kengai
Newbie
what is the Summilux 35mm pre-asph? how it acts on the M-P 240?
summilux 35mm pre-asph.
- Thread starter kengai
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 87
- Views 14K
Fraser
Well-known
35mm f1.4 pre the aspherical version works fine on all Ms famous for 'Leica glow' when shot wide open, only annoying thing is its tricky to code as it has a different kind of lens mount.
Chromacomaphoto
Well-known
Have a look here for how it performs on various cameras:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=49501
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=49501
aldobonnard
Well-known
I can compare with the 35mm v4 CRON and Zeiss 35mm f2 (which is equal in performance to the Leica 35 asph f2, albeit with better distortion).
The 35/1.4 Lux pre-asph (German made version) has no problem with using on a M digital. The profile exists in Leica M bodies => coding is not an issue at all.
At f/1.4 the pre-asph lux image is finely defined but with some glow in the finest structures.
At f/2, it's much better and already sharp, not as sharp as the summicron v4. However it will still equal the previous 35mm summicron versions.
At f/2.8 it's not as clinical sharp as the summicron v4 or the Zeiss, but not much to split them. Despite being less sharp (on a M digital), I prefer the summilux image because it won't bring moiré as much as the other lenses : lots of time saved in post processing.
At f/2.8, not much for the pre-asph summilux user to complain. Will remain less sharp than the cron v4 and Zeiss but not enough to justify one over the other.
From f/4, the summilux has a better resolution than the Cron v4, but not as good as the Zeiss and I suspect not as good as the Cron/Lux Asph.
A great advantage of the pre-asph lux over the modern asph is their zero-distortion.
Drawback: 35 lux (as well as 50 lux) lenses will exhibit a focus shift on M9/M240/M depending on the aperture and the distance. Each lens may behave differently depending on how the designer or serviceman has set up the sweet spot of the lens. This wasn't a problem with film-M's but definitely is with a digital M. I can confirm this from my renewed experience on a M9 serviced less two months ago service at Wetzlar.
Only solution not to be bothered, use summilux FLE lenses or digital-orientated summarit lenses.
The 35/1.4 Lux pre-asph (German made version) has no problem with using on a M digital. The profile exists in Leica M bodies => coding is not an issue at all.
At f/1.4 the pre-asph lux image is finely defined but with some glow in the finest structures.
At f/2, it's much better and already sharp, not as sharp as the summicron v4. However it will still equal the previous 35mm summicron versions.
At f/2.8 it's not as clinical sharp as the summicron v4 or the Zeiss, but not much to split them. Despite being less sharp (on a M digital), I prefer the summilux image because it won't bring moiré as much as the other lenses : lots of time saved in post processing.
At f/2.8, not much for the pre-asph summilux user to complain. Will remain less sharp than the cron v4 and Zeiss but not enough to justify one over the other.
From f/4, the summilux has a better resolution than the Cron v4, but not as good as the Zeiss and I suspect not as good as the Cron/Lux Asph.
A great advantage of the pre-asph lux over the modern asph is their zero-distortion.
Drawback: 35 lux (as well as 50 lux) lenses will exhibit a focus shift on M9/M240/M depending on the aperture and the distance. Each lens may behave differently depending on how the designer or serviceman has set up the sweet spot of the lens. This wasn't a problem with film-M's but definitely is with a digital M. I can confirm this from my renewed experience on a M9 serviced less two months ago service at Wetzlar.
Only solution not to be bothered, use summilux FLE lenses or digital-orientated summarit lenses.
damonsong
Established
I actually just did some test shots on my MP240 yesterday. I have to say it they turn out better than I expected, smooth across the frame and can be sharp enough once you step down to 2.8. Below are some of the test shots, I left them un-edit (out of camera bw jpg) so you can see if you like how it renders. Mine is the v2 canada version.
At 1.4
by damonsong, on Flickr
At 1.4
by damonsong, on Flickr
at 2.8
by damonsong, on Flickr
At 1.4
by damonsong, on FlickrAt 1.4
by damonsong, on Flickrat 2.8
by damonsong, on Flickr
fenixv8
Established
from my research. I want one as well.
https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=159909
https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=159909
maddoc
... likes film again.
