Summilux 35mm pre-asph photos

I see the so-called Leica Glow in many of my Flamenco Dancers images. The Summilux creates a glow in some areas. I am sure it is an optical flaw, but it can be viewed positively too as being one of the many properties of the (old) 35/1.4 Version 2. I wonder if this glow looks different on film than with the M10.
 
Our chosen coffee shop in one the many walkways in Barcelona is shown on the right side. Their Cappuccino was similar to Italian-style Cappuccino, which we prefer to have each day.
1705858153595.jpeg
 
The glow is residual spherical aberration, which is the better tradeoff in my book. Lenses like the Nikkor 1.4/35 AI(s) wich are overcorrected for spherical aberration glow much less wide open but also have much less nice bokeh in the background and less center-resolution. If you compared Leica and Nikon 35 mm lenses from the MF era, you may have already noticed the difference.
 
I used the Lux in our trip with the knowledge that such a glow will appear in images. I wanted it to happen. I have never used the Nikkor 35/1.4, but I have seen many images taken by it online. I wonder if Sonnar lenses fall between Leica and Nikon/Canon for such properties.
 
Not that I don't like what I see from this lens (I can well see myself owning one), but pretty much every shot I see from one pretty much qualifies for the Sharpness is a bourgeois concept thread, even the stopped down shots. Not a problem, just sayin'. The new re-release seems considerably sharper, so the differences between the two seem notable.
 
I don't use my Lux that often, and I rotate among my lenses to get different results. Sharpness is a Bourgois Concept after all. :)
I have sharper 35mm lenses for my Leica cameras. Different lenses offer different looking images.
 
Last edited:
m2, summilux 35 v2, tri-x 400

53747140276_75b9ecc108_b.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom