summilux 35mm pre-asph.

[Erik van Straten]

Leica M5, Summilux 35mm f/1.4 v1, 400-2TMY.

Erik.

 

[cqing]

My Summilux v1 will arrive tomorrow and I also have a late made-in-Germany Summilux. I'll do a side by side comparison and put the pictures here.

 

[Erik van Straten]

My Summilux v1 will arrive tomorrow and I also have a late made-in-Germany Summilux. I'll do a side by side comparison and put the pictures here.

That is a very good idea. I look forward to these pictures. Will you do them on film or on digital? Fwiw, my shots above are all on film.

Erik.

 

[cqing]

That is a very good idea. I look forward to these pictures. Will you do them on film or on digital? Fwiw, my shots above are all on film.

Erik.

I will test on both film and digital Leica, but I don't think the result will make much sense due to "production variations"

 

[Highway 61]

I talked to a very well known Leica Technician that said he felt the last German examples were the best ('in general' I'll assume) because the assembly technique there was better [than Canada], ouch.

Makes sense, build quality control wise. The special titanium finish Summilux 35/1.4 series sold alongside with the M6 in the same finish and covered with that funky ostrich leather are generally considered very good (except at f/1.4 of course).

 

[JHutchins]

I do not own both and can speak only from my experience with my lens (s/n 2290818 which is a Canadian aluminum mounted lens -- version 2 -- with an infinity lock ) and images I've seen in various places. I've not seen anything -- including the images posted in this thread -- to convince me that there is any systematic difference between versions 1 and 2. Erik refers to the "velvet bokeh" in the background of his image in post 58 as compared to the photo of the boys in post 45 but these are two different backgrounds -- one is complicated and contrasty -- sunlight coming through a tracery of tree branches -- the other simple and not contrasty. When I look at the blurred point sources of light in the image he's attached to post 26, I see bright outer rings that I would expect to produce precisely the same sort of bokeh as I see in the cousins photo from post 45 when the background is a tracery of trees.

I agree generally with dreamsandart and would add that the 35 Summilux is an odd, quirky lens. It is quite sharp -- it's actually pretty sharp even wide open. But wide open it has a variety of flaws that can contribute to a feeling of unsharpneess and that yield idiosyncratic results. It is very flare prone so that a lens that in low contrast situations seems quite sharp can seem very soft in high contrast situations as the flare bends around and hides fine detail. It also, wide open, suffers from a combination of coma and astigmatism that can throw a sort of diffuse glow around bright areas and fine detail wide open and the character of the glow changes as you move off axis. This is all part of what makes it fun. Except in really tough lighting it's a pretty well behaved lens at f/4 or even f/2.8. And it's sharp wide open when your image is a concerto in grey. But when there is contrasty light, point sources of light, bright lights just outside the field of view, or patches of bright white in the image then weird things are going to happen. Sometimes they're weird and wonderful.

 

[JHutchins]

As an example of what I'm claiming above, here's a photo shot wide open with my 35 Summilux:

It's a photo of my daughter that I took, handheld, soon after I got to play with the lens. It's pretty low lighting and not super contrasty so the lens isn't kicking up too much but if you look at the areas of high contrast here you see flaws. At the top of her left sock you can see a glow around it that's bleeding out the difference between it and the table and the lighted keys of her keyboard are starting to take on the characteristic bird shape of a combination of astigmatism and coma. But looking at a 100% crop of her face:

You can see that it is capable of rendering fine detail even wide open. Her eyelashes are well defined hairlines and as good as you can really expect them to look in a photo taken with the typ240 at ISO 1600 handheld. So it isn't really a notably soft lens wide open, it's just a weird lens wide open.

 

[Erik van Straten]

Thank you, JHutchins for your clear story and this very nice picture. I totally agree that the v2 is a weird lens wide open. I can add however that my version of the v2, no. 2221365, is not only weird wide open, but weird until f/5.6.

The v1 is also weird wide open, but in a different way. This is true for all fast pre asph wide angle lenses. Without aspherical lenses it is impossible to make a completely correct fast wide angle lens. That is why aspherical lenses are made.

The v1 is not only a very fine available light lens, but also extremely good for architecure. Very sharp indeed and without any distortion.

Leica M3, Summilux 35mm f/1.4 v1, Tmax400, full aperture (pictures from 2001).

Erik.

@ f/5.6:

 

[x-ray]

35mm Summilux pre-ASPH (PA) v1 vs v2

Looking back after writing, this is long, sorry, I’m sure everyone will not agree, but it's my take till someone shows me differently. I’m been using a 35 Summilux pre-ASPH for going on 40 years. It is a very fun, versatile, creative and usable lens once you get to know it. (and I could qualify the 'it', with 'your example.')

I’ve had multiple examples of both versions (but not of its last ‘German’ years in production)

I had an earlier example of the v1 and later generation in the same serial number range as Erik's. Both are examples of one of the best made and most beautiful mounts Leitz ever made I feel. Optically both were flare prone, with that ‘Leica glow’ wide open. They were not the best optically (the later was better) till stopped down in the traditional classic way 2 stops and then some. The hood is much better than the v2, deeper and the squarish style helps.

I’ve had 3 examples of the v2. A couple early with the locking focus tab, and one from the early/mid-70s. The best of them optically was the earliest but used the later - my first one - for about 20 years as my ‘go-to’ 35mm lens before the ASPH came along. The v2 basic physical design was the same as the v1 with 2 differences; v1 chrome over brass mount was changed to the black anodized alloy metal (the very rare v1 in black was actually the same with alloy mount to accommodate the black anodizing). Leitz was moving in the mid/the late 60s to lighter and still very strong alloy lens mounts. The other difference was the front steel hood mount ring changed for the round clip-on hood for series filters, which Leitz was simplifying their filter catalog with for both R and M lenses at that time.

The v2 was always thought of (by every and anyone) as a slight upgrade in performance as far as my experience, up till the v1 became a ‘collector’s’ item in the 90s+. The extra ‘Leica-look’ (glow) collector’s seemed to value, along with the heavy brass mount, and out of production rarity, a justification for the higher price. The optical glass layout of both versions is the same, and Leitz always advertised both as having ‘exotic glass.’ Take them apart, except for the advancement in lens coatings, glass looks the same. As a Leica factory repressive told me in the early 70s, ‘ Leica did not have a policy of making optically inferior lenses with next versions. Optical changes were always for better optical quality.’ ('character' is another thing, some [like me] will always like their earlier versions)

The change in glass type from v1 and v2 seems to be one of those internet myths that took hold a few years ago. I would like to see some documentation on it, (respectfully) besides speculation, wishful thinking, and hearsay. The Leica technicians/history folks I trust have said no. If anything the advancements in lens coatings have improved the optical signature of the lens over its long production run.

The most important consideration that few folks talk about is the challenge and difficulty of assembling this lens imposed from the beginning. It has to be very exact, from paper to actual production. I remember Tom A. mentioning he had his v2 example factory (Midland) collimated to assure the best optical quality with this in mind. Having had as I said above a few examples of these lenses I can also say they were all generally good, but one v2 did stand out.

Optical performance variations in production examples are nothing new, even with Leitz/Leica. Some examples of the same lens are just better [or worse] than others on the test bench. In the mid-70s I was involved with a University research project that ‘hand selecting’ Leica (Leicaflex) lenses with the best optical quality of a production run (and they were then disassembled, collimated and sealed with nitrogen gas for as good as it could get). With the 35mm Summilux PA being one of the most difficult lenses to assemble for exactness, a challenging optical design to begin with, and the with the technology of the time, optical variations should not be any surprise, maybe more so than any other lens they made at the time (well maybe the original Noctilux is in that class, and shows the same degree of challenging designs). I've heard of the 35 Summilux described as 'a dog,' and 'all-bokeh,' shows there is an opposite side to the better examples too.

Erik’s V1 photo examples I’ve seen here are very beautiful and shows a lens that is one of those best examples (and a very good photographer also). Maybe one of THE best examples of the v1, because I’ve seen other v1 examples that, yes, could be very poor optically. The v1 did not have a good reputation for many years among professional photographers, and there was a reason for this (Jim Marshell went with v2 because of this I know). And to just throw a bit more ‘controversy’ into this mix… ;-) I talked to a very well known Leica Technician that said he felt the last German examples were the best ('in general' I'll assume) because the assembly technique there was better [than Canada], ouch.

So, if you have a good example; German, Canada, v1, v2, chrome, black, titanium, or whatever... hold on to it. An 'entertaining' lens in every way!

In 1968 I was working as a photojournalist and bought a new 35 summilux with infinity lock ($333 new). My brother owned a mint steel rim version. I had several occasions to shoot both lenses on assignments. There was absolutely no difference in the performance of the two, none. Overall they were really good FOR THE TIME but wide open in an environment where there were bright point sources of light in or near the edge of the frame would render the image totally unusable from flare and coma. The thing was this was as good as it got at that time for a f1.4 35.

Ive not used any of the later versions and really don't desire one after my experiences.

In the 70's I purchased a Noctilux 1.2 . Again it was as good as it got in that era for flare control. Shooting at night on a street with street lights in the frame it handled them quite well even At 1.2. The Leica rep, Hans Kippert, showed me images shot at night with a light source in the frame against black. The V3 Summicron was a marked improvement over the V2 and the f1.2 was far better than both the others. Shooting a light source against black would produce a fuzzy ball of light around the source. The Noctilux had almost no fuzz around it.

The thing about my Noctilux was it peaked in performance around f4. When I no longer needed the flare control and speed I sold it and bought a V3 Summicron.

As to versions of the 35 Summilux, I read a statement that Leica put out a few years ago that all versions were optically the same including glass. I seem to remember reading it was Lanthinum earth glass.

 

[Erik van Straten]

Leica M5, Summilux 35mm f/1.4 v1, Tmax400/Adox MCC 110.

Erik.

 

[Erik van Straten]

I had several occasions to shoot both lenses on assignments. There was absolutely no difference in the performance of the two, none.

Well this is very interesting and surprising. Do you still have those photographs? I absolutely would like to see them.

I've never heard anything about "Lanthinum earth glass". Lanthanum rare earth glass is what you mean.

Erik.

 

[cqing]

Both shot with my M8, tripod and shutter release cable. One with late German made(34670xx) and one with late steel rim with goggles(21666xx). Both with pristine glass. Can you tell the difference?

 

[x-ray]

Well this is very interesting and surprising. Do you still have those photographs? I absolutely would like to see them.

I've never heard anything about "Lanthinum earth glass". Lanthanum rare earth glass is what you mean.

Erik.

I might have the negs but I have on the order of 100,000 negs in my archive. It's been 48 years or so.

It was a typo.

 

[JHutchins]

I'd say the focus on the second is a little forward of the focus on the first and since the focus on the first is dead on the Despicable Me frame, which has sharply defined letters so that crisp is easily differentiated from soft, but it's not so easy to make such judgments about the part of the tablecloth that's hanging down. But the first does seem to have a crisper Despicable Me frame and the second seems to have a bit more texture in the hanging part of the tablecloth. Also there's a tiny bit of lint on the edge of the table which looks crisper in the shot with the softer frame so I'm pretty confident there is a slight focus difference which makes it hard for me to say, really, which one is sharper if either is. And maybe the first is contrastier? Maybe?

On the whole, I think that I probably think it's impressive that two lenses made so many years apart are so similar.

 

[Erik van Straten]

Both shot with my M8, tripod and shutter release cable. One with late German made(34670xx) and one with late steel rim with goggles(21666xx). Both with pristine glass. Can you tell the difference?

Thank you, cqing, for making this test.

Apart from the sharpness of the target I don't see any difference. Great! Congratulations with these lenses! Maybe my 2221365 is just a dog.

Erik.

 

[Michael Markey]

This on the same subject from `09.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=76480

 

[Erik van Straten]

I will make a comparable comparison as cqing did. As I work only on film, it will take some time.

Erik.

 

[astro8]

Erik, your v2 may need adjustment.
My v2 was almost unusable, the 'dog' I had read about all over the internet.
I had DAG adjust it.
It came back a different lens, the improvement was like night and day.

 

[Erik van Straten]

Erik, your v2 may need adjustment.

Thank you, Astro, for this tip. I will take this possibility into consideration.

Erik.

 

[astro8]

I have 21670XX from 1966, it seems to be a very early V2 with black paint on brass infinity lock and you can unscrew the lens head from the mount...

Regards

Simon

Can you screw out the lens head (the optical unit) out of this one?

Erik.

I took another look at mine and yes, it does appear to unscrew as you asked.. I moved it a good half inch but felt a little tight so I didn't push it any further for fear of doing something I might regret.