A couple of years ago, I did a direct comparison between the 35mm Summilux pre-ASPH (latest German made batch) and the 35mm Summicron vs4 and at f/2.0 the Summilux already had a better resolution and sharpness was better than the 35mm Summicron.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
On the M9 I've printed a file shot through the summilux at F4 40x50", stunning.
JHutchins
Well-known
I did a comparison recently between a early version 2 Canadian Summilux (in fairly poor condition including a couple of meaningful scratches on the rear element) and a version 2 Canadian Summicron and I didn't think there was much to choose between them in evenly lit daylight scenes. In fact, to the extent I had a preference it was definitely for the Summilux at all apertures in such conditions. Where there are point light sources or very bright patches against a dark ground the Summilux is a bit more unruly until you get to f2.8 when it starts to get well behaved again. Overall I had a weak preference for the way the images from the Summilux look. The decision on which to keep was mostly a tradeoff between that extra stop of aperture and the Summicron's closer focusing distance -- really frustrating that the Summilux doesn't focus as closely as the Summicron. In the end, I kept the Summilux, warts and all and love it. Here's a shot from yesterday (stopped well down):
damonsong
Established
Great shot!
I feel the same way about the summilux, mine is in fairly great condition.
I had this lens for a couple of years now, I've never really use it until now that I sold the Cron v4. I was very impressed with the performance, and regretted I did not use this lens enough (or at all) while I had the M9.
If you can find one with the 12054 hood and price is not bad then that's the way to go. Since you can only mount a filter (I want to use ND filter) with the hood on.
I feel the same way about the summilux, mine is in fairly great condition.
I had this lens for a couple of years now, I've never really use it until now that I sold the Cron v4. I was very impressed with the performance, and regretted I did not use this lens enough (or at all) while I had the M9.
If you can find one with the 12054 hood and price is not bad then that's the way to go. Since you can only mount a filter (I want to use ND filter) with the hood on.
JHutchins
Well-known
I bought one of the cheap reproductions of the 12504 hood on ebay. It took a while to arrive from Hong Kong but I'm perfectly satisfied with the shade itself and it does unscrew, like the original, to allow use of a Series VII filter. And a shade is quite important for this lens -- it's famously flare prone.
damonsong
Established
Thanks!
I actually ordered the same one too, I don't feel like 1-200 for a real one. The replica one still have not arrive yet, but it's good to know they work well because I was worry about the fitting.
I actually ordered the same one too, I don't feel like 1-200 for a real one. The replica one still have not arrive yet, but it's good to know they work well because I was worry about the fitting.
iaeaix
Established
There is v1 and v2 Summilux 35mm pre-asph. I have seen post in this forum shows v1 Summilux, that I feel it is better performing than v2 and Summicron v4, I did not test it myself for the resolution type of test, but I found the v1 render overall better than v2, in my taste, YMMV.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Erik van Straten
Veteran
iaeaix
Established
Erik,
I have the V1 and V2 but never did side by side comparison (did not intend to anyway).
Although I did sometimes feel that when I use V1, but I have never been sure. so I got that feeling mostly based on your post, your posted photos from v1 was very nice.
Also saw it was said that v1 has 9 elements? Are you aware of anything like that?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
damonsong
Established
Would you kindly do a quick comparison? I can't find any information out there to compare the result of them in detail. Very interesting!
kermaier
Well-known
Careful! Some examples of the pre-aspherical Summilux cannot be used on some Leica digital M bodies. If it has the thicker rear element shroud, it can scrape against the inner baffles of an M9, when focused toward infinity.
iaeaix
Established
What are you looking for?
I could do it but I need to know what kind of detail are we targeting.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
iaeaix
Established
damonsong
Established
Thanks,
Maybe with a still object in the center, some distance between the object and the back ground. From F1.4 to f5.6?
Maybe with a still object in the center, some distance between the object and the back ground. From F1.4 to f5.6?
