telenous
Well-known
Despite the fact I am already having another 35mm lens I find myself inexorably interested in the Summilux 35 preasph, primarily (but not solely) for reasons of compactness. I am aware of the 'performance issues' as documented time and again here and there, in fact I have myself some experience with a very early Summilux 35 preasph with goggles that I used for about 4 months with an M3 I had about a year and half ago. Let me also say that I am aware of the various available alternatives in that or related focal lengths but at this stage I am interested in this lens only.
My question regarding this lens has to do specifically with another rumour circulating in the web, to the effect that the lens was actually recomputed from a point onwards (googling it, I find consistent references to a man called Hasbroeck indicating S/N 2166702 as the exact point of change; Laney seems to differ). Since Leica itself never confirmed a change in the optical configuration of the lens, or even of the coating applied to the lenses, I was wondering whether people here with experience of more than one sample could confirm a difference in performance between earlier and later Summilux 35 preasph lenses in their production run. In particular, do later lenses eliminate some of the flare presumably, in fact certainly, present in the earlier ones when used wide open? If yes, is there some indication (perhaps differing from the Hasbroeck's claim) as to the S/N that these changes came into effect? I 'd greatly appreciate any photos illustrating these differences (and I am sure they will make the thread more interesting to read).
I am addressing this question in Tom A's subforum, not just because of his extensive (well, huge) experience with all the M-mount lenses and the respect he commands in our community, but also because in a quick google search he's the only one I know to have declared some knowledge from the Elcan-Midland factory on the matter (in an archived RFF thread). However, if the mods feel this question belongs more to the Leica M forum, please do move the thread accordingly.
Thanks for any input in advance!
My question regarding this lens has to do specifically with another rumour circulating in the web, to the effect that the lens was actually recomputed from a point onwards (googling it, I find consistent references to a man called Hasbroeck indicating S/N 2166702 as the exact point of change; Laney seems to differ). Since Leica itself never confirmed a change in the optical configuration of the lens, or even of the coating applied to the lenses, I was wondering whether people here with experience of more than one sample could confirm a difference in performance between earlier and later Summilux 35 preasph lenses in their production run. In particular, do later lenses eliminate some of the flare presumably, in fact certainly, present in the earlier ones when used wide open? If yes, is there some indication (perhaps differing from the Hasbroeck's claim) as to the S/N that these changes came into effect? I 'd greatly appreciate any photos illustrating these differences (and I am sure they will make the thread more interesting to read).
I am addressing this question in Tom A's subforum, not just because of his extensive (well, huge) experience with all the M-mount lenses and the respect he commands in our community, but also because in a quick google search he's the only one I know to have declared some knowledge from the Elcan-Midland factory on the matter (in an archived RFF thread). However, if the mods feel this question belongs more to the Leica M forum, please do move the thread accordingly.
Thanks for any input in advance!
Last edited:
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
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.
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.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
I have # 22218xx, just at the upper end of the range Tom gives for the transition period. I understand that some of these have a non-locking infinity catch; while mine has the locking version.
A color shot I took with it, wide open, with some sky included, is so low in contrast that it looks milky-white. I would not say the lens is very unsharp wide open. The sharpness is reasonable, at least in the center. However, the low contrast does nothing to convey an impression of sharpness. As we know, the sharpness impression comes mostly from good edge contrast, which is not there at f/1.4.
Upon stopping down, everything changes. At f/4 I cannot tell the difference between the pre-ASPH Lux and a Summicron ASPH I tried out once. And that was with the camera on a tripod and with Velvia 50, and comparing the lenses using the same subject, within a minute of each other. I did not make this comparison at f/2 and f/2.8 because I was shooting in full daylight and could not open up that much.
It has been said that the Pre-ASPH Lux and the Version IV Summicron are the same lens, the Lux simply having been made a little larger in diameter to open it out another stop. Inspection of the optical schematic of these two lenses suggests that this could well be true. But of course there is no way to know for sure simply from eyeballing a diagram, since one can't tell about the exact curvature of the elements, the spacing, or the glass types, by eyeball! Then again both lenses appear similar to the version I eight-element, except that one of the thin lenses facing the diaphragm is absent in the Summilux and in the version IV.
I find this lens usable, even at f/1.4, as long as there is no flare-producing backlight, light sources, or strong reflections to spoil the contrast. Stopped down, it becomes a fine lens!
A color shot I took with it, wide open, with some sky included, is so low in contrast that it looks milky-white. I would not say the lens is very unsharp wide open. The sharpness is reasonable, at least in the center. However, the low contrast does nothing to convey an impression of sharpness. As we know, the sharpness impression comes mostly from good edge contrast, which is not there at f/1.4.
Upon stopping down, everything changes. At f/4 I cannot tell the difference between the pre-ASPH Lux and a Summicron ASPH I tried out once. And that was with the camera on a tripod and with Velvia 50, and comparing the lenses using the same subject, within a minute of each other. I did not make this comparison at f/2 and f/2.8 because I was shooting in full daylight and could not open up that much.
It has been said that the Pre-ASPH Lux and the Version IV Summicron are the same lens, the Lux simply having been made a little larger in diameter to open it out another stop. Inspection of the optical schematic of these two lenses suggests that this could well be true. But of course there is no way to know for sure simply from eyeballing a diagram, since one can't tell about the exact curvature of the elements, the spacing, or the glass types, by eyeball! Then again both lenses appear similar to the version I eight-element, except that one of the thin lenses facing the diaphragm is absent in the Summilux and in the version IV.
I find this lens usable, even at f/1.4, as long as there is no flare-producing backlight, light sources, or strong reflections to spoil the contrast. Stopped down, it becomes a fine lens!
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Yes it was recomputed, and the late version is (and has been for 25 years) my standard lens.
Neill Wright & Colin Glanfield in their Collectors Check-List give the change as being 2166, 701, contemporaneous with the switch to Series VII filters, which is logical. Colin was a good friend (he died some years ago) and had had both; the later version was much better in his opinion. I believe Neill has had both too; I'll ask him sometime. Colin shot many of the pics for Paul-Henry van Hasbroeck's books, so P-H would either have relied on their knowledge or double-checked himself with Leica.
Cheers,
Roger
Neill Wright & Colin Glanfield in their Collectors Check-List give the change as being 2166, 701, contemporaneous with the switch to Series VII filters, which is logical. Colin was a good friend (he died some years ago) and had had both; the later version was much better in his opinion. I believe Neill has had both too; I'll ask him sometime. Colin shot many of the pics for Paul-Henry van Hasbroeck's books, so P-H would either have relied on their knowledge or double-checked himself with Leica.
Cheers,
Roger
ampguy
Veteran
anyone here have both versions? or images from each version?
thomasw_
Well-known
Alkis,
This must be an older post, as I recall that you sold your pre-asph summilux here on RFF a year ago, choosing instead to keep the new asph version. I thought the one you sold was a non-M3 version, too?
Cheers, Thomas
This must be an older post, as I recall that you sold your pre-asph summilux here on RFF a year ago, choosing instead to keep the new asph version. I thought the one you sold was a non-M3 version, too?
Cheers, Thomas
Harry Lime
Practitioner
Bill Marshall has been shooting with one of these for decades...
helen.HH
To Light & Love ...
helen.HH
To Light & Love ...
RichC
Well-known
I bought one with the changed mount because I'd heard exactly the same - that the lens had minor improvements to its optics to reduce flare. Mine was made in '69 (serial No. 234....).
I'm very happy with it, and it's on my camera (an M8) most of the time. There's something about the way that this lens draws that pulls the viewer in...
It's biggest problem is flare, even down to f/8 if there are bright lights hitting the lens or a low sun. It's definitely the most flare-prone lens I own. It definitely needs to be used with a hood - but not the ridiculous and expensive vented standard one! It's ridiculous because it's useless: it doesn't do a very good job of blocking stray light - there's a very good reason why most of Leica's wide-angle hoods are rectangular and lack holes! And the problem is compounded if using a filter, which is barely shaded at all!
An effective hood turns the Summilux into another lens. The hood I use is the 12524 (or the newer 12526 - identical but with tabs that hold the lens hood on more securely), from the Summicron. My film-using friend now also uses this hood on his Summilux, and reports improved flare control, with no vignetting wide open. You need to slip an O-ring or rubber band into the groove on the lens where the hood-locking tabs engage, to stop the hood from rotating. The hood makes the aperture-ring tabs a little awkward to reach, but it's a small price to pay. As for filters, 37mm ones fit inside the lip on the front of the lens; I epoxyed a couple of stops to the inside of the hood, to prevent the filter from dropping out.
I've posted this shot recently, but it's here once more as it was taken with the Summilux at f/5.6, and was one of 125 prints chosen from 3000 submitted for a Royal Photographic Society exhibition last year - and the Society is notorously picky about technical quality. The submitted print was quite large, at A3 (20 in.). So, the Summilux pre-ash 35mm held its own against the modern Canon and Nikon lenses...
I'm very happy with it, and it's on my camera (an M8) most of the time. There's something about the way that this lens draws that pulls the viewer in...
It's biggest problem is flare, even down to f/8 if there are bright lights hitting the lens or a low sun. It's definitely the most flare-prone lens I own. It definitely needs to be used with a hood - but not the ridiculous and expensive vented standard one! It's ridiculous because it's useless: it doesn't do a very good job of blocking stray light - there's a very good reason why most of Leica's wide-angle hoods are rectangular and lack holes! And the problem is compounded if using a filter, which is barely shaded at all!
An effective hood turns the Summilux into another lens. The hood I use is the 12524 (or the newer 12526 - identical but with tabs that hold the lens hood on more securely), from the Summicron. My film-using friend now also uses this hood on his Summilux, and reports improved flare control, with no vignetting wide open. You need to slip an O-ring or rubber band into the groove on the lens where the hood-locking tabs engage, to stop the hood from rotating. The hood makes the aperture-ring tabs a little awkward to reach, but it's a small price to pay. As for filters, 37mm ones fit inside the lip on the front of the lens; I epoxyed a couple of stops to the inside of the hood, to prevent the filter from dropping out.
I've posted this shot recently, but it's here once more as it was taken with the Summilux at f/5.6, and was one of 125 prints chosen from 3000 submitted for a Royal Photographic Society exhibition last year - and the Society is notorously picky about technical quality. The submitted print was quite large, at A3 (20 in.). So, the Summilux pre-ash 35mm held its own against the modern Canon and Nikon lenses...
Last edited:
helen.HH
To Light & Love ...
Do LOVE that shot ,RichC.....the Color is Divine
Best- H
Best- H
maddoc
... likes film again.
Rich, marvelous photo !
I like the 35mm Summilux-M pre-ASPH also a lot, despite the flaws. Flare can be nasty and is unpredictable ... I found that it works best without any filter and using original the 12504 hood but will give the idea of using the 35mm SUmmicron-M hood a second thought.
I like the 35mm Summilux-M pre-ASPH also a lot, despite the flaws. Flare can be nasty and is unpredictable ... I found that it works best without any filter and using original the 12504 hood but will give the idea of using the 35mm SUmmicron-M hood a second thought.
telenous
Well-known
Hi Thomas,
You are right, I had a relatively late version of the Summilux 35 preasph. which after a while I sold here. A couple of years back I also had an early version of the lens (chrome, Canadian made, with goggles and 0.65m min focusing distance). I liked both lenses in controlled lighting but the unpredictability of flare across f/stops took away the confidence I had in using them in the end. I think a lot has to do with one's shooting habits. Night time shooting is hard - I remember I was actually using the lens at f2 and even then I had many frames with the typical O-rings around street lights and other strong light sources. I agree of course that the lens can be used carefully to create beatiful photos - the examples posted above prove so anyway.
.
Leica0Series
Well-known
I have one that was made in about 1970, works fine on my M4 and my M8 ... it was one of only two lenses I took on a recent trip to Italy and the speed came in handy. Here's one wide open from the Pantheon; has that nice 3D look, I think.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/brettdavis/3547914044/in/set-72157617621279234/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/brettdavis/3547914044/in/set-72157617621279234/
RichC
Well-known
As an aside, some pre-asph 35mm Summiluxes won't work with the Leica M8 - the shroud protecting the rear element fouls the M8 lens throat (which is narrower the film M's), and the focus ring can't be turned to infinity.
Whether the shroud fouls the M8 or not seems to be down to manufacturing tolerances rather than any changes that Leica made.
