Summilux 35mm preASPH worth it?

[edodo]

I need a compact and luminous wide lens. Is it worth its price? I can have it with hood for 750euros. It is the version just before the asph.

[x-ray]

There area number of superior 35's currently on the market at much lower prices. I used the pre asph in the 60's and 70's and had a number of segemnts of assignments ruined by flare and internal reflections. It was the best thing going at the time but is no where close in performance to even the CV lenses of today. Do a search and you'll see some of the images i'm referring to. For some reason the pre asph has a cult following that's not seserved.

[sleepyhead]

Hi Charles, this is a question that seems to come up every few months or so here - it seems that there are those who love this lens, for example, for its small size and "fingerprint", and those who hate it due to a bit of softness wide-open and bad flare under some conditions. (Of course, there are also a few who are indifferent, and a few who swear by the ASPH version...)

So it's all going to depend on your personal taste - what kind of look you're after - your desire for a small lens (the pre-ASPH on a M camera will fit in a large coat pocket, the ASPH would struggle to do so), and whether you can tolerate some flare.

I personally own the pre-ASPH 35mm summilux, and it's not because I can't afford the ASPH version. I chose the pre-ASPH because in black and white (pretty much all I shoot) the lens has a special look, and even when i get a bit of flare, say from street lamps at night, it only adds to that look. ALSO, small size is very very important to me. As for sharpness wide open, I use the lens mostly with fast, grainy, black and white film under conditions with shutter speeds around 1/30th of a second - I'm quite sure that these factors are limiting the sharpness wide open more than the lens itself.

If I were interested in color work, and size didn't matter to me, or if I wanted maximum wide-open sharpness (perhaps under brighter conditions, or with a tripod), and if i wanted a "clean and clinical" rendition of a scene then I would chose the ASPH version of the lens.

By the way, i think 750 euros is quite a fair price if the lens is in good condition and with the shade. Always use the shade.

Good luck with your choice.

[sleepyhead]

I disagree with x-ray - if you want a SMALL 35mm lens with a 1.4 maximum aperture, then the voigtlander 35mm f/1.7 isn't it, although I've seen some nice results posted from it. I've also heard of bits of it falling off, and the barrel not being in proper alignment. The 35mm pre-APSH summilux is built well.

By the way, there seems to be an indication that flaring in the pre-ASPH summilux varies depending on the year that lens was made, and/or perhaps other factors (changes in coating?, luck?).

The voigtlander 35mm 1.2 also seems to give nice results, but is a grotesque monster compared to the pre-ASPH summilux.

A final thing about the voigtlander lenses that bugs me is their odd maximum aperture designations (1.2, 1.5, 1.9, 2.5, etc.) - this is if you're used to the 1, 1.4, 2, 2.8 sequence and all your other lenses, and meters, etc. follow that sequence.... A minor issue, I admit.

[edodo]

The seller told me that the lens was serviced by leica germany this january but couldn't provide the receipt. Is the wide opened softness that bad? Could you make a comparaison with some other lens such as WO summarit 50 or summaron softness?

[sleepyhead]

One final thought, if you can live with the 40mm focal length and DO WANT TO SAVE A LOT OF MONEY, then the voigtlander 40mm nokton is well worth looking into instead of the 35mm pre-ASPH summilux. I have a 40mm nokton (on a minolta CLE), and it is small like the pre-ASPH summilux, plus I find that it doesn't need a shade usually, so that makes it even SMALLER than the summilux, and it is very sharp, even wide open. It is also very good for color (limited person experience, but I've seem very nice stuff here and on Flickr). The nokton is more contrasty than the pre-ASPH summilux in my experience, so I still prefer the later for contrasty dimly-lit conditions (nighttime interiors, for example).

[Bosk]

I'm hardly an expert but I believe something to bear in mind about the pre ASPH summilux is that it isn't sharp wide open, which might limit it's usefullness at 1.4 for you. It's a great lens, bokeh is very nice and its built very well but for my money I would rather buy a 4th version pre ASPH summicron instead, which ought to be as sharp or sharper at f2 than the Summilux but (IMO) has better handling, less weight and superb bokeh.

If you are desperate for the extra speed then I think you'd be better off looking at the Voightlander 35 1.2, or the 35 Summilux ASPH if you dont mind saving for one.


To conclude, I wouldn't buy a 35 pre-ASPH summilux unless I could get one at a great price and IMO 750 Euros is anything but a bargain. (depending on condition though I guess)

[sleepyhead]

Hi again, I've not used the summaron or summarit so can't compare.

BUT, SEE THIS THREAD:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20182&highlight=nipples

I have a posting in this thread with my 35mm summilux, hand held, wide open. CERTAINLY sharp enough, I think that film grain is more of the limiting factor.

[anhtu]

I have this lens and I love it despite some of its flaws. Great with Black and Whites .. it depends on what type of look you want.

Here's a shot wide open.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/87/278208835_f5ec6188eb_o.jpg

[edodo]

I must say that this lens is really a controversial subject, some like it and worship it, some think its a soft-overpriced lens. I assume that in the US summilux can be had for 600 euro minimum, but here in france...

I'll think twice about the nokton advice, thats just the focal lenght that kept me for buying the 40mm. Why am I owning a M4 if I don't have the bessa 40mm frameline...

If in europe 750 euro is not a bargain price then I won't buy it.

[edodo]

Love this shot!

[sleepyhead]

I think that anhtu's picture above is a good reminder that contrast and extreme sharpness aren't always necessary for a pleasing photo.

[maddoc]

I have the 35mm pre-asph, payed a much higher price and don't regrett it. Maybe a little soft wide open but for my purpose (hand-held under very low light conditions) the best compromise of weight, size and performance. I also have the CV 35mm f/2.5 P II which I replaced with the Summilux 35mm due to its 1.5 stop advance. Stopped down my Summilux 35mm is very sharp...

[maddoc]

- anhtu: very nice photo !

[anhtu]

I agree with endustry: though I love the lux, I use it as a special lens (the special hours of the day etc) and the summicron for general use. I find the summicron gives a better performance around the f2.8-f5.6 which I tend to hover around when I shoot. I actually think wide open. the lux can be "decently" sharp - but without camera shake (maybe tripod mounted). Pricewise, I think it is a bit high for what it offers, but if you can find a good user condition version - you'll be quite happy with it.

maddoc, sleepyhead, edodo : thanks - but I'm just the nut behind the viewfinder.

[x-ray]

The image quality of the internet is so limited that an accurate evaluation of any lens is near impossible. I posted images recently shot on my 1DsII, 6x6, 4x5 and 8x10 chrome and no one could accurately tell what format they were shot on. It was mostrly guess work as to what was what. Personal taste and the skill of the photographer as well as film choices and scanner quality play a huge part in what you see on any forum.

My summilux was a 1968 that i bought new. Under average conditions it did well but at 1.4 it was soft and flare at any aperture was an issue, particularly at 1.4. If light sources were in or near the edge of the frame it could kill an image without warning. Since it's an RF lens you can't see when it's a problem.

I replaced the summilux in later years with a 1st version summicron that was slightly better with flare but still soft at f2. It was better but by todays standards and the cost it fetches today it's way over priced for the performance. I then purchased a v4 and liked the lens very well. It's not a bad lens at all and has nice flare controll and tonality with excellent sharpness from 2.8 down and f2 performance is good. I replaced this lens with a Zeiss Biogon f2 35 and found it to be much better in flare controll tand sharpness than any of my previous 35's. I also added a 35 1.2 Nokton which I use in extremely low light conditions. Bothe the Nokton and the Zeiss have very well controlled flare and shooting direct into very bright light sources both will not or hardly flare. I posted some examples of the Nokton at 1.2 shot at night with 1000w halogen lights in the frame. The Zeiss is even better and the sharpest of all of the 35's that i owned. I also have a 35 asph summicron that I won in a drawing. The one I have is a retro version that came with the old style round hoot that's worthless and replaced it with the current rectangular hood that vastly improved flare controll. The asph is a very nice lens but without the hood will flare badly. It's not to the degree of the old summilux but it's the poorest performer of any of the other lenses when it comes to flare. The rectangular hood is critical in my opinion. The asph summicron is very sharp but almost clinical looking compared to the Zeiss that's much more classical in look. the Zeiss has better flare controll and is slightly sharper wide open. the tonality of the Zeiss is more peaches and cream where the asph summicron is harder in tone.

My 2 cents based on my taste and experience.

[35mmdelux]

The 35 Summi pre-asph is soft wide open as stated above. Just the same, I might buy it only on a bargain buy. I've owned both the 35 summi pre-asph and the 35 summi Asph. I finally setlled down w/ the 35mm Cron Version 4 because its more compact. On critical shoot, I'd regulate the speed w/ faster film or my Gitzo fibrepod. best - Paul

[edodo]

Ray thanks for you post. I know the web is not a good judge about lens quality, but without internet it would be worse if we were only counting on urban myths.

The Zeiss 35mm can be had for 600€ new so it really is a good advice, but I really need to have a compact lens. Having a big lens has led me to not bring my outfit at various place, and a compact outfit encourages me to do it. Anyway someone else did bought this summilux this afternoon, guess I wasn't mean to have it...

I guess I'll wait for a cron or even a biogon when the deal presents itself in the future!

[Huck Finn]

Ray thanks for you post. I know the web is not a good judge about lens quality, but without internet it would be worse if we were only counting on urban myths.

The Zeiss 35mm can be had for 600€ new so it really is a good advice, but I really need to have a compact lens. Having a big lens has led me to not bring my outfit at various place, and a compact outfit encourages me to do it. Anyway someone else did bought this summilux this afternoon, guess I wasn't mean to have it...

I guess I'll wait for a cron or even a biogon when the deal presents itself in the future!


The Zeiss 35/2 isn't really very big, but if you want something even more compact, consider the Konica 35/2 UC-Hexanon. It is a modernized version of the pre-ASPH Summicron, & so is even better. It's the same size as the Summicron, so it's very compact. There is a new one available now from Matsuiya's eBay store for $900 USD. This price includes the hood, so it's essentailly the same price as the Ziess 35/2 with hood.

[x-ray]

Here's a link to a thread I started on relative size of the Zeiss and v4 summicron and asph summilux. The Biogon is the same size as the 50 summicron which isn't large at all. The Biogon is exactly the length of the long side of a 35mm film box. The internet also has a way of exagerating things like size of a lens.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=32974

[steve garza]

I love my 35 'lux asph....but it does flare occasionally even with the hood on.

[NB23]

I love the 35 pre-asph. Very sharp center, soft corners, some light falloff. The Ultron is softer in the center but sharper elsewhere. Leica has a definite signature while the still excellent Ultron is lifeless. Just dull, once compared.

Here are 2 snaps while driving, featuring the 35 pre-asph. Great lens and a true Leica classic. One lens that actually has something to do with the "Leica look or Leica Glow".


http://www.angelfire.com/ne2/nenadbojic/Web-MTL-26.jpg

http://www.angelfire.com/ne2/nenadbojic/Web-MTL-27.jpg

[existrandom]

hello,

while i read through the thread, i keep thinking UC-Hexanon 35/2
a japanese seller sell new old stock for 899US on the auction site, and i have hard time refraining myself clicking BIN button... actually i clicked it once, but step back without confirming the purchase, i am planning for a travel trip...

it makes much sense with the 40mm suggestion, too
i have a summicron-c bought from a member here, very good for both color and B/W in my limited experience

hope you find you lens soon!

[Simon Larbalestier]

here's is an example on this link @1.4 tx 400 for some reason the image itself won't show in the thread despite uploading the URL neither will the images in my RFF gallery allow me to copy the URL location and upload into a post??

http://www.ball-saal.com/MainPage/Photo.php?ID=4464


and the images in this body of work were all shot with the 35/1.4 and 50/1.4 pre ASPH's (exception of image #4 Elmar/2.8) many at @1.4 or @2/2.8

http://www.anarchyimages.com/showgallery.php?G_ID=G0000pNqiRZe2WE0