Which Summicron 35mm?

Which Summicron 35mm?

  • Total voters
    610
ampguy

ampguy

Veteran
Local time
4:56 AM
Joined
May 15, 2006
Messages
6,946
In these 2 rolls, one roll with fuji 200 negative film, and one roll with fuji 400 film, can you determine which 35mm summicron lens was used?

Camera was an M4P, metering was the VC II meter +/- 1 or 2 stops.

Processing by Costco.

matsumura.smugmug.com

folders are under street scenes, "20071025 fujixxx which lens?"

both folders are using the same lens.
 
Some nice shots, Ted. Even though I have no personal exp. with the
ASPH lens, I assume the four bar/rest photos were taken with the
ASPH.

Best,
Roland.
 
Last edited:
Thanks Roland

Thanks Roland

I'll answer tomorrow am so more folks can take a guess on the lens.

I'm not sure if there was flare or not, used the stock Leica rect. hood for the lens, I usually don't use filters, but have a b&w skylight on. The restauraunt/food court of the underground Powell bart station has a lot of lights going on, and even that hand held thing my cousin is holding is a gizmo that goes off when your order is ready.

ferider said:
Some nice shots, Ted. Even though I have no personal exp. with the
ASPH lens, I assume the four bar/rest photos were taken with the
ASPH.

Best,
Roland.
Click to expand...
 
i'm going with pre-asph, since we already know you have the asph and that would be too easy. unless that's the idea, in which case it's the asph. though it would be even trickier if it turned out to be the pre-asph, so there you go.
 
Isn't it version 4 that is the "bokeh" king? - the one with the little "ears" on the aperture ring. I have this and its indeed nice.
 
good point

good point

The hexar af and it's 35 lens is one of my most missed cameras.

btw, I think the exposure was at 2.8, 1/60th.

jmilkins said:
Maybe it's the Hex AF and you just happened to have an M4P along too;)
Click to expand...
 
I say ASPH. But I'll probably ruin the pole because I really have no clue. Wouldn't mind having any of those in the bag. Your shots looks good.
 
"king of bokeh" is over rated imho

Then again.. the ASPH is over priced imho :D

I would, however, still trade my 35mm Zeiss biogon for either of those though.

Cheers
Dave
 
Not so much size.. but the ability to "try it out" rather than having to buy either of them and then realizing that neither are "helping" my photographic skills :D

Dave
 
The image quality looks good. Obviously a quality lens, but I can't tell, Ted. Not sure that there's much difference to matter really :eek: . But then again, there are very few lenses that I can ID (the Noctilux, the 40 'cron-c, and maybe the Ultron 28/1.9 are about it :eek: ). The reason I'd like to try one of these is strictly for speed:size reasons. The 35 FL is my favorite, and I like my CS 35/2.5 just fine. I could use a little less contrast and a little more speed, but I think I'd rather get used to the 40 FL and stick with my 'cron, the Rokkor (and I know you like both of those ;) ), or the Nokton 40 SC than plop the $$$ for one of these.


.
 
dcsang said:
Not so much size.. but the ability to "try it out" rather than having to buy either of them and then realizing that neither are "helping" my photographic skills :D

Dave
Click to expand...


If you can't do it with the Biogon you simply can't do it. Lenses don't help ones skill. Forget that. I shot the v4 and v1 summicrons for many years and then won an asph and sold the v4. Later bought a Biogon and kept the asph. Other than at f2 there's little difference in the v4 and the others with the Biogon having a slight edge on the ASPH IMO. Slight is the word and the differences are so slight that I don't think anyone could see the differences in normal shooting. The ASPH is a little harder looking and IMO less pleasing in the tonal transitions with the Biogon retaining a more natural look and suoerior f2 and flare performance.

Don't waste your money thinking any one of thses will make a difference. It's 99% in the shooters head not in the picture. One day I'm going to do a test of the 6 or 7 35's that I have with different subjects and see if anyone can tell me what is what. I'll wager no one can even come close. The signature of a lens is 95% photographer and 5% lens.

If anyone here thinks they have a keen enough eye then go through my gallery and tell me the lenses and maker of images that have no technical data attached.
 
The only thing the Leica has going for it vs the Zeiss is the cult following for the name. If the name is everything then get the leica but for performance, disregarding cost, then stay with the Zeiss. I don't want to be rude but people get hung up on the name and forget the performance. The Zeiss is the stellar performer here. If you don't know about Zeiss they've made some of the finest MF and view camera lenses of all time. They also have been in the business of making premium camera lenses much longer than Leica.
 
I really dislike focusing tabs and find the hood to be OK but nothing special. Just my biased take after using lenses without the tab. I like a lens I can grip with a focusing ring and like the Zeiss shade because it's a bayonette and the open vents are never in the way of viewing. The leica hood rotates and sometimes obstructs part of the VG.

My take on the summaron is it's soft at 2.8 ang becomes OK by 5.6 and low in contrast. Why at that price would anyone buy one when a used Biogon can be bought for about the same price or less. Honestly I would buy a CV Ultron 35 before I bought the Summaron even if the Summaron was the same price.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom