clear2000
Established
Hello everyone, long time lurker, first post to RFF. Please forgive me if this has been posted before but I did do a search before posting.
I have a 35 summicron pre-asph type 4 for my M8 and Nex5 but I have an opportunity to get a 35 summilux pre-asph. I’m thinking I should trade the summicron for the summilux. Outside of the speed, is the summilux much better ?
I have a 35 summicron pre-asph type 4 for my M8 and Nex5 but I have an opportunity to get a 35 summilux pre-asph. I’m thinking I should trade the summicron for the summilux. Outside of the speed, is the summilux much better ?
Symeon
Established
The Summilux 35 of the 70s-80s and early 90s era wasn't very good. Wide open it had too many issues and it did not justify the cost. The recent Asph model has corrected all these but it costs a fortune. I would stick with the Cron 35 IV, I have one and I use it both on my M8 and M6 and it's one of my favourite Leica optics. It's smaller, it's swifter and its F2 is pretty amazing.
Regards.
Regards.
clear2000
Established
Thanks for the tip and I agree, the 35 cron is very nice.
I just did a search on flickr for M8 and summilux pre-asph and those images look very good too.
I just did a search on flickr for M8 and summilux pre-asph and those images look very good too.
BobYIL
Well-known
It's not "much better"; actually the difference between the two is not about "betterness". Both are excellent lenses, both are perfectly usable lenses on your crop digital bodies ; because their common characteristic weak sides are relatively outside of the area covered by your crop sensors; i.e. edges and corners.
Some individual characteristics: If you like what is called "Leica glow" at f1.4 & 2.0 then go with the Summilux and be prepared to live with lots of coma too. If you already in love with the bokeh of your 7-element, then stick to it. Following f2.8 they are hard to distinguish.
In case you are determined to use only digital cameras from now on, then you'd better consider upgrading only toward the aspherical versions of Summicron or Summilux..
Some individual characteristics: If you like what is called "Leica glow" at f1.4 & 2.0 then go with the Summilux and be prepared to live with lots of coma too. If you already in love with the bokeh of your 7-element, then stick to it. Following f2.8 they are hard to distinguish.
In case you are determined to use only digital cameras from now on, then you'd better consider upgrading only toward the aspherical versions of Summicron or Summilux..
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
+1 to Symeon's comment. There have been lots of 35/1.4 pre-Asph's available for sale over the last few years. If I had a 35/2, I'd stick with it and buy either a C/V 35/1.4, which is said to have a design close to that of the older Leica, or the 35/1.2, which is a really special lens in its own right (although considerably larger than the slightly slower offerings).
awslee
Well-known
If you want the classic Lecia look "glow", go for the summilux pre-asph, I like it because it is unique, particularly in B&W photos. The cron IV IMO is an over rated lens, I'd prefer the cron v1.
Livesteamer
Well-known
I have the 35 Summilux in both pre asph and asph versions. The pre asph is one of my favorite lenses ever and the asph version I use very little. I use them on my M6 and have no plans to go digital. Joe
leicapixie
Well-known
The Leica "glow" and not that "special" is saying the lens sucks at full aperture. Weirdest Bokeh. i owned one luckily selling it and replacing with a Summicron.
That stolen, i replaced with a Summaron, also goggles, and BUT for one aperture more on the Summicron, find the Summaron almost identical!
The Cosina lenses do NOT have the Leica look.Reason i chose an old Summaron.
That stolen, i replaced with a Summaron, also goggles, and BUT for one aperture more on the Summicron, find the Summaron almost identical!
The Cosina lenses do NOT have the Leica look.Reason i chose an old Summaron.
Frank Petronio
Well-known
The pre-Asph Lux makes great photos with a lot of character but it is a fragile, often flawed lens that is hard to buy in good condition. Whatever you do, avoid the "users" as they are often used up and worn out. Leica used more Aluminum in that lens to keep it light. It is also so small that the controls are very tightly packed, making it a bit harder for adult males with large hands. I have owned two copies that looked OK when I got them but soon needed service. Most of the ones I see for sale look pretty beat up.
The filter and lenshade are a pain too, the round shade isn't very effective against flare but at least it provides some shock and dust protection. There is a Chinese knock off that is a good copy for a lot less money than a bent used one ;-p
I think I am going to try the VC 35/1.4 for $650 or so. It won't be built as well as a current Leica lens but I am thinking a new VC will still be a better built lens short of dropping $4-5K on a used ASPH. At least it should be more usable than a 40-plus year old beat-up Lux.
When it comes down to it, build and handling count as much or more than subtle imaging qualities.
It is a shame, funny that I think only a few years ago you could get a great v.2 or 3 Cron for $800 to $1000 and it would shoot beautifully. Now even the v.2 -3 Crons look mostly beat up and worn out to me - or have outrageous prices!
The filter and lenshade are a pain too, the round shade isn't very effective against flare but at least it provides some shock and dust protection. There is a Chinese knock off that is a good copy for a lot less money than a bent used one ;-p
I think I am going to try the VC 35/1.4 for $650 or so. It won't be built as well as a current Leica lens but I am thinking a new VC will still be a better built lens short of dropping $4-5K on a used ASPH. At least it should be more usable than a 40-plus year old beat-up Lux.
When it comes down to it, build and handling count as much or more than subtle imaging qualities.
It is a shame, funny that I think only a few years ago you could get a great v.2 or 3 Cron for $800 to $1000 and it would shoot beautifully. Now even the v.2 -3 Crons look mostly beat up and worn out to me - or have outrageous prices!
dreamsandart
Well-known
The 35 Summilux pre-ASPH is maybe the most polarizing lens Leica/Leitz has ever made. To some its the worst; flares, too small with bad controls, not sharp… and for others [like me] it is a nice small lens, beautiful color and B&W, sharp when stopped down (as most 'classic' 60s lenses) and as I've said in the past " two lenses in one", with an 'art look' when opened up. Its a very fun lens to use.
I do think there are variations in examples, so that is part of the problem.
As for the original question… I've had both, and used both over many years. The Summicron focus is down to .7 meters and can be helpful sometimes, easy to use 39mm filters, is good wide open and improves as its stopped down, just a nice classic look all around.
I think of the Summilux as an f2 or f2.8 lens in standard use, and stopped down you don't see much difference vs the Summicron (the Summicron has a bit more contrast). Its very good in the f4-f8 range. That f1.4 is for use when its really needed, or for 'effect'. The low contrast wide open can make it seem less sharp, but can give a photograph an interesting look.
I sold my Summicron this last year. The 'advantages' of the Summilux made the lens something I wanted to keep. But I also have a 35mm Summilux aspherical that works for that really well corrected optically 35mm.
I do think there are variations in examples, so that is part of the problem.
As for the original question… I've had both, and used both over many years. The Summicron focus is down to .7 meters and can be helpful sometimes, easy to use 39mm filters, is good wide open and improves as its stopped down, just a nice classic look all around.
I think of the Summilux as an f2 or f2.8 lens in standard use, and stopped down you don't see much difference vs the Summicron (the Summicron has a bit more contrast). Its very good in the f4-f8 range. That f1.4 is for use when its really needed, or for 'effect'. The low contrast wide open can make it seem less sharp, but can give a photograph an interesting look.
I sold my Summicron this last year. The 'advantages' of the Summilux made the lens something I wanted to keep. But I also have a 35mm Summilux aspherical that works for that really well corrected optically 35mm.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
No, I would not make that trade. I would keep the Version IV or trade up to an ASPH Summicron. I have both version IV Cron and pre-ASPH Lux, and see no point in giving up a version IV for a lens I consider unusable at f/1.4. It's not so much that it's not sharp wide open (although it isn't); it's that the contrast is very low! Even my 40mm CV f/1.4 Nokton is much better wide open. I'm sure the 35mm Nokton would be, too. I would get a version I Summicron (well, not really, I already have one), or the Summicron ASPH. Or else just keep the version IV.
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
To modify what I said above: it also depends on the kind of pictures you like to take. If f:1.4 is crucial to the way you work then the slower lens is always going to seem like shooting with one hand tied behind your back.
maddoc
... likes film again.
I had both lenses for half a year in parallel, the 35mm Summicron vs 4 "1923 - 1983" and a 35mm Summilux-M pre-ASPH (Made in Germany version, one of the latest batches made). After comparing the photos, I sold the Summicron for the simple reason that the resolution of the Summilux at f/2.0 is better than that of the Summicron and I found the extra stop of bigger advantage than the difference in close focusing distance of 0.2m. The only drawback in practical use (for me) is that filters can only be used with the hood of the Summilux-M.
What I also did not like about the Summicron-M vs 4 is the build quality of the lens, my copy had a slightly tilted front-group (only visible when mounting the hood) and I have seen a couple of other lenses showing this problem. If I would buy another 35mm Summicron than either a vs 3 or the ASPH version.
