The many secret guises of the Summilux 35mm f1.4 preasph.

good info.

good info.

You're possibly right about it being a better lens with film than for digital, but with the M8, I get great b/w images (have only printed to 8x10 though).

Not sure about the changes, but my 2,38x,xxx with no infinity lock doesn't have the veiling flare that I've seen in others that seem to always have this flare. I can't help but wonder if the older lenses have haze. It does have lower contrast at 1.4 than a modern lens like the CV 35.

I do have the semi circular flare, like a hood reflection, when bright lights are shining towards the lens wide open. I've found the distortion is nil, less than the 35 asph lux, and much less than the Hexar AF and CV 35s, and stopped down to f2 and smaller, resolution and contrast similar to v3 and v4 Summicrons, but less contrast than the cron asph.

I use a variety of no filters, no hoods, to UV/IR in a 12504, R72 in 12504, and no filter but 12526 rect cron asph hood.

With the M8, and b/w, the lower contrast wide open, can be beneficial when shooting in the dark at high ISOs, the noise you'd normally have at 2500 with the M8 is not an issue with b/w and lower contrast in the dark, I have found.

The only lens that has let me shoot in the dark hand held better than this lens, is the noct E60 F1, but when using that lens, I never went above ISO 800 and the grain started showing worse than digi noise of the M8 at 2500.

Here is an old set that I've shown in a few threads here with ISO 2500, 1.4 shots in very dark light here

thompsonks said:
IMO the vintage probably matters a lot among ver. 2 pre-a Summiluxes, re: flare.

I've been using #319xxxx for a while on M9 & can't get it to flare the way I was warned it would! I've been using the old round hood with no filter, & can include a pretty strong light source in the edge of the frame with only a bit of flare.

I read somewhere that while the optical formula remained the same throughout the long production of the 2d version, nevertheless the glass quality & coatings changed, which may account for reduction in flare by the time mine was made (1982).

I'll add, however, that my copy not exactly impressive in resolution, even after 2 trips to NJ. My favorite 35 lens is a Summicron ver. 1 (1964), & it's noticeably the sharper when both are set for f2. I had previously been using a 35 Nokton 1.2 for low-light work & wide-open it resolves more than the Summilux, though its CA doesn't look good in color. At f2, my 40 mm Summilux-C is actually the best of these four from the standpoint of resolution.

My tentative conclusion is that the pre-a Lux is a world-class film lens, but its moderate resolution is more obvious that I'd like in digital. The famous 'glow' looks especially good when the film grain is in fine focus (for example when printing with a Focomat). The film grain creates an illusion of sharpness & the image glows with coma behind that.

The same thing is true of the 1.5 Sonnar that Robert Frank used. Critical folks have said he couldn't focus, but that's usually wrong if you look at his prints: the critical point is usually 'right on,' & he was simply working at the outer limits of resolution for these old lenses.

In criticizing pre-a 35 Lux resolution for digital, I'm talking about making fairly large prints (14x21" image area). On the web & in book reproduction, I get the glow without the telling detail of enlargement.

Kirk
Click to expand...
 
As the saying goes,

As the saying goes,

"Eat crow, Kirk": After just posting above that my 1982 pre-a Summilux hasn't been flaring, I managed to capture this picture-perfect example of the opposite.

No light source within the frame or right on the edge. But this is a nook at the back of a coffee house that has very bright windows in the front (to left). I've seen flare before when shooting there at this angle with my Summicron, but nothing to match this perfect moon shape.

So if anyone asks you about flare, show them this!

Kirk
 
by chance

by chance

did you have a filter on?


thompsonks said:
"Eat crow, Kirk": After just posting above that my 1982 pre-a Summilux hasn't been flaring, I managed to capture this picture-perfect example of the opposite.

No light source within the frame or right on the edge. But this is a nook at the back of a coffee house that has very bright windows in the front (to left). I've seen flare before when shooting there at this angle with my Summicron, but nothing to match this perfect moon shape.

So if anyone asks you about flare, show them this!

Kirk
Click to expand...
 
on a moving train w/ the 35 lux
4460591027_3206ff98a4_b.jpg
 
whatever its flaws are re: flare & Distortion...its BEAUTIFUL to me
especially the way its Draws the Light
4452717288_a0ddd18da4_b.jpg
 
thompsonks said:
I've seen flare before when shooting there at this angle with my Summicron, but nothing to match this perfect moon shape.
Click to expand...

Adan(I think his name is Adrian Piper) over on one of the other forums has a good explanation for this kind of flare. You can try and search for his post. To paraphrase he thinks it comes from the very edge of the lens and the lens housing. So it's not something a lens hood can prevent. It only happens at a few angles with the light just out of frame.

This moon flare (along with the close focus limit of 0.9 meters) is the main reason why I'm tempted by the Summicron.
 
telenous said:
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).
Click to expand...

Latest research suggests that the earlier version, 173XXXX to 216XXXX in chrome mounts, has LESS glow and is MUCH sharper than the later black version after 216XXXX. More information will follow.

Erik.
 
Last edited:
I went to CUBA in november from Florida (26 of us photographers) how did we do it? We got a humanitarian Visa. Well I shoot over two Thousand pictures at all times of the day. I never had a picture that had any flared problems. Serial # 3192427 using a 12524 hood and IR filter on a M8. All of our days were in full sun light. Perfect weather. So flaring with my lens does not seem to be a problem.
 
^ likewise. M6 classic and 35mm 'lux pre-asph german version serial 360x... coming this week. will post some pics soon as I get a chance.
 
All shot with Lecia 35 1.4 Summilux on Leica M3











Iv got a 35 1.4 Summilux and it's was my first leica lens:angel:. I cant say enough good things about it. To me, it embodies everything that I had in my head about leica. Im sure that there are sharper and more better versions of the 35 1.4 out there , and could care a less. I still think more than any other lens the look says leica to me. I just love it.

Gregory
 
summernight.jpg


Mid-age 35mm Summilux at 1.4. Not a great photo, but it does show the softness which I find desirable.

Scanned from print. I'm really bad with scans. I can see where I dodged. Yuk.
 
Last edited:
Just acquired one (titanium #36xxxxx) which has some very fine scratches on the rear element...shot on M9, no filter, original round vented hood...

5382265619_3f4c050b26_o.jpg


5382265245_2ba261e4cf_o.jpg
 
I have the second version pre-asph 35/1.4.
This image is from the first roll taken with this lens.
I like the lens.

661493533_4Wms5-O.jpg



661493489_s5bLx-O.jpg



661493510_HosDj-O.jpg
 
I sent my 35/1.4 pre-asph (v2) to Sherry for a CLA
and it happened to focus down to 0.7M and sharp.
But I think infinity is a bit off (go pass infinity?)

I will try to post some shots for 0.7m later.
 
thomasw_ said:
AFAIK, the only summilux-m pre-asph v2 that focuses to ,65m is the goggled-M3 version. Does yours have goggles or was it modified?
Click to expand...
it wasn't goggled and it only focus down to ~1m BEFORE the CLA,
maybe sherry missing a screw inside or what, I am not sure. But it does correct focus at close range and mid-range, infinity is off a bit.

That's why I post it here (the Tom A section) to see what is really happened to my lens.:eek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom