Mark C
Well-known
That is a good shot for me to see, that wonky distribution of sharpness is curvature of field. I can deal with that on this lens but could not on my main lens, the 50. I had a mint copy of a version 2 pre-asph 50 Summilux that is also well known to have curvature of field and mine certainly did. So I sold it and spent big bucks on a 50 1.4 asph which does not suffer from that.
I have never owned more than 4 lenses for my M's at one time and even then I had 4 bodies. Now with only one I really only need one 50 and one 35, keeping it simple and of a high level of quality pays off big time in my opinion, I could travel the world for years with a 35 and a 50, a couple hundred rolls of TMY2 and just crush it...
Field curvature seems to have been the big compromise that Mandler made on his classic Summilux designs. His approach certainly paid off on the 50, which is remarkable at 1.4. But, like you, I want a minimal lens set and am now deciding whether the field curvature is a deal breaker. So far the Summilux has done very well for my everyday 50. For available light shooting in particular I'm finding the field curvature works for me as often as it works against me. For urban landscape I'd rather be using a Summicron, but the Summilux does fine when stopped down.
35 is even harder. I've been struggling with this lately which is why I'm so interested to hear how this works for you. The Voitlander 1.2 is the only thing short of the Aspheric Summilux that seems to really do everything I want. But I'm not willing to carry it, or to shell out for the Aspheric, so for now I'm carrying a screwball outfit of 35/40/50. The 40 only comes out as a substitute for the dream 35 1.4 I haven't found.
I may well try the 35 Nokton; it is hard to beat the price.