Would you trade a 35 summicron IV for the 35 summilux pre-asph

[BobYIL]

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).

I used all versions of 35 Summicrons. The one I am most impressed with is the 8-element (v.1), still keep it. The aspherical version I sold two weeks ago as I never preferred to use it over the v.1.

 

[x-ray]

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.

I couldn't agree more. I shot for years with the summilux back int he 60's and 70's and lost important work due to "Character / Glow". I't just a way of making yourself feel better about a poor performing lens. I guess some people really like the look ????? but I don't and never have. it was unfortunately the only choice for a PJ that had speed back in the day. Stopped down to f2 it was fine but if you have to stop it down why bother with the seriously over inflated cost. It's nuts what people will pay for these. IMO it's all driven by internet hype.

I later owned the V4 Summicron and a V1. The V4 was a very nice lens but again priced way over it's true value.

I also won a new ASPH Summicron in a drawing and have a Biogon. Out of all the 35's I've owned including a couple of CV, the one I retained is the Biogon. IMO a very pleasing, super sharp and beautiful performing lens at all apertures.

I do have a mint with box CV Nokton 1.2 V1 that I like but don't use and will be placing it up for sale in about a week. Lovely lens and lovely images at all apertures. I've said several times if they lens had the leica name on it it would be hailed as the greatest 35mm in history.

 

[MikeL]

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 how it is working for you is fantastic, I don't think the summilux will get you to super-fantastic level. I'd wait to find someone you could borrow one from, since the pre-asph summilux is not everyone's cup of tea.

What I noticed from using both (black and chrome version 4 summicrons, black and titanium summilux) is that at f2.8 you can't tell the difference. At f2 they are the same on center but the summilux resolves less on the edges, has lower contrast, and out of focus stuff is smoother looking (most of the time). You won't notice a difference unless you have prints of the same scene, side by side.

At f1.4, flare arcs show up, veiling haze, the whole works. You either like the funk or not.

Like what Frank said, a good working copy is a bigger deal than any diffences between them.

 

[Frank Petronio]

After being disappointed several times with older 1970s-era Leica lenses - in spite of their good reputation, many of them are just plain worn out or abused - I realized that there are no bargains even if you spend $2000-plus on a lens. You either pay top dollar for a mint, rarely used example (and you do the using it up) or dig even deeper and get a clean modern lens, either new or in good condition.

I'd love to get a clean, reasonable $1000 35 Summaron or $1500 Summicron v.2-3 since I like their look and build quality. But I probably won't because I'm sick of the hassle of finding them hazed, scratched, gummy and then wondering if the can be adjusted enough to be good? Many no longer can. For anything over a grand, to me at least it's a lot of money and it ought be nice and a little prideful, not trashed.

That's why VC and 40 Rokkors and the like are good buys, for $500-$600 you can get a good copy and the risk/loss is a lot lower if you aren't satisfied.

 

[Revdockj]

Keep the summicron. Two words: "bokeh king"!

 

[Matus]

Sometimes there is just no replacement for a fast lens, but if those occasions are rare, than I would just propose you to look at the Summarit 35/2.5. I find the rendering of the lens lovely.

 

[Ben Z]

After being disappointed several times with older 1970s-era Leica lenses - in spite of their good reputation, many of them are just plain worn out or abused - I realized that there are no bargains even if you spend $2000-plus on a lens. You either pay top dollar for a mint, rarely used example (and you do the using it up) or dig even deeper and get a clean modern lens, either new or in good condition.

I'd love to get a clean, reasonable $1000 35 Summaron or $1500 Summicron v.2-3 since I like their look and build quality. But I probably won't because I'm sick of the hassle of finding them hazed, scratched, gummy and then wondering if the can be adjusted enough to be good? Many no longer can. For anything over a grand, to me at least it's a lot of money and it ought be nice and a little prideful, not trashed.

That's why VC and 40 Rokkors and the like are good buys, for $500-$600 you can get a good copy and the risk/loss is a lot lower if you aren't satisfied.

Agree about the VC lenses (can't say about Rokkors since I've never shot one). I've got a 28/1.9 and 75/2.5 which were both bought from KEH in "Bargain" for <$200 apiece, and save for a little brassing on the black finish, are solid as one could want. These are focals I rarely use, so buying the Leica alternative would be a misuse of cash in my case. I also have the 12 and 15, focals one can't even get in Leica glass (acknowledging the ancient Hologon which is a collectors item), and a 35/3.5. All are amazingly good performers, and demonstrate that factors aside from performance or build-quality are at work in pushing up the prices of older Leitz glass that used to be double the cost of a VC and now are quadruple.

I empathize with your bad luck in finding decent copies of older Leitz lenses, but it surprises me (other than 50's lenses which do tend to fog and also have rather soft front coatings that are frequently scratched to heck). Leica stopped being widely-used by professionals back in the Nikon F(1) era, so most late-60s, 70's and 80's lenses were bought by amateurs and IME tend to have been lightly used and well cared-for. I bought most of mine off KEH, and none of them have had any mechanical or optical flaws. At EX or above I can't see any physical marks either, in fact my 135/4 I got in "Bargain" looks mintish to me. And there was always that 14-day no-hassle inspection period and a 30 day (now I believe it's to 6 months) warranty. The one and only "bad" Leica lens own is a 4th version 28 Elmarit with a small (1/8") hairline scratch in front element coating. I paid a whopping $650 for that lens, and have yet to see an iota of an effect from the scratch.

 

[Frank Petronio]

You're right, paying a little more to buy from KEH makes good sense. I am a little more skeptical of buying from "friends" on forums these days.

 

[rodt16s]

I own both, the Summilux is the v1, which is a stellar lens, wide open and stopped down it's basically 2 different lenses. I understand it's capabilities and it never dissappoints.
The Summicron v4, I can take it or leave it, the build quality is not in the same league as my Summilux, it has a higher contrast and yes the bokeh is different.
I prefer the Summicron v1 over the v4
As you have an M8, do an A - B comparison, as there is often lens - lens variability... and also check the Summilux focuses at infinity.
At the end of the day it's your choice.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I've had both at the same time. I sold the Summicron because they're indistinguisable at f/5.6 but the Summilx wins hands down at f/1.4.

Fragile? Yeah, right. In 1995 I dropped mine 6 feet onto cobbles in Prague. I'm still using it.Geoffrey Crawley thought he'd lost his over the side of his boat, but found it 6 months later in the bilges. Twenty years later, he was still using it too (after an overhaul, admittedly). We shared a high regard for that lens...

Agonizing over ultimate image quality comes down to two things. On the one hand, there are test charts, cats and coffee cups. On the other, there's whether you want/need the extra stop, and whether you can take pictures where people will look at them and admire them, rather than saying, "Oh, that would have been better with a ________. "

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I've had both at the same time. I sold the Summicron because they're indistinguisable at f/5.6 but the Summiulx wins hands down at f/1.4.

Fragile? Yeah, right. In 1995 I dropped mine 6 feet onto cobbles in Prague. I'm still using it. Geoffrey Crawley thought he'd lost his over the side of his boat, but found it 6 months later in the bilges. Twenty years later, he was still using it too (after an overhaul, admittedly). We shared a high regard for that lens...

Agonizing over ultimate image quality comes down to two things. On the one hand, there are test charts, cats and coffee cups. On the other, there's whether you want/need the extra stop, and whether you can take pictures where people will look at them and admire them, rather than saying, "Oh, that would have been better with a ________. "

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Sorry for the double post (and the Summilx/Summiulx) but I'm have trouble with my browser...

Cheers,

R.

 

[ramosa]

both are great lenses. it depends on what you want. both are small lenses and seem to render fairly similarly when stopped down. both render well on digital, as well as film. images from the v4 are classic, while those from the lux (when wide open) are a mix of classic, wild, and unpredictable. here's a good sample of the latter lens: http://www.flickriver.com/lenses/leica/leicasummilux35mmf1.4/

maddoc is the master with this lens. ah, one additional thing: the cron focuses at .7 meters, while the lux is a 1 meter.

 

[dreamsandart]

Fragile? Yeah, right. In 1995 I dropped mine 6 feet onto cobbles in Prague. I'm still using it. Geoffrey Crawley thought he'd lost his over the side of his boat, but found it 6 months later in the bilges. Twenty years later, he was still using it too (after an overhaul, admittedly). We shared a high regard for that lens...

Same here, the 35 Summilux is solid. Dropped a good 15 feet on to a solid floor shortly after getting it, bent hood that with some pliers showed some teeth marks and not so round anymore, but the lens itself was used without service faithfully for 15+ more years. Doubt the glued front part of the Summicron IV would have faired as well.

 

[mdarnton]

I traded a 35/1.5 Canon for the Summilux once. It was a bad trade. I shoot mostly near wide open, and the Canon wasn't great, so I thought I'd be trading up. It was a huge step down.

 

[LCT]

... Doubt the glued front part of the Summicron IV would have faired as well.

You'd just have to screw it again. Same for the Tele-Elmarit "thin" 90/2.8. None is more fragile than other Leica lenses otherwise.