Leifer
Newbie
Hi people! Im new to this forum. Anyways, I'm having a surprisingly stressful time deciding between a Summicron 35mm V4 or a Summicron 35mm Asph for my brand new Leica m6 that I haven't even used yet...:bang: Money is a bit of an issue so Im curious to as to whether or not I should cheap out and get the V4 or continue to save for the ASPH. Is the difference in quality highly noticeable? Im a bit of a perfectionist and want what's best. Your thoughts and comments would be highly appreciated! Also, if anyone has photos with each lens, Id really like to see a comparison. Thanks for your time and consideration! Oh one more thing! What is a good price to pay for each lens?
Jan Pedersen
Well-known
No experience with the Asph but I have had the V4 since 1986 and have always been happy with this lens.
I have used it on an M6 too.
I think the question you need to ask yourself is, are you going to use it on a digital camera later? If not, I don't think the difference is going to be that great if any.
I have used it on an M6 too.
I think the question you need to ask yourself is, are you going to use it on a digital camera later? If not, I don't think the difference is going to be that great if any.
Leifer
Newbie
Unless film is no longer in production, I plan to only use it with my M6. Thanks for the response!
goamules
Well-known
If Leica glass is so good, I can't imagine all previous versions not being any good. Get the cheaper one.
GaryLH
Veteran
I have both. The v4 is smaller and lighter. It has a smoother look to it. The aspheric is sharper and the image to me looks more like what a Zeiss lens would produce. It has more micro contrast. I end up using the v4 more than the aspheric...
Gary
Gary
Mark C
Well-known
The ashperic is going to give you the best sharpness across the field over the aperture range, but you really can't go wrong with any version 35 Summicron.
The original 8 element was my favorite for many years. The version 4 comes very close to it in performance, but with the advantage of youth and more modern coatings.
Lately I've really warmed up to the crisp and snappy look of the 6 element.
The original 8 element was my favorite for many years. The version 4 comes very close to it in performance, but with the advantage of youth and more modern coatings.
Lately I've really warmed up to the crisp and snappy look of the 6 element.
nobbylon
Veteran
My first 35 Leica lens was an asph' and it was superb. In some ways I wish I'd not sold it. I have had for a few years a v4 and to be honest there isn't that much difference in the look they give. Shooting at f2 the asph is going to be sharper but not by a lot and from 2.8 on they are near equal to me. The v4 does have nicer transition from focus to out of focus but the asph is also good.
The asph' seemed to give a little more of a 3d look to pics and was constructed better. ie it felt like it would last forever.
All this said, I prefer the V4 for it's smaller size and creamy bokeh.
I would suggest though that IF as you say, you are a perfectionist then possibly you will always hanker after the asph' so maybe go for one of those first.
The other lens which to my mind is as near to a v4 as you can get is a 35 1.7 Ultron. I did a comparison a few years back and until I revealed the lens name it was leading the poll! It only does close focus of 1m with quite a short throw though.
Quite a few examples here of the asph'
http://www.johnwhitfieldphoto.com/album/himalaya#ps-gal
The asph' seemed to give a little more of a 3d look to pics and was constructed better. ie it felt like it would last forever.
All this said, I prefer the V4 for it's smaller size and creamy bokeh.
I would suggest though that IF as you say, you are a perfectionist then possibly you will always hanker after the asph' so maybe go for one of those first.
The other lens which to my mind is as near to a v4 as you can get is a 35 1.7 Ultron. I did a comparison a few years back and until I revealed the lens name it was leading the poll! It only does close focus of 1m with quite a short throw though.
Quite a few examples here of the asph'
http://www.johnwhitfieldphoto.com/album/himalaya#ps-gal
Pete B
Well-known
I know the problem you're going through. I'm coming at it from a different angle though. I have both types but can't decide if I should sell one, and if so, which.
I compared them on film a year or two ago:
http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/customer-forum/240778-35mm-f2-asph-vs-35mm-f2.html
I couldn't see a tremendous difference in sharpness. The Mk4 has a slight swirl to oof areas. The Asph has perhaps smoother oof areas and a narrower depth of field with a quicker transition.
There's so little in it. Ultimately, I prefer the more positive clicks of the aperture dial and broader focus tab of the Asph. I prefer small size of the Mk4.
I'd like to say that the Mk4 is a perfect match to the 50 summicron, but so is the asph. Any optical difference isn't worth getting hung up on.
That said, I agree that you should go for the Asph version because you'll always be wondering if you should have if you don't.
Any 35mm shots here are with the version 4:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/mrchombee67/sets/72157635108183687/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/mrchombee67/sets/72157643769631953/
Any 35mm shots here are with the Asph:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/mrchombee67/sets/72157627711126026/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/mrchombee67/sets/72157644119868549/
Pete
I compared them on film a year or two ago:
http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/customer-forum/240778-35mm-f2-asph-vs-35mm-f2.html
I couldn't see a tremendous difference in sharpness. The Mk4 has a slight swirl to oof areas. The Asph has perhaps smoother oof areas and a narrower depth of field with a quicker transition.
There's so little in it. Ultimately, I prefer the more positive clicks of the aperture dial and broader focus tab of the Asph. I prefer small size of the Mk4.
I'd like to say that the Mk4 is a perfect match to the 50 summicron, but so is the asph. Any optical difference isn't worth getting hung up on.
That said, I agree that you should go for the Asph version because you'll always be wondering if you should have if you don't.
Any 35mm shots here are with the version 4:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/mrchombee67/sets/72157635108183687/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/mrchombee67/sets/72157643769631953/
Any 35mm shots here are with the Asph:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/mrchombee67/sets/72157627711126026/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/mrchombee67/sets/72157644119868549/
Pete
nobbylon
Veteran
Are your shots film or digital Pete?
Pete B
Well-known
Film, but there are some digital shots in the Yoho Nat Park link.
Pete
Pete
Ansel
Well-known
Congrats on the M6. I shoot film exclusively also and went through this myself and ended up buying both to see which I preferred as there was so much contradicting opinion on the web. After a few months I ended up selling the IV and keeping the V (ASPH).
Why? They are both very similar lenses, not a lot of difference in size and weight once on the camera. Images can look the same, sometimes hard to tell which is which. But where I did notice a big difference however was at the wider apertures f2, 2.8, 4 where the ASPH version was just so much better than the IV. The ASPH images have a beauty wide open that is just gorgeous. Also, when printing at between 9.5x14 and 12x18 inches the APH clearly had the edge - the resolution is just superb.
Don't get me wrong, they are both very nice lensesl, and if you want to save some cash the IV would be my recommendation, its just that the ASPH is that much better overall in my experience.
The ASPH has a very slightly longer focal length than the IV meaning DOF is slightly different between the two lenses, which a lot of people mistake for a harsher OOF transition with the ASPH, when it is actually just slightly narrower DOF at each relative stop.
Why? They are both very similar lenses, not a lot of difference in size and weight once on the camera. Images can look the same, sometimes hard to tell which is which. But where I did notice a big difference however was at the wider apertures f2, 2.8, 4 where the ASPH version was just so much better than the IV. The ASPH images have a beauty wide open that is just gorgeous. Also, when printing at between 9.5x14 and 12x18 inches the APH clearly had the edge - the resolution is just superb.
Don't get me wrong, they are both very nice lensesl, and if you want to save some cash the IV would be my recommendation, its just that the ASPH is that much better overall in my experience.
The ASPH has a very slightly longer focal length than the IV meaning DOF is slightly different between the two lenses, which a lot of people mistake for a harsher OOF transition with the ASPH, when it is actually just slightly narrower DOF at each relative stop.
nobbylon
Veteran
Pete, I really like your Venice and Rome set.
Pete B
Well-known
Thanks. Portra is made for Italy 
Pete
Pete
--s
Well-known
The 35 asph is my sharpest lens. It´s bloody sharp, even f*****g sharp! Persons look like cut out and glued to the backdrop sometimes. If you don´t want that look, take the pre!
twhittle
Established
Get The Bokeh King! I have a V4, Candian, and it is phenanominal!
I can't imagine how it could gat any sharper?
I can't imagine how it could gat any sharper?
Symeon
Established
You are not "cheaping out" with the v4 lens, you are actually getting a better optic especially if used on the M6 and for B&W. The Asph is harder (perhaps better at f2) but designed with digital sensors in mind.
Regards.
Regards.
x-ray
Veteran
Best is a relative term. What's best for me isn't necessarily best for you.
I've owned both plus the Biogon and CV 35 2.5.
I had the asph, Zeiss and cv at the same time. I also had a V1 years ago and in the 60's and 70's has the V1 summilux.
I shot B&W film mostly but some transparency film and do documentary and commercial photography. I used each lens over a period of years so I had plenty of time to form my opinion. My personal all time number 1 choice was the Zeiss Biogon and the V4 a very close 2nd. Image wise they were about the same but I liked the handling of the Zeiss best. Actually I wouldn't complain with either. Both render what I call a much smoother more natural looking image. Contrast is better on the Biogon and is low on flare. I always felt the asph was cold and artificial and as one person said I felt like the images looked cut out and pasted down and I really don't care for that look.
The v4 is plenty sharp even wide open and at 2.8 I don't think you will see any difference between the asph and v4. The asph that I owned was a special edition retro version I won on a new MP. It came with the old style round hood and I often had flare problems until I bought a rectangular hood. Even then I found it flared easier than other lenses especially vs the Zeiss.
In the end I sold all of them and went to an M9 (another story) and the FLE summilux. I like the FLE on digital but if I were doing only film I'd go back to the v4 or Biogon.
Consider what your subjects are, whether you'll be shooting between f2-4, size and weight, under poor light where flare might be a problem and what look you're drawn to. There's no one best look for everyone.
I didn't mention the CV 2.5, it's a killer fine lens with exceptional sharpness and contrast even wide open. For my use I felt it was just too slow since I shoot frequently under poor light. Otherwise I would still own it. It's superb in every respect.
The v1 summilux was good in its day but IMO it's a dog wide open and suffers from aberrations that can kill an image under some lighting conditions. I had a number of images ruined while photographing President Nixon on assignment in 1970. After that I never trusted the lens under some conditions.
The v1 summicron was a good lens but way over rated as is the v1 summilux. Performance and price are out of balance with both. They were pretty much the only game in town in their day with the exception of the Nikkor 35 1.8 for the ASAP and S3.
I've owned both plus the Biogon and CV 35 2.5.
I had the asph, Zeiss and cv at the same time. I also had a V1 years ago and in the 60's and 70's has the V1 summilux.
I shot B&W film mostly but some transparency film and do documentary and commercial photography. I used each lens over a period of years so I had plenty of time to form my opinion. My personal all time number 1 choice was the Zeiss Biogon and the V4 a very close 2nd. Image wise they were about the same but I liked the handling of the Zeiss best. Actually I wouldn't complain with either. Both render what I call a much smoother more natural looking image. Contrast is better on the Biogon and is low on flare. I always felt the asph was cold and artificial and as one person said I felt like the images looked cut out and pasted down and I really don't care for that look.
The v4 is plenty sharp even wide open and at 2.8 I don't think you will see any difference between the asph and v4. The asph that I owned was a special edition retro version I won on a new MP. It came with the old style round hood and I often had flare problems until I bought a rectangular hood. Even then I found it flared easier than other lenses especially vs the Zeiss.
In the end I sold all of them and went to an M9 (another story) and the FLE summilux. I like the FLE on digital but if I were doing only film I'd go back to the v4 or Biogon.
Consider what your subjects are, whether you'll be shooting between f2-4, size and weight, under poor light where flare might be a problem and what look you're drawn to. There's no one best look for everyone.
I didn't mention the CV 2.5, it's a killer fine lens with exceptional sharpness and contrast even wide open. For my use I felt it was just too slow since I shoot frequently under poor light. Otherwise I would still own it. It's superb in every respect.
The v1 summilux was good in its day but IMO it's a dog wide open and suffers from aberrations that can kill an image under some lighting conditions. I had a number of images ruined while photographing President Nixon on assignment in 1970. After that I never trusted the lens under some conditions.
The v1 summicron was a good lens but way over rated as is the v1 summilux. Performance and price are out of balance with both. They were pretty much the only game in town in their day with the exception of the Nikkor 35 1.8 for the ASAP and S3.
x-ray
Veteran
Thinking about it if I were going back to film I would be plenty happy with v1 throug v4 of the summicrons or the Zeiss. I wouldn't bother with the asph version.