The solution is to remove a sliver from the shroud, as shown in the attachment. Filing will work, but a camera repairer will be able to machine this professionally for a pittance.
Whether the shroud fouls the M8 or not seems to be down to manufacturing tolerances rather than any changes that Leica made.
The solution is to remove a sliver from the shroud, as shown in the attachment. Filing will work, but a camera repairer will be able to machine this professionally for a pittance.
Attachments
ampguy
Veteran
Thanks Rich
Thanks Rich
Is this issue present with the later V2 pre-asphs, or mainly an issue with older versions with "eyes"?
Thanks Rich
Is this issue present with the later V2 pre-asphs, or mainly an issue with older versions with "eyes"?
RichC
Well-known
Can't speak for the early solid-brass version (same barrel - with or without eyes) as I've heard no reports on it being used on an M8.
The version 2 aluminium-bodied lens has a shroud that, at best, just clears the M8 lens throat, so I think whether a particular lens fouls the lens throat or not is pure chance...
My lens misfocused and also fouled my M8, so I did a bit of measuring and drew the sketch above and sent it off to the repairer. The repairer, who specialises in Leica stuff, didn't throw up his hand in horror, and happily machined and repainted the shroud, and the returned lens works perfectly now.
Last edited:
RichC
Well-known
I've been asked for more detail on using the rectangular 12524 or 12526 Summicron lens hood with the pre-aspherical Summilux.
The hood will fit straight on the the Summilux but will rotate, which is annoying: the simplest solution is just to put a little insulating tape or a small rubber band in the groove on the lens into which the hood's locating tabs fit into. A nicer solution is a small O-ring from a car accessory shop.
As I mentioned in a post above, the aperture ring tabs are a little awkward to get to with the Summicron hood fitted, but you get used to it.
The original vented pre-aspherical Summilux hood holds the filters, and the lens does not have a filter thread. However, 37mm filters will fit on the lens, where filters normally go on other lenses - it may feel like it's screwing on but as there's no thread, the filter will drop out sooner or later!
So, to use filters with the rectangular Summicron hood fitted, the quick solution is to use a bit of Blue Tack to retain the filter. A more elegant solution is to glue a stop to the inside of the hood to prevent the filter dropping out - I found an old filter, removed the glass, hacksawed the filter thread off, Araldited it to the inside of the hood, and painted it matt black.
Hope this helps.
PS: watch the rubber hood cap, as it's prone to falling off!
The hood will fit straight on the the Summilux but will rotate, which is annoying: the simplest solution is just to put a little insulating tape or a small rubber band in the groove on the lens into which the hood's locating tabs fit into. A nicer solution is a small O-ring from a car accessory shop.
As I mentioned in a post above, the aperture ring tabs are a little awkward to get to with the Summicron hood fitted, but you get used to it.
The original vented pre-aspherical Summilux hood holds the filters, and the lens does not have a filter thread. However, 37mm filters will fit on the lens, where filters normally go on other lenses - it may feel like it's screwing on but as there's no thread, the filter will drop out sooner or later!
So, to use filters with the rectangular Summicron hood fitted, the quick solution is to use a bit of Blue Tack to retain the filter. A more elegant solution is to glue a stop to the inside of the hood to prevent the filter dropping out - I found an old filter, removed the glass, hacksawed the filter thread off, Araldited it to the inside of the hood, and painted it matt black.
Hope this helps.
PS: watch the rubber hood cap, as it's prone to falling off!
Last edited:
Ed Schwartzreic
Well-known
One of my most used lenses. I removed the baffle ring so it would mount on my M8, and used a step ring with a 41mm IR-cut filter to fit it in the vented hood. Most of the time it resides on my R-D1 however, so I don't have to worry about putting it bottom down on a hard surface and scrathing the rear element.
On the M8 and R-D1 of course only the center portion of the lens is being used; I think this helps with the coma wide open, but have not run any tests. Can someone comment on here this?
On the M8 and R-D1 of course only the center portion of the lens is being used; I think this helps with the coma wide open, but have not run any tests. Can someone comment on here this?
JNewell
Leica M Recidivist
I owned a very early version 1 Summilux RF in the 80s, purchased almost unused. It made images that were only a tad better than the bottom of a Coke can. And, yes, I mean Coke can, not Coke bottle. 