35mm Summicron Asph vs. 35mm Summilux Asph

[Sailor Ted]

OK I've narrowed my search down to these two lenses as my low light standard lens for the M8. What I'm wondering - does anyone have practical experience regarding the subjective differences between these two lenses? Sharpness, color, OOF, or any thing else that will help me make a final decision will be appreciated.

Thanks in advance,
Ted

[Tony C.]

Ted,

Please clear some space, as I need to contact you (re: routing).

Tony

[StuartR]

All I can say is that the 35/1.4 ASPH is an astonishingly good lens. I have used it in every situation I can think of and I have not had a complaint. Along with the 50/1.4ASPH and 75/2 APO ASPH, you have what are the best normalish focal length lenses available for 35mm photography. There might be some better long lenses (the Leica 100mm APO and 180/2.8, 280/4 come to mind), but for standard focal lengths they are unbeatable. I would say get the summilux for the extra stop and ability to have shallower depth of field, but that is just me. Here are a few sample shots. Forgive me if I have posted some in other threads about the lens:

http://www.stuartrichardson.com/sinclair-kristen-mexican.jpg

http://www.stuartrichardson.com/malcolm-trail.jpg

http://www.stuartrichardson.com/vik-trucks.jpg

http://www.stuartrichardson.com/cop-in-rain.jpg

http://www.stuartrichardson.com/stripe-stockings.jpg

http://www.stuartrichardson.com/blue-lagoon2.jpg

Granted, not every shot shows off the technical abilities of the lens, and I don't think any were taken on a tripod, but they embody my attitude towards the 35/1.4 ASPH which is "Don't leave home without it!". I have tons of cameras and lenses, and if I had to have only one lens for the rest of my life it would be the 35/1.4 ASPH.

All that said, I am a little disappointed to see it turn into a 50 on the M8, but it will make a great 50...it's too bad Leica doesn't make a 24mm f/1.4...

[Nachkebia]

35 lux is on my 2007 list :D

[Flyfisher Tom]

all of David Allan Harvey's work before his recent digital switch were done with the 35 summilux asph.

[Fred]

Some cracking examples of the OOF there Stuart.

[Lloyd Chan]

Here is a casual comparison of the close-up performance of both lenses on the RD-1s, wide open. A friend brought his MP w 35/1.4 ASPH along for coffee and I tried the same shot with both.

[Sailor Ted]

35 lux is on my 2007 list :D

Better add an M8 to that list- then perhaps we can see a little more of your work :D

[Sailor Ted]

Lloyd- thanks for the shots (can't see much difference from the samples though : ) So which lens is which?

[Lloyd Chan]

Cron first, then Lux.

[furcafe]

I've owned both lenses, & IMHO there is very little difference between the 2 lenses on a stop-to-stop basis, whether you're talking technical performance or "fingerprint." I believe even super pixel-peepers like Erwin Puts acknowledge that any differences are pretty minor (e.g., the Summicron is a bit more flare-resistant @ f/2). I 1st owned the Summicron & then replaced it w/the Summilux because I do a lot of low-light photography & don't mind a moderately larger lens (everything seems small compared to the Noctilux & 75/1.4 Summilux). However, I recently acquired a new Summicron (@ a great price thanks to Tony Rose) to use w/my M8 & R-D1.

Here are examples from my Flickr uploads, although there will be many more 'lux examples per my equipment history:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/furcafe/tags/leica3514summiluxmasphc1997/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/furcafe/tags/leica352summicronmasphc2000/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/furcafe/tags/leica352summicronmasphlhsahammertonec2003/

My bottom line: for all practical purposes, the 'lux is just a faster version of the 'cron & I would make my decision based on whether you need the extra speed & have the extra money ('lux) or whether you need a smaller/lighter lens & if you want/need to spend less money ('cron).

OK I've narrowed my search down to these two lenses as my low light standard lens for the M8. What I'm wondering - does anyone have practical experience regarding the subjective differences between these two lenses? Sharpness, color, OOF, or any thing else that will help me make a final decision will be appreciated.

Thanks in advance,
Ted

[retrocam]

The 35 'lux asph is a great lens...for size, weight and of course, the quality of the pictures taken with it. You can't go wrong with the 'cron asph either although it's a stop slower; you can just compensate with faster film.

The 35 'lux asph is quite expensive but I found a second hand one for less than half the actual price. :D

Here's a pic from my gallery where I used the 35 'lux asph: photo link (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=26297&ppuser=4304)

EDIT: My apologies, I didnt' realize I was in the Digital M8 thread when I replied and mentioned film. Nevertheless, I'd say go for the 'lux asph because the crop factor affects the DOF; the 'lux asph is not rendered as f/1.4 but smaller.

[harmsr]

Sailor Ted,

Do a search in the Leica M forum and you will several discussions relative to this.

I had a 35 Cron ASPH that I sold after purchasing the Lux ASPH. IMHO they are two completely different lenses.

I live in AZ which has very contrasty light, that just does not work well with the Cron. The Cron was too contrasty, and blocked up the shadow detail. I also did not like its OOF rendering as well, since it did not transition slowly at all but rather a sharp cut-off.

The Lux is less contrasty, but just as sharp. It provides a little more shadow detail and I much prefer its transition from focused to OOF areas. You also have the extra stop which is very useable.

I think that you will find the contrast and rendering of the Lux much more pleasing on the digital sensor.

Check out some of the posts by Magus on this subject as he is much more eloquent than I am. We had this discussion before here on this forum and the LUF also. Just before selling the Cron, I did a direct set of comparison photos for him between the two lenses.

Do some searching of photos and pick which ever suits your taste the best.

The Cron & Lux are NOT the same lens with only a stop difference. They render completely differently.

Best,

Ray

[furcafe]

Interesting. Our experiences are completely different, perhaps because we shoot in different environments (or it's been so long since I had the 'cron ;) ) . . .

Sailor Ted,

Do a search in the Leica M forum and you will several discussions relative to this.

I had a 35 Cron ASPH that I sold after purchasing the Lux ASPH. IMHO they are two completely different lenses.

I live in AZ which has very contrasty light, that just does not work well with the Cron. The Cron was too contrasty, and blocked up the shadow detail. I also did not like its OOF rendering as well, since it did not transition slowly at all but rather a sharp cut-off.

The Lux is less contrasty, but just as sharp. It provides a little more shadow detail and I much prefer its transition from focused to OOF areas. You also have the extra stop which is very useable.

I think that you will find the contrast and rendering of the Lux much more pleasing on the digital sensor.

Check out some of the posts by Magus on this subject as he is much more eloquent than I am. We had this discussion before here on this forum and the LUF also. Just before selling the Cron, I did a direct set of comparison photos for him between the two lenses.

Do some searching of photos and pick which ever suits your taste the best.

The Cron & Lux are NOT the same lens with only a stop difference. They render completely differently.

Best,

Ray

[haagen_dazs]

Here is a casual comparison of the close-up performance of both lenses on the RD-1s, wide open. A friend brought his MP w 35/1.4 ASPH along for coffee and I tried the same shot with both.
curious, where are you located?
that was taken at coffeebean-tea leaf! :) yummy!

[haagen_dazs]

Here is a casual comparison of the close-up performance of both lenses on the RD-1s, wide open. A friend brought his MP w 35/1.4 ASPH along for coffee and I tried the same shot with both.
Lloyd
Your pm box is full.
Cant pm
but to answer your question, YEAH YUP

[peter_n]

I use the Summilux which I like a lot. Closest focus on that lens is 0.7M which is very useful on a WA lens. Don't know that the closest focus distance on a Summicron is.

[edlaurpic]

I have both of them, but I tend to leave the 35/2 on my M8 (as I did before on my R-D1) because it is more compact than the 35/1.4, but I choose the 35/1.4 when I know light will be scarce for whatever I am shooting.

I think I might favor the 35/1.4 if it had a much smaller lens hood. For that reason I ordered, but haven't yet received, a 46mm screw-in WA hood which I intend to try.

Because the 35/2 is my default lens, most of my best shots have been with it.
Here's a favorite which I took in a architect friend's study with the R-d1 two years ago. You can cut yourself on those edges.

[Flyfisher Tom]

I think I might favor the 35/1.4 if it had a much smaller lens hood. For that reason I ordered, but haven't yet received, a 46mm screw-in WA hood which I intend to try.


I don't know which brand you ordered, but the 46mm wide-angle metal hood from Heavystar is very good, and much less intrusive than the original rectangular hood.

cheers

[Sailor Ted]

Thanks for all the info guys. Contrast is an issue (never lacking in digital photography) and so is lens speed. For these reasons I have decided to go with the Summilux.

[rami G]

I agree with those who find significant difference between the lenses. I first had the cron, loved it but upgraded it for the extra stop, then I missed it, bought it again, but latter found myself using it only around home, because I never took the risk of having not enough light...
I find the cron to be much sharper and has an unusual lack of any lose of sharpness in the edges even at f/2. the lux seems to have a slight higher center sharpness when wide open. However, what I love about the cron the most is the fact that it has basically no light fall off. Latter, when I got the 28 cron asph, I was hoping to find that also with the 28 (after reading some reviews and commens) but I never did. I love the 28 cron and I love the 35 lux but I do miss the 35 cron for a very particular look of the images, especially, landscape. with people photography I generally like the center to have somewhat more sharpness and better illumination, especially when the subject is in the center.
I still don't own the m8, but note that on the R-D1 the 35lux is my favorite lens.
this is a shot with the 35lux and the R-D1:

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4635928&size=lg

[StuartR]

I think it would be important to differentiate between the two lenses on film and on digital, particularly the RD1. Since the RD-1 is a 1.6 crop, you are using much less of the lens, also since it is 6mp, you are losing the finest layers of resolution and microcontrast. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying the RD-1 is bad in any way, it just uses the lenses very differently from film cameras, which is different again than the M8. The lenses might behave quite differently on film, on the RD-1 and on the M8. You need look no further than vignetting...certain lenses vignette a great deal on the RD-1, but not very much at all on film cameras. The sensor and the emulsion just have different reactions. If anything, I would suspect that the lenses on the M8 are probably be closer to the way they behave on film -- just because the sensor is larger, features the special micro-lenses and 10mp. But anyway, it is just another consideration.

As for you Ted, I think you will be really really happy with the 35/1.4 ASPH. I look forward to seeing some shots when it arrives.

[rami G]

StuartR, I absolutely agree. maybe I should have been clearer in my own post. On film I found the 35cron the finest lens I ever tried. Never compared cron and lux on the R-D1 but I must say that the 35lux on the R-D1 is really amazing and I love it more than with film. I guess on the M8 it is an all new story.

[Harry Lime]

Speed is king. The extra stop really does make a difference. With f1.4 I can continue to shoot Tri-X @ 400 into the evening and night.
There isn't much you can't shoot at f1.4 and 1/30th @ 400/800 asa.

Both lenses are stellar performers and any comparison is splitting hairs.

If you got the money, grab the Lux ASPH.

[telenous]

I am with those who say that the two lenses render differently. I happen to prefer the Lux 35 Asph., which is very convenient, because I have one. But I had the chance to use both (and will do so again in the very near future), as well as see scanned images and prints, and if you care about such things, the differences are there to be seen. I agree with Harry Lime's take on lens speed, f/1.4 is quintessential for available light.

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request