The biggest problem with the Summilux-M (pre-ASPH) is that a slightest amount of haze (barely visible) drastically reduces the performance of this lens and I think this contributes to it`s bad reputation.
What I also did not like about the Summicron-M vs 4 is the build quality of the lens, my copy had a slightly tilted front-group (only visible when mounting the hood) and I have seen a couple of other lenses showing this problem. If I would buy another 35mm Summicron than either a vs 3 or the ASPH version.
The biggest problem with the Summilux-M (pre-ASPH) is that a slightest amount of haze (barely visible) drastically reduces the performance of this lens and I think this contributes to it`s bad reputation.
clear2000
Established
Thanks, excellent points here. I've decided to keep the summicron. Here's why:
I've had it for less then a week. I'd like to use it more.
So far it's fantastic and I don't think that will change.
If I go with the trade I'd need a new IR/UV filter.
It wouldn't be a even trade, I would need another 200 dollars.
I have a good copy, why risk it.
I appreciate everyone's feedback.
I've had it for less then a week. I'd like to use it more.
So far it's fantastic and I don't think that will change.
If I go with the trade I'd need a new IR/UV filter.
It wouldn't be a even trade, I would need another 200 dollars.
I have a good copy, why risk it.
I appreciate everyone's feedback.
DwF
Well-known
Keep the Version IV
Keep the Version IV
I owned a late Pre-Asph Summilux. I found it barely useable wide-open but liked it especially f 2 -2.8 I also had at the same time, a 35mm Summicron Asph and subsequesntly sold the lux because the Asph Summciron was noticeably better for what I was doing at f2. I ended up trading that lens away and went without a 35 on my M8 for a couple of years.
Recently I picked up the version IV and I love it! I didn't expect it to yield such good results wide open - a keeper, and not unlike the late version 50mm Summicron.
Keep the Version IV
I owned a late Pre-Asph Summilux. I found it barely useable wide-open but liked it especially f 2 -2.8 I also had at the same time, a 35mm Summicron Asph and subsequesntly sold the lux because the Asph Summciron was noticeably better for what I was doing at f2. I ended up trading that lens away and went without a 35 on my M8 for a couple of years.
Recently I picked up the version IV and I love it! I didn't expect it to yield such good results wide open - a keeper, and not unlike the late version 50mm Summicron.
Jubb Jubb
Well-known
Nope. Love my 35 Summicron pre-asph to bits!
J. Borger
Well-known
I agree with Gabor: had both summicron IV and Summilux pre-asph (late German titanium version) together for a reasonable amount of time. Both in mint like new condition. The Summilux was the sharper and better lens from 2,8 up. At 2.0 it was a draw. Reason enough to prefer the summilux because it unfolds all its character at 1,4 as a bonus.
smile
why so serious?
i bought almost mint summicron 35IV in 2010 (German) for $1600 and sold it two month ago for $2700
i tryed to see anything unique in images it produced but couldn't.. it's just an ordinary 35 f/2 lens. there is one advantage though - the size of the lens, that's it..
and yeah, ever growing price
simple marketing
i tryed to see anything unique in images it produced but couldn't.. it's just an ordinary 35 f/2 lens. there is one advantage though - the size of the lens, that's it..
and yeah, ever growing price
simple marketingBen Z
Veteran
I owned several ASPH lenses (21/2.8, 35/2, 35/1.4, 90/2APO and 135/3.4APO) and sold them all in favor of keeping the non-ASPH versions. If my primary interest in photography was achieving cutting-edge technical perfection at 100% magnification on a high-end monitor, I might have kept the ASPH lenses. But in practical photographic use I never met anyone, no matter how impressive their credentials were, who could tell from the best, professionally-done prints, which version lens had been used. That's all I need from a lens.
The sole exception is the 35/1.4. I owned one for all of a week. The performance at f/1.4 was much weaker than my pre-ASPH 50 Summilux, another old design. At f/2 it still lagged far behind my V.3 and V.4 35 Summicrons, and it flared quite badly (it was crystal-clear inside, no fogging).
LCT
ex-newbie
I own both lenses. The 35/1.4 pre-asph is must have if you like the famous Leica "glow", in fact halos around highlights at f/1.4 mainly. But it flares a lot. I would keep both lenses if you can, otherwise the 35/2 v4 is a better choice for day to day use IMO.