Summilux 35mm pre-asph photos

Your summilux is a strange case.
Read :VIEWFINDER
QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF THE LEICA HISTORICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA

VOLUME 29 NUMBER 3
THIRD QUARTER 1996

Legendary Leica Lenses:
The 35mm f/1.4 Summilux-M
by Dick Gilcreast


All 35 summilux had a certain degree of field curvature. Who needed a flat field used a summmicron.
 
No. There are good lens and bad lens. You have one of both. People very qualified tell us 35 summilux was projected with curvature field from 2.8 to 8 f/stop.This for obtain a flat field with 1.4 and 2 f/stop and a beautiful 3dimensional image. The 35 summilux is not easy lens to use. You have to learn to use and you can obtain great results exploiting his features. Also the 50 lux pre ash has no flat field. You need two 2 lens ? No. You have to choose between summicron or a lux depending on your needs.
 
@avvsergius yes, the second ones were shot with the summilux.

@Erik, my copies' serial is 25XXXX, which dates it to '72. It was CLAed recently and sold by the Leica Store in Berlin (Meister Camera) as BB condition. I will return it tomorrow but i don't blame this copy. The problem is my expectation I have when I pay this price. I didn't expect it to be so flat and soft at f4 to 5.6 and I didn't even test it on a digital camera.

I am fine with my Jupiter-12 for now, I really like it's rendering, contrast and how it paints OOF areas. Maybe I will look for a modern Biogon-C or a Pre ASPH Summicron sooner or later for my M. The Jupiter belongs on a LTM Body (FED2, Zorki4k or Barnack Leica).
 
Erik van Straten said:
Ah, you think there was no quality control at Leitz?

Qualified people? I am very qualified too. I'm working since 1971 with Leica M.

A threedimensional image with a bad lens ... hmm. I don't get it, I'm sorry.

Erik.
Click to expand...

1) Quality control is a bit difficult after 50 years...

2) I quoted a technical article. Tom A and many other qualified people told same things.

3) The 35 lux is a wonderful lens, not a bad lens. In any case from your photos with 35 lux don't emerge any 3dimensional effect. Because, generally, you takes landscape photo in the morning hours. If you don't need 1.4 f/s you can use a summicron. A very perfect lens for this kind of photo.
 
Artingei said:
@avvsergius yes, the second ones were shot with the summilux.
Click to expand...

I choose the second ones because at that apertures there is a positive field curvature. The front corners are more in focus than the edges. It's very normal for a 35 lux. It's was projected so. From f8 to upper the depth of field hides this. You can use this at your advantage. Think a photo in internal house. You can have in focus either the center of photo and the edges near to you too.
 
The steel rim costs 7000 euro for a simple reason. Because is a very rare version. No one has ever heard about exotics or super lens in the first version of 35 lux. If it’s true what you say it should a very big scoop and you could write a new history about 35 lux. Do you have any evidence for us ?
 
Agreed! ^^^ Finally somebody talking sense in these past few posts.

Erik, you need to get over this. It is misleading, totally unproven and actually fabricated by you and you only... It's getting really boring I'm afraid.

Move on old boy...

Simon
 
Flat Twin said:
Agreed! ^^^ Finally somebody talking sense in these past few posts.

Erik, you need to get over this. It is misleading, totally unproven and actually fabricated by you and you only... It's getting really boring I'm afraid.

Move on old boy...

Simon
Click to expand...

Simon, it isn't as interesting or value-inducing to think that they changed the formula since the steel rim was more flare prone. Imagining it has special magical pixie dust is a better story.

I've had both, there's not enough difference to make or break a photo (and Erik's photos from both show it). If you really like less contrast and don't mind lots more flare, than throw dough at a steel rim.

If you want want a small lens that flares less, has funky aberrations at f1.4-f2, but sharpens nicely when stopped down, get a version 2 and steer clear of the magic-pixie-dust-hand-assembled-by-virgins-it-will-make-better-photos stories....
 
Erik van Straten said:
The US Patent 2975673 was filed on 26. Aug. 1959 for the Summilux steel rim 35mm f/1.4. There were 7 elements/5 groups made of 5 types high-refractive glass, indexes from 1.70444 to 1.7899. There were two batches, one in 1960 and the other in 1964. The price of the lens was very high and therefore Leitz made a version wich cheaper glasses (serial nr. started at 222XXXX) that was the reason for the bad reputation the Summilux had and still has, "glow" and all that. Fortunately the steel rim never glows.

The lens is not really rare, about 7.000 pieces were made. I don't think people pay this amount of money just because of this kind of rarity.

Erik.
Click to expand...

The patent isn't an evidence. Based on your thesis so we should have a stack of patents...One for model of 1964, one for version II, one for google, another one for Germany version .....
In any case if your 35 steel rim doesn't glow is a bad version of this lens.
Who should buy a 35 summilux without glow and other aberrations ? Aberrations (calculated) are the heart of a summilux 35. If you see your portraits you can note that they missing of characteristic of lens. They are completely flat.
The simple reason of cost is because is very rare and it is a very nice object too. And yes.... there are many people pay this amount of money for this kind of things.
Why the people should buy for a lot of money a leica black MP original or a black M3 ? Because they have thaumaturgic powers ?
 
I have a 216XXXX non steel rim, non goggled, black anodised version.


It could be the first of the rubbish, the last of the best or a combination of both!
 
234xxx here (around 1969), infinity lock.
never had or use a hood with it.

perfect lens? no
mint condition? no
do I enjoy using it? yes but not as an everyday lens (this is a job for my summaron)

a pic from a couple of years ago, guess meter, around 800 asa and the only time I use the self timer on my 1963's M2

a bit of fun on a bavarian road trip:

19524933562_4f66f6d0c8_c.jpg


Giulio
(still here but shooting very little lately)
 
Erik van Straten said:
People who buy a Summilux 35 because of the abberations are throwing money away. Buy a Jupiter 12. Discussion closed from my side.


Erik.
Click to expand...

The discussion is closed because you have no technical arguments. Many people has to justify his shopping with spouses, fiancé, parents or himself. But please, it should be better invent something different from exotics lens never documented. This is not acceptable for a reputable community like rangefinderforum.

I like to finish this discussion with an extract taken from first message where this (beautiful ) thread is started:...."Some respected RFF members do all what they can to discredit this lens in favor of the newer Zeiss or ASPH offerings. They say it's not sharp, shows light falloff and it flares. My personal thinking is those are part of its qualities and undeniable charm. One doesn't shoot the 35 summilux pre-asph for sharpness per se. One shoots it for its overall very unique rendition."....

It's all true. This is the reason why this lens is so loved. Who loves poetic aspect of photography can't not love this incredible gem. And the most photos of this thread are the better evidence.
 
I have never bothered with the different variations of this lens. I have one, made in Canada, and it does what I want it to. I'm happy with the results, either wet printed in the darkroom or scanned and used in our newspapers. But that applies to any of my lenses. If it does what I want, I use it and keep it. Otherwise, it gets sold or traded.
 
I keep learning new things about this pre 1.4 35mm lens I've owned for several years now..
Latest cool function...video by candle light..on m4/3..wide open..simply wonderful! Similar to Noctilux..with better dof..works as a 70mm on that format..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom