Which Summicron 35mm?

Which Summicron 35mm?

  • Total voters
    610
x-ray said:
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.
Click to expand...

how's the size compared to the 'cron? Who sells them?

:)
 
interesting stuff

interesting stuff

let's prolong the answer another day.

Here are 2 more rolls with one or the other cron '35s, not the cron used for the prevoius two rolls.

One roll fuji 200, one roll 400. same camera, same city, same shooter, same costco.

answers tomorrow. So roll 3, and roll 4 are the same lens, and a different 35 cron than the version used for photos posted yesterday.

http://matsumura.smugmug.com/Street Scenes
 
The v4 Summicron 35 was my first RF lens, and the only lens on my M for a year. Of course, the performance is more than adequate, but its compelling feature is compact size. I later added the v3, which is just as small, but has a nicer DOF scale. Finally, I added the Summaron 35/2.8, which is small and has the best aperture ring ever. The CZ B35 ZM is too bulky for RF. Konica had the right idea with their UC-Hexanon 35/2.
 
Thanks for looking Mike

Thanks for looking Mike

just for a place marker, before your vote, at about the time of upload of rolls 3 and 4, the poll was about 18 ASPH, 24 pre-asph.


MikeL said:
Roll 3 and 4 are pre-asph. The previous two rolls were the asph.
Click to expand...
 
Hi Ray

Hi Ray

Yeah, I love the Rokkor 40. I'm afraid to test it as it might put these Leitz pieces to shame :D

RayPA said:
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.


.
Click to expand...
 
cmogi10 said:
I wish zeiss would make a square hood for the Biogon, but other then that it's perfect.
Click to expand...

Can you use the square hood for the Biogon 25? Would it fit?

Yeah, I know, it wouldn't be as effective. But it would be square.
 
Ray

Ray

You should try out my ZM 28 Biogon before you shell out big bucks for Zeiss, IMHO. I have some different experiences than x-ray, my Zeiss is very good quality, CV like, but nowhere near German Leitz or even Canadain Leitz quality, let alone Hexanon or Rokkor ;)


RayPA said:
how's the size compared to the 'cron? Who sells them?

:)
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
RayPA said:
how's the size compared to the 'cron? Who sells them?

:)
Click to expand...


Do a search for "Let's be honestabout size" and you'll see a side by side of a number of lenses relative to a 35mm film box.

Keep in mind the biogon is almost totally flare resistant where the asph and v4 summicrons REQUIRE the lens hood. I have a photo of the asph with the hood next to the Biogon without and the Biogon is smaller. The Biogon is the same size as a 50 summicron and a 35mm film box if that helps.

Don't confuse weight of the lens with build quality. My chrome asph is much heavier than my Biogon but my feeling is the Biogon is equally well or better built. The chrome asph is brass (big deal) vs alloy in the Biogon. My preference is a lighter bag not a boat anchor. Too many of us equate weight as defining build quality when it really comes down to material selection and actual execution of the construction and how the materials are assembled.

I don't abuse my equipment but do use it professionally. My personal experience has shown me that the newer generation fo Leica glass isn't built any where as good as lenses made from the early 70 and earlier. I've had 4 recent lenses with serious mechanical problems in the focusing mount and one is from day one and due to poor manufacturing as per Don Goldberg (DAG).
 
Hi x-ray

Hi x-ray

My Summicron's don't need the hood, when not shooting towards the sun, though I do use them. I consider them both flare resistant, when compared to an older lens like the Summarit 50/1.5 or Russian LTM lenses.

I agree with you that the newer Zeiss, at least my 28, is very flare resistant, and I've never seen the need for a hood for that lens yet.

How are you testing for "flare resistance" ??


x-ray said:
Do a search for "Let's be honestabout size" and you'll see a side by side of a number of lenses relative to a 35mm film box.

Keep in mind the biogon is almost totally flare resistant where the asph and v4 summicrons REQUIRE the lens hood. I have a photo of the asph with the hood next to the Biogon without and the Biogon is smaller. The Biogon is the same size as a 50 summicron and a 35mm film box if that helps.

Don't confuse weight of the lens with build quality. My chrome asph is much heavier than my Biogon but my feeling is the Biogon is equally well or better built. The chrome asph is brass (big deal) vs alloy in the Biogon. My preference is a lighter bag not a boat anchor. Too many of us equate weight as defining build quality when it really comes down to material selection and actual execution of the construction and how the materials are assembled.

I don't abuse my equipment but do use it professionally. My personal experience has shown me that the newer generation fo Leica glass isn't built any where as good as lenses made from the early 70 and earlier. I've had 4 recent lenses with serious mechanical problems in the focusing mount and one is from day one and due to poor manufacturing as per Don Goldberg (DAG).
Click to expand...
 
x-ray said:
Do a search for "Let's be honestabout size" and you'll see a side by side of a number of lenses relative to a 35mm film box.

...
Click to expand...

doh! and I recommended this thread earlier in the week, too! thanks. I want to see it in relation to the CV 35/2.5 so I"ll look there.

.
edit: gawd the search function stinks here. oh well that's why I have del.icio.us.
 
Last edited:
ampguy said:
My Summicron's don't need the hood, when not shooting towards the sun, though I do use them. I consider them both flare resistant, when compared to an older lens like the Summarit 50/1.5 or Russian LTM lenses.

I agree with you that the newer Zeiss, at least my 28, is very flare resistant, and I've never seen the need for a hood for that lens yet.

How are you testing for "flare resistance" ??
Click to expand...

My experience had been from practical shooting. I find if there is a bright light source just outside the frame the asph will flare very easily and so did the v4. The asph will give aperture patterns under these conditions. I photographed an old man in the shade of his cabbin and the bright sky above the roof was well out of the frame but the lens caused a veil of flare over the entire image rendering it totally useless. I've experienced this a number of times with both the asph 35 and my apo asph 90. I've been unable to create this with the Biogon 25, 35 and Planar 50. I've shot with the sun in the edge of the frame and just outside and with bright fields just outside the image area with absolutely no signs of flare. My asph summicron is the retro version with the round 60-70 hood. I replaced it with the new rectangular hood and solved most of the problem. If the sun or light source is well out of frame and to the side or behind the camera the asph does fine without a hood but if there's a bright source near the frame then it's big trouble.

My general observations are showing more tendancy for flare with the leica glass. It's been my experience for 40 years that leica doesn't supress flare as well as other lenses. I think the biggest difference is the coatings. Zeiss pioneered the T* multi coatings in the 70's and have more experience in that area then Leica. IMO it shows in current offerings from both makers. I just find myself more comfortable using my Zeiss under these conditions than my Leica glass.
 
ampguy said:
My Summicron's don't need the hood, when not shooting towards the sun, though I do use them. I consider them both flare resistant, when compared to an older lens like the Summarit 50/1.5 or Russian LTM lenses.
Click to expand...

x-ray has a point, Ted, as can be seen with your photo that I quoted in post #2
(IMO taken with the ASPH - but we'll see :) ). The Summicron did flare here.

Which is why I use v3. v3 is very nice with respect to flare (one element less
than v4). Also price-competitive to the Biogon BTW, I bought mine like new,
with box, etc for US 750 here on RFF (last Dec).

I have to admit that the major reason why I use the Summicron in the first
place is size and handling. I think bokeh-wise, the Ultron, for instance,
is better (and cheaper).

Best,

Roland.
 
Last edited:
very interesting

very interesting

Thanks Roland,

I'll have to try to identify this flare, and also verify it's not caused by filters.

I liked the Ultron a lot, definitely a bargain, but when I owned it, used it mostly on the RD1, and couldn't find any benefit over a small 35/2 cron, or rokkor 40/2, so definitely could not justify the monster size of the ultron for it's supposed f1.7 vs f2.


ferider said:
x-ray has a point, Ted, as can be seen with your photo that I quoted in post #2
(IMO taken with the ASPH - but we'll see :) ). The Summicron did flare here.

Which is why I use v3. v3 is very nice with respect to flare (one element less
than v4). Also price-competitive to the Biogon BTW, I bought mine like new,
with box, etc for US 750 here on RFF (last Dec).

I have to admit that the major reason why I use the Summicron in the first
place is size and handling. I think bokeh-wise, the Ultron, for instance,
is better (and cheaper).

Best,

Roland.
Click to expand...
 
Just to show what I mean about v3 (forgive me if you have seen it before), a shot into the sun:

195947083-L.jpg


Best,

Roland.

PS: Ted: can you disclose which is which now? One thing that puzzled me about gallery 3 and 4 were the octagonal OOF circles
 
Last edited:
ferider said:
Just to show what I mean about v3 (forgive me if you have seen it before), a shot into the sun:

Best,
Roland.
Click to expand...

Forgive you? Just the opposite. I enjoy this shot of yours every time I see it.

-Randy
 
Wow!

Wow!

No, I haven't seen that photo before Roland. apparently v3 is an incredible lens!

First 2 rolls posted 2 days ago were with Cron 35 v4 pre-asph, made in Canada, anniv version, black.

roll 3/4 posted yesterday were with Cron 35 ASPH, made in Germany, black.

Interesting note about the octagonal lights, I wonder if it is specific to the aperture used (can't remember).

I can't decide which lens I like better, but after reading that Advanced Leica School book, the marketing Hype of the ASPH has wondering if there is something to the ASPH somewhere, somehow that justifies that big price and size of it :p

ferider said:
Just to show what I mean about v3 (forgive me if you have seen it before), a shot into the sun:

195947083-L.jpg


Best,
Roland.

PS: Ted: can you disclose which is which now ? One thing that puzzled me about gallery 3 and 4 where the octagonal OOF circles
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom