Summilux 35/1.4 pre-asph compared with Nikon 35/1.8

[x-ray]

Due to sample variation? Or cheapened barrel? I thought all pre-asph 35mm Summiluxes were optically the same 😕

That's my understanding too.

In the early 70's my brother owned a steel rim and I had a black version I bought new in 68. I shot with his and he shot with mine and neither of us could tell a difference.

At the time there was a serious shortage of Leica glass. I searched the U.S. for a 35 summilux or summicron and found 1 summilux in DC at Ritz. If I'd had a choice I probably would have bought the summicron. The price new at the time was $333.

Consider these are old lenses around 50 years old now. It's hard to say how any given sample has been treated over the decades which migh account for variations in results.

Ill add that of all the Leica lenses I've owned the pre asph summilux is my least favorite. It's wide open performance is marginal imo and f1.4 is there only for situations where I can't get a shot any other way. I've had segments of shoots ruined by coma and flare at 1.4. I found I just could not trust the lens to deliver under some conditions. I much prefer my v1 Summicron 35 in vintage lenses.

I believe Leica stated that they are the same.

 

[ernstk]

Is this your opinion or is this statement based on facts?

Erik.

Hi Erik

I know that we have different views on this, and that's OK.

The generally held view is that the recomputed versions after 220xxxx performed better than the earlier ones. Several people who have much more knowledge and experience of this lens than I do, believe this to be the case (Roger Hicks and Tom Abrahamsson have discussed it on this forum).

Ernst

 

[ernstk]

Here is the thread that I mentioned. Posts #2 and #4 mention the recomputed version.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=49382

Ernst

 

[Erik van Straten]

Due to sample variation? Or cheapened barrel? I thought all pre-asph 35mm Summiluxes were optically the same 😕

In the Dutch magazine FOTO of april 1972 the Summilux 2221334 is tested. The opinion of this magazine matches exactly with mine. My example is 2221365. The test report states "that good sharpness can be obtained when the main topic is placed in the middle of the image."

I have the same opinion on this lens, watch yourself. F-stop is f2,8.

Leica MP, Summilux 35mm f/1.4 no. 2221365, Tmax400.

Erik.

 

[rodt16s]

It wasn't so many years ago the steel rim was considered a poor relation of the v2...
Having compared to multiple v2's I would take the v1 everytime
Also agree with Erik the distortion is low

[url=https://flic.kr/p/8j8ow4]

We're being watched by Redt16s, on Flickr[/URL]

 

[Erik van Straten]

Here is the thread that I mentioned. Posts #2 and #4 mention the recomputed version.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=49382

Ernst

Well, it is clear that neither Tom nor Roger have personally experience with the steel rim.

About the OLLUX: when it is loose, it can be repaired by a competent repairman. Mr. Scherpenborg repaired mine!

Erik.

 

[ernstk]

There is an OLLUX for sale on the Leica Forum for 750 Euros! For a lens hood?

Ernst

 

[raid]

The discussion about the different versions of the 35mm Summilux will go on. I have only the V2 one, so I will use it.
I recalled this post by Tom A that discussed the different vserions:

"There were indeed some changes done to the early version of the Summilux 35. the serial number range is not defined, but the 21-2.2 million range seems to have been agreed upon. Elcan/Midland is notoriously uninterested in telling us about things like that!
The early Summilux was a direct response to Nikons 35f1.8 and Canon's 35/1,5 and 1.8. The Summilux was optically not that great in its first incarnation, unless you like flare and soft wide open shots. I suspect that it was a design that was pushed through - just to have it. It was recomputed and most of the modifications included new coating and some minor glass formula changes.
Over the decades I have had plenty of these and my current one is a late Midland version (1994-95) and that one is very good. It was done at Midland and evidently it does have some non standard glass in it and it was also "blue-printed" with hand assembly. I was told at the time "never send it to Wetzlar for service".
I had a "regular" 35/1,4 at the time and the only difference between them is the better flare control on the "blue-print" version and less "field curvature" on it. The pre-asph Summilux is not a bad lens at all! It has suffered from a reputation of less than stellar performance, but unfairly so! I find them less flare prone than the 35/1,4 Asph's that I had and sharpness is more than adequate. Individual examples can show some difference as to wide open performance, but not enough to say that they are bad.
The other endearing quality it has that it is small and compact! The contrast is less pronounced than the Aspherical lenses and if you shoot black/white - that is a good thing.
So if you like the truly vintage look, go for an early one and try to find the elusive OLLUX hood to go with it! This hood rivalled Nikon's RF's hoods for coming off and rolling into gutters, drains or happily bounce down stairs! It is a trip backwards in time. Tri-X/early 35/1,4 screams 60's all the way.
The later versions (2.3 million and onward) - this is a great compact , fast 35 and it fits a M2 like a glove!
The M3 version looks pretty, but as most of these were early versions, they are more decorative today!
We should also consider that this lens remained virtually unchanged from the early 60's until it was taken out of production in the late 90's. Not a bad run for a lens that people claim was no good!
This was a lens designed for press and photo journalism, not for anal retentive fine grain shooting with a tripod! It worked well under low light, it could produce a good 3 column wide shot for a paper and the slightly lower contrast helped when you pushed the hell out of your TriX.
__________________
Bests to Everybody,
Tom A"

==============================

Maybe we have differences between version of the Lux that people disagree about.

 

[michaelwj]

The discussion about the different versions of the 35mm Summilux will go on. I have only the V2 one, so I will use it.

The discussion seems very circular and is the same every time the pre-asph comes up, with the same teams on each side. I'm happy with my v2, and since the steel rim v1 appears to be a $10000 collector item with a $1000 hood, I'm not going to bother which which is better, cause I ain't getting a steel rim v1. If it is better, it's not $8000 better.
It's like me saying that my original black paint MP (I don't have one) is smoother than your black paint M2. Yeah, but one of them is so rediculously overpriced that it's a moot point. The M2 will be just fine and dandy thank you. Time to move along.

Now maybe we can compare only the v2 pre-asph to the Nikon?

 

[Erik van Straten]

Maybe we have differences between version of the Lux that people disagree about.

Yes, maybe we should exclude the v1 as michaelwj points out. It is simply too rare. It is rare because it was too expensive when new and so Leitz decided to make a cheaper version to enter the competition with the Japanese. But it is a great lens. There are examples of pictures in the "Pictures with the Summilux 35mm f/1.4 pre asph" thread. http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=49501

Erik.

 

[Highway 61]

In the Dutch magazine FOTO of april 1972 the Summilux 2221334 is tested. The opinion of this magazine matches exactly with mine. My example is 2221365. The test report states "that good sharpness can be obtained when the main topic is placed in the middle of the image."

I have the same opinion on this lens, watch yourself. F-stop is f2,8.

Leica MP, Summilux 35mm f/1.4 no. 2221365, Tmax400.

Erik.

Looks like the Summilux 35mm f/1.4 V2 produces worse results in the corners at f/2.8 than the vintage W-Nikkor-C 35mm f/1.8 at f/1.8. Or ???

 

[jonmanjiro]

I have the same opinion on this lens, watch yourself. F-stop is f2,8.

Hi Erik, I think you meant to write "see for yourself" rather than "watch yourself". At least I certainly hope so 😱

Yes, the corners are a bit weak at f2.8, but not really unexpected at that aperture. What if the shot was taken at f4 or f5.6? Would there be a noticeable improvement?

 

[raid]

I will make some side by side comparisons between Nikon 35/1.8ltm and Lux 35/1.4 V2 duirng the summer.

 

[Highway 61]

Yes, the corners are a bit weak at f2.8, but not really unexpected at that aperture. What if the shot was taken at f4 or f5.6? Would there be a noticeable improvement?

Well, f/1.4 lenses of that calibre have to be excellent at f/2.8 and onwards, in general. Of course, it's normal to get very deceptive results at f/1.4 and just average ones at f/2. But at f/2.8 (which means, with an optical formula used for a central sector of 50% of the elements only) the lens should deliver something sharp all accross the image. This is not the same with vignetting, which, due to the formula, vanishes at f/4 or f/5.6 only with f/1.4 lenses sometimes.

If not, well the C-Biogon 35mm f/2.8 ZM is a way better choice than this Summilux 35mm f/1.4 even for shooting at f/2.8... and you get it from new for 1/3 of the price of an used Lux. Which doesn't make sense.

Sometimes it's hard to believe that a lens is bad when it's a Leitz/Leica one. But the Summilux 35mm f/1.4 pre-ASPH is probably one of the major Leitz goofs. With some exceptions among the total production run, like the "steel rim" V1 which Erik owns.

There are rumours about the V4 Summicron 35mm f/2 "King of bokeh" being a true-false f/1.4 lens with a formula being very close to the pre-ASPH Lux and on which the max. aperture would be mechanically limited to f/2 because f/1.4 would be unusable. Hence the aperture blades still very visible in the optics at f/2.0...

 

[MikeL]

Sometimes it's hard to believe that a lens is bad when it's a Leitz/Leica one. But the Summilux 35mm f/1.4 pre-ASPH is probably one of the major Leitz goofs. With some exceptions among the total production run, like the "steel rim" V1 which Erik owns...

From that reasoning every lens made with the limited information at the time is a goof.

And folks might consider one persons data point, whether good (one copy of a steel rim) or bad (one copy of what looks like a poorly collimated V2), and see it as such. I've had a couple pre-asph over the years, and there's definitely sample variation. Who knows whether age/history or assembly as the cause, but it exists.

Like Roland I've used the Leica 35mm (and a steel rim with goggles) and Nikon 35mm f1.8 (on Nikon rangefinder), and the differences on photos were rarely noticeable (Nikon a little bit swirlier with some backgrounds when wide open). Both can capture consistently what you want at f1.7-1.8. On the pre-asph, things can be a mixed bag at f1.4 unless you have live view and adjust to avoid the flare.

But goofs? Might be time for a perspective check...

 

[Highway 61]

The image quality difference between the Summilux 35mm f/1.4 and the Summicron 35mm f/2 made at the same time during the 1960s and 1970s tells it all.

The Summilux should be weaker at f/2 and on par at f/2.8. But, this is not the case in general, with some few exceptions.

Goof is probably an excessive word. But, you had got it for sure.

It's always time for a perspective check.

 

[Erik van Straten]

Hi Erik, I think you meant to write "see for yourself" rather than "watch yourself". At least I certainly hope so 😱

Yes, the corners are a bit weak at f2.8, but not really unexpected at that aperture. What if the shot was taken at f4 or f5.6? Would there be a noticeable improvement?

Thank you, Jon, my English is actually very poor.

On my example f/2.8 gives only a circle of sharpness of about 10 mm. Even at f/5.6 the image isn't perfect. I am sure Leitz improved things later on.

However, the steel rim lenses that I own perform significantly better at the same aperures. That is why I think that the black aluminium lenses with the serial numbers from the numeral block of 222XXXX are a cheapened version of the steel rim version.

This is with the same lens, 222XXXX at f/5.6. The plane of focus curves in an unacceptable way. See the course of sharpness/unsharpness in the background.

Leica M2, Summilux 35mm f/1.4 v2, Tmax400.

Erik.

 

[Emile de Leon]

I tried a Titanium version back in the late 90's..pre 35 1.4..and I think it was better wide open than the older one I have now..but I don't have a direct comparison..but I'm pretty sure it was better..the only reason I didn't get it was the close focus..today..I wish I had..it was $800- in mint back then..

 

[raid]

Erik: Could your lens be somehow damaged or have by chance poor quality control or simply a lens that over the years lost some of the alignment?

 

[jonmanjiro]

Due to sample variation? Or cheapened barrel? I thought all pre-asph 35mm Summiluxes were optically the same 😕

I didn't realise this comment would open up such a can of worms 😱

Well, f/1.4 lenses of that calibre have to be excellent at f/2.8 and onwards, in general.

I completely agree with you, Nicolas! With Erik's first example of soft corners taken at f/2.8, I didn't mention it in my previous post but I was mainly thinking in terms of the limitations of DOF. No matter how excellent a lens is, naturally the corners won't be sharp if they're outside the DOF. In Erik's photo, assuming that the subject is at a distance of about 5 to 6 meters (which is what it appears to be), I expect that the lower corners (particularly the right side corner) and the distant background in the upper left corner would be outside the DOF, and as such soft. Erik has provided us with another image that shows softness at f/5.6 so it appears his lens is a poor copy.

Thank you, Jon, my English is actually very poor.

No problem, Erik. Thanks for the additional photo.

And folks might consider one persons data point, whether good (one copy of a steel rim) or bad (one copy of what looks like a poorly collimated V2), and see it as such. I've had a couple pre-asph over the years, and there's definitely sample variation. Who knows whether age/history or assembly as the cause, but it exists.

Eric: Could your lens be somehow damaged or have by chance poor quality control or simply a lens that over the years lost some of the alignment?

I'm thinking along these lines too...