Upgrading 35 cron asph?

R

rHytHm

Member
Local time
5:30 PM
Joined
Oct 24, 2008
Messages
41
Location
Boston MA
View My Gallery
I like my 35 cron asph but I have been thinking of upgrading to a lux or cv 35 1.4 or 1.2 for the speed.

Any advice on recommendations? Which lux? Or am I crazy and should just stay with my asph cron?

I shoot b&w tri-x on an m6ttl and m8 for color. Prefer contrasty pictures. 🙂
 
Summilux ASPH is perhaps the finest 35 ever made for low light work. The cron is hardly a downgrade though. The cv 35/1,2 has a beautiful rendering much like a pre-asph lux but w/o some of the optical artifacts. The lux asph is a higher contrast lens than the nokton f1,2 but this is very manageable when developing/printing the negatives.

If you are thinking of selling your cron asph, and going with one 35, then I'd suggest the asph lux if it is in your budget.

But if you are going to keep your cron asph, then I'd go with the f1,2 eNormous Nokton 😉

I presuppose here you are after a lowlight lens!? Otherwise I think you'd be best to simply use a higher film ISO when you shoot in low light at f2 with your summicron asph. I do think the summicron asph is the finest 35/2 lens ever made....just so you know my preference on this🙂
 
If size isn't a factor the CV 1.2 is the best thing going. I own a CV 1.2 and own the asph summicron as well. The CV is a very pleasing lens that handles flare better than either the asph Summilux or summicron. Resolution is exceptionally good even at 1.2 . If the CV 1.2 had Leica engraved on the front ring it would be hailed as the greatest fast 35mm lens of all time. I would not swap my CV 1.2 in an even trade for a 35 asph summilux mainly because of it's exceptional flare control and performance wide open.
 
How many more shots would you have taken if you had had a Summilux rather than a Summicron? Put differently, how many shots did you lose because you had the slower lens?
 
payasam said:
How many more shots would you have taken if you had had a Summilux rather than a Summicron? Put differently, how many shots did you lose because you had the slower lens?
Click to expand...

tbh, last few rolls i have noticed i have been getting an increase in the number of visible hand shake shots due to the slower shutter speed. 1/8th or less in some instances is where I am shooting at in doors. i prefer not to push the iso on tri-x to 1600 or shoot greater than 320 on m8.

i have been seriously thinking about selling the asph cron and putting the dough towards an asph lux and just be done with it but i just can't seem to find enough picture samples online that i like.

anyone care to share some here? link?
 
xmm, frankly, I'm always wondering how lens qualities can be reliably judged basing on small jpegs typically found on the net ? Unless probably shot side by side (the lenses being compared) on similar subject in similar conditions...
I think I'd be hard pressed trying to justify this way spending twice as much money for the lens a stop faster then I'd own already...
 
It would be a sidesways move not upgrade.
The weight is steal factor with faster lenses.
I suggest you add a 1.4/40 for $300.
It's tiny and fits in a pocket.
The 1.2/35 has been on my wishlist for sometime but, I know it would be on the camera more for character than speed.
It's hard for me to see the benifit of the lux asph considering the cost and only one seldom needed stop.
Try the cv40 it's risk free as you can quickly sell it if you no likey for what you paid for it.
 
rHytHm said:
tbh, last few rolls i have noticed i have been getting an increase in the number of visible hand shake shots due to the slower shutter speed. 1/8th or less in some instances is where I am shooting at in doors. i prefer not to push the iso on tri-x to 1600 or shoot greater than 320 on m8.

i have been seriously thinking about selling the asph cron and putting the dough towards an asph lux and just be done with it...
Click to expand...

Going one step faster, rather than increasing ISO, presents a significant trade-off: yes, you avoid higher noise or grain, but 1) performance on the Summilux Asph. at f/1.4 might be inferior to performance at f/2.0 on the Summicron Asph. In other words, a bit more noise or grain might be offset by the improved performance of the Summicron Asph. at f/2.0 over the Summilux Asph. at f/1.4; and 2) the shallower DOF at f/1.4 might make consistent accurate focusing very difficult to achieve, especially when shooting close up (as you would do in order to fill the frame with your subject) and especially if the Summilux Asph. has a back-focus issue, which, I gather, is sometimes problematic on the M8 (inherent depth of focus on film emulsions mitigates back-focus, whereas in-camera sensors cannot).

I wouldn't sell the 35 Summicron Asph. until you've had a chance to compare it side-by-side for performance and handling with the 35 summilux Asph.

Why must you push Tri-X to 1600? Why can't you use Neopan 1600?
 
Last edited:
Valid reason, rHytHm. Unless there's an irreversible, perhaps medical cause, maybe you should try to fight this new shake at 1/8 sec. and slower, or go around it with a monopod. A Summilux will give you a 1-stop advantage, but the f/1.2 means only a further half stop. As for quality, I think it is enough to read the name "Leica" on the lens, or "Voigtlander". In general, the equipment we use can do far better than what we can manage.
 
Like many had said, get the 35/1.2 to pair with the 35 cron ASPH. You would have a good low light shooter, and an excellent and small all-rounder. You would also have 2 35s with different signatures for different occasions.

Like you, I wanted very much to "upgrade" and sell my 35 cron ASPH and the 35/1.2 to fund it. Decided against it in the end as I like the signature of the 1.2.
 
I just bought a 1.2/35mm nokton today. i have the 'cron, however i'm hoping that the 1.2 can replace the 'cron altogether.

i also see the 1.2 as being a whole stop advantage at times over the 1.4 'lux or 1.4 nokton. with the 'lux on an mp, if i want to shoot kodachrome at 1.4, and my incident meter gives me a shutter speed of 1/90's, then i'm going to have to shoot it at 1.8 and 1/60's. with the 1.2 however, i could shoot it a 1.2 and 1/125's. This is not an issue on an M7, M8, or M9. the extra size of the nokton may be another story though.
 
glchua said:
Like many had said, get the 35/1.2 to pair with the 35 cron ASPH. You would have a good low light shooter, and an excellent and small all-rounder. You would also have 2 35s with different signatures for different occasions.

Like you, I wanted very much to "upgrade" and sell my 35 cron ASPH and the 35/1.2 to fund it. Decided against it in the end as I like the signature of the 1.2.
Click to expand...

You have any samples of the CV 1.2 wide open?
 
I'm reading these posts with interest. I've got the 35mm 'cron asph. Love it. Not getting rid of it any time soon. But... the Nokton f1.2 has my attention and I'm considering it as a companion to the 'cron for times when I know I will be shooting primarily indoors or in low light. Seems most of my pictures are indoors and at f2.0 on the 'cron I sometimes have to go 1/8 or slower to get proper exposure. For me at least, anything less than 1/15 sec. and I can not reliably hold the camera steady enough to ensure a sharp photo, so this means I miss some shots. So I can see having an extra stop available as being quite an advantage, but of course I woulnd't want the Nokton to be my every day, walking around lens. That's what the Summicron is for.
 
There have been quite a few instances where having 1.2 in a 35mm lens has made the difference in getting or not getting the shot. I shoot all available light documentary work. One instance I recall was photographing a person who was bitten on his hand by a rattlesnake during a religious service (yes snake handling). I was standing a a couple of feet from him when this six foot rattler hit him. I didn't get to shoot during the service but the next day I went to the house where he was taken after the bite and photographed his hand and the effects on his body. They will not accept medical treatment after a bite and the effects of the venom are startling. The short story is I had 1600 Fuji B&W in my MP and the 35 1.2 Nokton. There were no lights on in the room and only faint window light from one window on the other side of the room. My exposure was 1/4sec at f1.2 with ISO1600. I had no tripod but am a fairly steady old guy and had a few frames that were excellent enlarged to 8x12 inches. Under these conditions I hesitate to push film particularly 1600 Fuji. The shadows at 1600 are marginal at best and pushed they simply have no detail and I needed all the detail I could get.

For me a 35mm super speed is the best solution for my needs. Given an f1 50mm I would have had issues holding steady at that FL and DOF would have been a major issue.
 
Try the 35/1.4 Nokton. Many who use it love it. It has basically the size of your cron and is one stop faster. Some distortion is what you pay. Note that the 35/1.2's distortion is similar.
 
ferider said:
Try the 35/1.4 Nokton. Many who use it love it. It has basically the size of your cron and is one stop faster. Some distortion is what you pay. Note that the 35/1.2's distortion is similar.
Click to expand...

An important, though rather obvious, addition to what Roland wrote is that the f1,4 and f1,2 have very different looks in terms of rendering. As Don "xray" has said, the f1,2 has a beautiful, flare-resistant look wide-open. Its only weak link is size. But if you only use it for low light....then no biggie. The f1,4 is a better all-rounder, but you should check out its look to see whether you like it.

Check out the M-mount group on flickr for comparing/contrasting images with these lenses.
 
the 35mm summilux asph has intractable focus shift issues, so i would stick with the 35mm summicron asph.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
M10 & 35 1.4 pre asph
Replies
9
Views
2K
35photo
3
Roastchestnuts
lens decisions?
2
Replies
39
Views
3K
Roastchestnuts
Roastchestnuts
J
  • Article Article
A Leica Lover’s Guide to Acquiring a Digital M:
2
Replies
26
Views
6K
ranger9
R
J
35mm Still-Picture Photography: It began with scale focusing cameras! Back To Basics. Part 1, From the first to half-frame 35s of then and now.
Replies
10
Views
1K
Jason Schneider
J
J
  • Article Article
Compact Fast Lensed Scale Focusing 35mm Cameras
2
Replies
22
Views
4K
Mos6502
Mos6502
Back
Top Bottom