinical, I like optics with a little poetry in my work...Frankly, my stolen ver. 3 was lovely and I have seen a lot of nice work with the even less-expensive 40mm leica lens.

Cheers, hope that helps.
 
This stuff about the lens not being sharp enough at F2 is nonsense too. My V3 @ F2 is plenty sharp.

This is one of the first shots I took wide open with the V3 on Double XX.


scan0010-2 by mjnewhook, on Flickr

Here is an M8 shot, wide open.


L1000463 by mjnewhook, on Flickr


This is the Summicron & Biogon-C @ F2.8. Summicron is left. 100% crop of a 4000 DPI CS 5000 scan. Clearly the Biogon-C is sharper. However, printed 11x14 the differences are very very slight.


comparison by mjnewhook, on Flickr

Full frame of the Summicron shot.


scan0019-2 by mjnewhook, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
sirius said:
T
The Canadian designer of the optics of this lens was supposed to be hot stuff...He won some internal Leica competition for the optics of the glass design. Makes me proud to be Canadian.
Click to expand...

Most of the famous pre-asph Leica lenses were designed by Dr. Mandler and his team. Mandler moved to Canada in the early 50s. From his first lens, the DR Summicron (a very early computer-designed lens, using a Zuse Z5), to the latest lenses, like 75 Summilux and 50 Noctilux, and including all 4 pre-asph 35 Summicron versions. Mandler retired from Leica in 85 as a Canadian. In a way, all those famous lenses are Canadian.

Cheers,

Roland.
 
Last edited:
I'd rather get the ver. 3 summicron, much cheaper and near identical performance. That said I already have the asph version and couldn't be happier, it really is close to perfection (in my eyes)
 
I had the 35 Cron IV and it was a nice lens. The build wasn't as nice as my 35 Cron ASPH. The 35/2 ASPH was also sharper with better bokeh but larger. In the end I sold both in the interest of using my 35 Lux ASPH exclusively. Here are some shots:


Untitled by NateGEO, on Flickr



Noodles by NateGEO, on Flickr


Naesosa Temple Hermitage by NateGEO, on Flickr


Samgwangsa Temple by NateGEO, on Flickr


Untitled by NateGEO, on Flickr


Untitled by NateGEO, on Flickr


Open by NateGEO, on Flickr


Samgwangsa Temple by NateGEO, on Flickr


Untitled by NateGEO, on Flickr
 
Nice. The bokeh looks strange in the first image, however, I bet that isn't entirely the fault of the lens. Looks over sharpened.
 
Sorry, I don't have examples to prove this, but I once owned a version 3 summicron, and my version 4 seems to be sharper. But many posts on RFF these days say that they perform identically. Am I the only one who didn't find the version 3 as good as i wanted? Wide open, i found the resolution and contrast to be very soft, not as good as the summicron 40 nor the version 4 summicron 35. I even found the Ultron 35 better. I know this is entirely subjective, since everyone has a different threshold for what is sharp enough, but i think it's been a strange trend to put out information on the web that the version 3 and version 4 are identical in performance. I just don't find that to be true.
 
I think the consensus is that after f/2.8 they are identical.
The ASPH is supposed to be even sharper than v4 at 2.0 and 2.8
 
something like that

something like that

I found the 3 to have a bit less contrast than v4 or the asph, but not any less sharp or detailed. v3 may be a better lens for b/w, v4 and asph may be better for color, out of camera, that is.

the cron asph does have a more modern look, and different type of flare, sometimes aperture flare kicks in.

probably the biggest thing is ergonomics - v3 uses round lux 12504 hood and series 7 filters.

v4 and cron asph use rect. hoods, and E39 filters.

cron asph is noticeably bigger and heavier than v3 and v4.


lic4 said:
Sorry, I don't have examples to prove this, but I once owned a version 3 summicron, and my version 4 seems to be sharper. But many posts on RFF these days say that they perform identically. Am I the only one who didn't find the version 3 as good as i wanted? Wide open, i found the resolution and contrast to be very soft, not as good as the summicron 40 nor the version 4 summicron 35. I even found the Ultron 35 better. I know this is entirely subjective, since everyone has a different threshold for what is sharp enough, but i think it's been a strange trend to put out information on the web that the version 3 and version 4 are identical in performance. I just don't find that to be true.
Click to expand...
 
Well worth it

Well worth it

I haven't tried a million lenses, but the 35/2 v4 is very, very good. Incredible image quality right out the box as seen in this image shot on Kodak 100 negative film. Also visit http://rfhansen.wordpress.com/ for more Leica M images, many shot with the 35.
I wouldn't spend $1000-1500 of my own money on it (I got an amazing deal on a full M6 equipment a few years ago, so I won't have to), but as far as getting bang for your buck, you certainly will. At its best, it delivers an almost three-dimensional quality and light distribution that make the images very life-like. Not many lenses approximate the actual scene your eyes see. But the 35/2 (and my 50/2 and 90/2.8) do.
 
Last edited:
J. Borger said:
Yes... the asph is probably sharper wide open but I can only laugh when people state the type IV is not sharp enough at f2.0.

This whole discussion comes dow to wether you prefer the drawing of classical Mandler designed Leica lenses or the modern Zeiss/ Leica lenses.
Click to expand...

This pretty much sums it up in my opinion.

And I can't imagine anyone proving a lens is worth x-number of clams when the quality threshold (make or break the impact of a photo) is probably beyond relevance except to landscape folks (for whom older lenses are maybe not the best tool).

An alternative filmfan, since you care so much about this, why don't you buy it and prove to us, with photos, that is or is not overpriced and overated, rather than telling us to prove it to you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom