Summilux 35mm pre-asph shots [Archive]

NB23

11-05-2007, 21:50

There are 2 lenses that I believe wrap up and define what is the elusive "Leica look": The Summilux 35 pre-asph and the Summarit 5cm (clean sample, of course!) and as a third I would place the 21 super-angulon f3.4. This is only my opinion based on long searches and, obviously, shooting experience. Let's not forget that I am not an expert and I don't want to be one.

Some respected RFF members do all what they can to discredit this lens in favor of the newer Zeiss or ASPH offerings. They say it's not sharp, shows light falloff and it flares. My personal thinking is those are part of its qualities and undeniable charm. One doesn't shoot the 35 summilux pre-asph for sharpness per se. One shoots it for its overall very unique rendition.

I know, I know,. I probably sound ultra biased. But believe me, I am not! As a matter of fact, this is the lens I used the least during my trip (about 3 roll total, only!) but my best shots are with this lens. I constantly underestimated its qualities in favor of either the Noctilux or the 21 Super angulon... A mistake.
http://www.angelfire.com/ne2/nenadbojic/2007/Web-Nis2007-24.jpg

maddoc

11-05-2007, 23:40

My two favorite lenses, the 35mm pre-ASPH Summilux and 21 SA-M... :) (coupled with an M4-P) :D The colors in No 1 are stunning ! Like the composition !

maddoc

11-05-2007, 23:45

... taken with yellow filter on Tri-X (400TX), M3 with M2 finder:

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1160/693770582_c21bdd97d6.jpg

buckpago

11-06-2007, 00:25

I only have 35mm lux pre-asph and M4-P. one lens, one camera.

http://images.blackpago.multiply.com/image/9/photos/10/600x600/10/015.jpg?et=wiLz%2BOb7Xmsyy0adXRaKNg

http://images.blackpago.multiply.com/image/9/photos/10/600x600/4/009.jpg?et=GYwYI94gL76fr0GTENPyKA

http://images.blackpago.multiply.com/image/7/photos/10/600x600/3/012.jpg?et=PF2J2m0N%2CAvbOWGe1Aibbw

Nikon Bob

11-06-2007, 02:50

I have not had any problems regarding sharpness when using this lens. OTH I rarely shot wide open.

Bob

NB23

11-06-2007, 06:40

whooo! Great shots everyone! Keep them coming!

tajart

11-06-2007, 08:08

yes, love this lens, but foolishly no longer have it.
these two shots from the last day of 2001 as the light was fading...

Gabriel M.A.

11-06-2007, 10:02

Ill see if I can dig up some shots taken wih this lens. Im not sure where they are. Gabriel owns mine now.

Nice shots from all of you.:)
I've been trying to get different sorts of shots, but I've noticed something. I think the lens has fog/haze. My shots don't look nearly as crisp as the others posted here :confused:

I'm beginning to suspect this lens is prone to haze. I cleaned the outer elements last night, and see an improvement, but I flashed light through it, and I see a faint film on a few surfaces. I see the same thing on my Summarit now, so that's got to be it.

Anybody know how to open this lens? I really really like it, otherwise...

NB23

11-06-2007, 10:14

Oh yes Gabriel! Your lens has haze, definitely!

The first pic shows it all over! Have your lens cleaned and love it forever. Definitely a great performer and the Classic Leica.

Tom A

11-06-2007, 11:56

I, for one, will not berate the S-lux 35 pre-asph. I have one and I like it. So, it might not have the sharpness of the Asph 1.4, but it doesn not have the flare problem either. Mine is usually on a M2 as a low light lens. I haven't come as far as a friend in Paris though. He uses the 35f2 IV generation during the day and at 6 pm he changes to the pre-asph S-lux! He is a Magnum member since the early 70's and knows his bl/w and his 35's.
It is small and compact, it handles well and its only real competition is the Nokton 40/1,4, but that lens is bigger.
The combination of a 35/1,4, a 21/3,4 and the S-cron or S-lux and a M2 will do very well, even compared to the newest glass. Particularly if you are a bl/w shooter. The contrast is manageble and you can do 16x20" prints without problems.
The filter size is bit of a hassle, but as I rarely use them, it is not critical.

hans voralberg

11-06-2007, 12:15

Is the Summarit NB refers to LTM ?

ferider

11-06-2007, 12:50

Exists in both mounts, HV.

Nice photos, Ned, as usual.

Roland.

sam_m

11-06-2007, 13:44

gas attack!

maddoc

11-06-2007, 16:31

The combination of a 35/1,4, a 21/3,4 and the S-cron or S-lux and a M2 will do very well, even compared to the newest glass.
Sounds like my set up ... :D (except the M2) Now, just the Noctilux is missing and I am done for a while ... :):rolleyes:

dcsang

11-06-2007, 16:56

gas attack!
uh huh.. exactly.

I had been considering a move to the 35 cron ASPH but now... hmm....

Dave

ywenz

11-06-2007, 17:18

maddoc

11-06-2007, 17:26

the examples here are further prove to me that good photography sells equipment. There's no doubt in my mind that these scenes would looks just as good having been shot with another lens with the same specs.

Yes and No... For sure good photography helps selling equipment (GAS attack ....) but also this lens (Summilux 35mm pre-ASPH) has something that can't be seen in photos, it's size and handling. There is no other 35mm f/1.4 available in this size.

ywenz

11-06-2007, 17:47

Yes and No... For sure good photography helps selling equipment (GAS attack ....) but also this lens (Summilux 35mm pre-ASPH) has something that can't be seen in photos, it's size and handling. There is no other 35mm f/1.4 available in this size.

Notice how I only said the "image" will look just as good

dcsang

11-06-2007, 17:50

Notice how I only said the "image" will look just as good
And you also said "if it were shot with another lens with the same specs" -

I guess I'd like to find an ASPH 35mm f1.4 lens that's the same size as the Lux and that can fit my M-mount rangefinder :)
Cuz it sure would be "cheaper" than the Leica.

Dave

NB23

11-06-2007, 18:46

the examples here are further prove to me that good photography sells equipment. There's no doubt in my mind that these scenes would looks just as good having been shot with another lens with the same specs.

The 35 pre-asph, just as the Summarit and the noctilux, has it's very own unique look. A scene remains the same scene, no matter which lens, I agree. But each lens renders it differently.

Nikon Bob

11-06-2007, 18:55

the examples here are further prove to me that good photography sells equipment. There's no doubt in my mind that these scenes would looks just as good having been shot with another lens with the same specs.

You are absolutely correct, any other lens would be as good. The point is that this lens has a rep for being worse than the other lenses. I think most users of the pre asp lux 35 just want to show that it is not all that bad and most likely pretty useful. Why would that generate GAS.

Bob

tajart

11-06-2007, 19:08

i know they are different lenses, but i'm curious if anyone has compared the 35 lux with the nokton 40/1.4 - in terms of image making, physical objectness, and handling? just curious

ERV

11-06-2007, 19:21

A couple of images from Morocco last Spring.
M6 and Summilux 35mm pre-ASPH.
One image with the typical Summilux flare.
Oh well, it is what it is.

NB23

11-06-2007, 19:59

You are absolutely correct, any other lens would be as good. The point is that this lens has a rep for being worse than the other lenses. I think most users of the pre asp lux 35 just want to show that it is not all that bad and most likely pretty useful. Why would that generate GAS.

Bob

Now you got me thinking!

I never cheap out on lenses but I'm not rich. I'd rather eat ramen for 3 straight months and only drink water if it would allow me to save and own the best. I cheap out on jeans, T-shirts, but never on suits, ties and shoes. I may cheap out on camera bodies, but never on leneses. As a matter of fact, I own what I arguably consider the best Nikon and Leica have to offer, thanks to Ramen and Rice.

Considering all the above, why would I try convincing myself about this lens? Trust me, I love hunting lenses and in this case, my 35mm hunt is looooong over. :D

cmogi10

11-06-2007, 20:07

Pictures look great, I love your threads.

EmilGil

11-06-2007, 23:50

gas attack!
Big time! :bang:

phatnev

11-07-2007, 00:09

Pictures look great, I love your threads.

I second this

sleepyhead

11-07-2007, 00:39

i know they are different lenses, but i'm curious if anyone has compared the 35 lux with the nokton 40/1.4 - in terms of image making, physical objectness, and handling? just curious

I own and use both of these lenses. The 35mm Pre-ASPH summilux on a Leica M, and the 40 Nokton (singe-coated version) on a CLE - so I don't think I've ever shot them back-to-back on the same roll of film.

Still, a general comparison can be made. Both lenses are small for their wide aperture. The focus on my summilux is smoother and a bit easier than my Nokton, but the Noktons aperture ring is easier to find with the fingers, especially since I ALWAYS have the hood on the Summilux and NEVER on the Nokton. But in general, I find both lenses handle well ergonomically for me - i.e., no big issues there.

The picture characteristics of the two are quite different to my eyes. I'll start by saying that I like both, and plan to keep both. The nokton gives pictures with a clean, "modern" look, nice color rendition, is flare resistant, and sharper than the Summilux in the f/1.4 to f/2.8 range. I never had any complaints about the bokeh of the CV Nokton. My only criticism of it, is that sometimes the pictures from it are clinically razor sharp, but lack a little.... character!

Enter the Summilux and why I keep both. My summilux I think is typical from what I've seen and read (it's a late-ish one with seris VII hood, but not very late) - it's not the sharpest in the wide apertures, but by f/4 is as sharp as any 35mm I've ever used (35mm summicrons, Canon 35/1.8, Konica UC-Hexanon, CV 35/1.2). Wide open, the results are somewhat more "hazy" looking, but nothing that ruins a shot in my experience, and nothing that a bit of contrast boosting in Photoshop can't deal with. The bokeh of the Summilux is very pleasing to my eye, a tad nicer than the Nokton. I pretty much shoot the 35mm Summilux with B&W film, so can't say anything about color rendtion.

SUMMARY: both lenses are nice, but the NOKTON, IMHO, represents what must be the ALL TIME BEST BARGAIN fast, small rangefinder lens! Unless, you don't like the 40mm focal length...

...for example, if I didn't have a CLE, I probably wouldn't own the Nokton. I know that many people happily use their Noktons on Leica M's with no 40mm framelines, but for some reason this just doesn't feel comfortable for me.

'Hope this helps.

Nikon Bob

11-07-2007, 04:43

Yaron

Thanks for your post on the CV Nokton 40/1.4 compared to the pre asp lux 35. I use the same version of the lux as you do and am in general agreement with your thoughts on it. It confirms for me that if I were looking today to replace the lux that I would go with the Nok 40. For RF use speed is good but not size and the 40 Nok seems to fit the bill nicely.

Bob

sleepyhead

11-07-2007, 05:14

Bob, you're welcome.

I forgot to mention that unfortunately, the 35mm pre-ASPH Summilux only focuses down to 1 meter, whereas the CV Nokton goes to 0.7 meter. THIS IS A BIG DEAL FOR ME. That 30 cm makes a big difference for small subjects.

See this picture "Anarchy in Danish Suburbia" (taken at 0.7meter with CV 35/1.2 Nokton, which ALSO focuses down to 1 meter, and is ALSO a great lens, but which is TOO BIG for a general purpose lens in my opinion). It would no way be as impactful at 1 meter:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2366/1659369711_fb1b3b2040.jpg

Now, the 35mm Summilux ASPH does focus down to 0.7 meters, and I like it's character from what I've seen (don't own it), but it seems un-justifiably expensive with lenses like the 40mm CV Nokton around...

NB23

11-07-2007, 05:18

Pictures look great, I love your threads.

Thanks! It is a photography forum after all, so why not post many pics? :o

ferider

11-07-2007, 05:19

I forgot to mention that unfortunately, the 35mm pre-ASPH Summilux only focuses down to 1 meter, whereas the CV Nokton goes to 0.7 meter. THIS IS A BIG DEAL FOR ME. That 30 cm makes a big difference for small subjects.

That is one of the biggest plus points of the Nokton for me. Because
it allows to take portraits at .7m like you would with a fast 50 at 1m.

Roland.

dcsang

11-07-2007, 06:14

ferider

11-07-2007, 06:22

Dare we bring up the spectre of.. *gasp* "Bokeh"?

I have read that the Nokton has nasty bokeh - I personally have owned two copies and haven't really had any issues with the bokeh but hey.. some folks think it's.. um.... "harsh".

Just tossing this out there,
Dave

Like here for instance ?

http://ferider.smugmug.com/photos/144328300-M.jpg

Taken with an M6 with really, really badly flaring viewfinder :)

dcsang

11-07-2007, 07:28

If I had a 35 Lux I would have posted something already - for the time being, I guess I may hunt down a 35 Lux ASPH or a 35 Cron ASPH - not that I can afford them.. but then again.. ya only go around once eh? :D

Dave

Gabriel M.A.

11-07-2007, 07:47

I forgot to mention that unfortunately, the 35mm pre-ASPH Summilux only focuses down to 1 meter, whereas the CV Nokton goes to 0.7 meter. THIS IS A BIG DEAL FOR ME. That 30 cm makes a big difference for small subjects.

I agree. I need to find someone who can do this for me to modify my 35 'lux pre-asph. I asked Sherry K. and (I quickly read my e-mail before leaving) I don't think she answered that question, except she can do a CLA. I hear she does excellent work.

I'm pretty certain this can be done; the question is who?.

sleepyhead

11-07-2007, 09:13

If the pre-ASPH could be modified to focus closer, THAT WOULD BE A BIG HIT with me!
PLease keep us posted, thanks.

rlouzan

11-07-2007, 09:35

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=49511

Tom A

11-07-2007, 10:17

Sounds like my set up ... :D (except the M2) Now, just the Noctilux is missing and I am done for a while ... :):rolleyes:

Rather than a Noctilux I would go for the 50f1.4 ASPH. Modern film can handle far more "push" and the 50/1,4 is MUCH better at 1.4 than the Nocti at f1 or f1.4. It also focuses closer (and better). It is also smaller and nimbler than the Noctilux, which counts for a lot in my book.

Damaso

11-08-2007, 16:11

Damn! These shots have changed my mind...

NB23

11-08-2007, 16:48

http://www.angelfire.com/ne2/nenadbojic/Web-2007-05-18-3.jpg

http://www.angelfire.com/ne2/nenadbojic/Web-2007-05-20-2.jpg

NB23

11-08-2007, 16:52

This shot is, IMO, a typical 35 summilux pre-asph look. Funny thing, it didn,t take me long before understanding the lens and differntiate it from other while looking at prints or scans.
Of course I didn't have time to focus, but this too plays a part in the overall look the 35 gives.
http://www.angelfire.com/ne2/nenadbojic/Web-82.jpg

NB23

11-08-2007, 16:55

http://www.angelfire.com/ne2/nenadbojic/Web-87.jpg

phatnev

11-08-2007, 18:19

Ned I thought you took that lovers photo with a 21mm

NB23

11-08-2007, 18:27

Ned I thought you took that lovers photo with a 21mm

Chris,

Thanks for letting me know! I'm due for a good cleanup :p I have to change my naming conventions...

NB23

11-09-2007, 07:39

http://www.angelfire.com/ne2/nenadbojic/Web-2007July9-2.jpg

NB23

11-09-2007, 07:44

http://www.angelfire.com/ne2/nenadbojic/Web-MTL-11.jpg

NB23

11-09-2007, 07:46

http://www.angelfire.com/ne2/nenadbojic/Web-MTL-17.jpg

http://www.angelfire.com/ne2/nenadbojic/Web-MTL-25.jpg

http://www.angelfire.com/ne2/nenadbojic/Web-MTL-28.jpg

http://www.angelfire.com/ne2/nenadbojic/Web-MTL-31.jpg

NB23

11-09-2007, 07:49

http://www.angelfire.com/ne2/nenadbojic/Web112.jpg

NB23

11-09-2007, 07:51

http://www.angelfire.com/ne2/nenadbojic/Web-102.jpg

NB23

01-17-2008, 20:29

http://www.angelfire.com/ne2/nenadbojic/Cuba/Web-Cuba2007-20.jpg

Chris101

01-17-2008, 20:45

maddoc

01-17-2008, 21:29

Nice colors, Ned !! Cuba ?

One of mine non-BW with the 35mm Summilux pre-ASPH: (M4-P / Portra 800)

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2381/2185177104_8c50a23420.jpg

shikuro

01-17-2008, 21:51

Is there any way to modify the lens to accept a normal filter? I rarely use the hood but I'm also very prone to getting my fingers on the lens element.

I am debating if I should unscrew just the hood but glue the the series7 filter to the attachment.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v285/shikuro/2197995621_2260b9b013_d.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v285/shikuro/2182590139_21cd187e3e_d.jpg

NB23

01-18-2008, 07:40

Wow, there's one I haven't seen.! What's all the blue and orange stuff? Oh! Color! Wassup with that Ned? I didn't know Leicas could do color.

I really dig that shadow action, Viewed one way, it's a young woman, looked at in the opposite direction, it's a wide eyed youth. Just like the optical illusion picture!

Hehe Chris!
The Blue and Orange stuff is Color indeed! I wasn't sure at first but yeah, Leicas can do some color. ;)

I'd be dumb to shoot BW in cuba, if you ask me... It would be good for some stuff but it's mainly color for me!

NB23

01-18-2008, 07:41

Fine shot, Gabor! Superb colors and composition!

Great lens, heh? I think this lens describes best the "Leica look" and best sums the "Leica handling".

Nice colors, Ned !! Cuba ?

One of mine non-BW with the 35mm Summilux pre-ASPH: (M4-P / Portra 800)

NB23

01-18-2008, 07:43

Good shots!

For filter, you can just unscrew the hood but keep the bottom half where it holds the filter. No need to glue anything. In case you didn't know, the hood is made of 2 pieces screwed together. Have a look!

Is there any way to modify the lens to accept a normal filter? I rarely use the hood but I'm also very prone to getting my fingers on the lens element.

I am debating if I should unscrew just the hood but glue the the series7 filter to the attachment.

tomasis

01-18-2008, 16:02

nb23, I have not thought before that the hood has two parts (thanks for the tip) but unfortunately I find that lower half of this hood doesn't hold the filter . I read that round hood is not that good compared to rectangular hood which is common with newer Summicrons. I'm curious what that rectangular hood can do because I found myself that "bare" lens takes better pictures comparing to "hooded" lens. Probably less of coma, flare etc. I have two examples which were shot with rd1 so those don't fit here. I might be wrong there because I don't remember if those were shot at f1.4 or half stop less :(

maddoc, that concert photo looks good. I'd be suprised if you say that it is shot at f1.4. I find f1.7 working so much better so I speculate that you did shoot at that aperture, didn't you? :P or maybe it was f2 lol. Maybe the lens is reacting differently to mediums as digital sensor and film emulsions. I had not tried the last option yet.

Summilux pre asph is great to have because this has almost same size and weight as Summicron but you have extra stop VOILA!

NB23

01-18-2008, 16:22

tomasis,

The original hood for this lens works with series VII filter. If your bottom half of the hood doesn't hold the filter it means you either don't have the good Hood or don't use the good filter.

Look for the #12504 hood and Series 7 (or VII) filter.

dreamsandart

01-18-2008, 18:14

I got one on lone from Leica back in the mid 70s with the intent of actually buying a Summicron, but got such a good deal when it came time to hand it back in I bought it.

So for a couple decades it was my 35 of choice. Usually tried to keep in the f5.6-f8 range for highest image quality ( no complaints ) and scale focusing, but it does fine as a fast lens too when in need with a beautiful rendition of color and tonality.

Lots of negativity about it here, but for those that can appreciate what it does its a wonderful lens. As I said, fine stopped down and opened up to f1.4-f2.8 gives something special - kind of like 2 lenses in 1. Also as mentioned its compact and a nice match on the M camera in that way. When I traded mine in for the 'better optics' of the ASPH version and started using that lens, I knew I had made a mistake, partly because of the larger lens and change in handling and partly because I missed that 'look'.

maddoc

01-18-2008, 20:23

Thank you guys ! Ned, this lens is - mounted on the M4-P - my "workhorse" setup. A small M kit with low-light capability and I like the way this lens renders at f/1.4.

tomasis: You are right about the aperture used for the band photo, it was f/2.0. At f/1.4 the DoF would have been to small for the stage. Here is one taken at 1/30s f/1.4 in dim light with this lens:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2251/2104078355_d65034a3ae.jpg

About the filter for this lens, I have the original 12504 hood that came with the lens and a Leica Series 7 yellow filter. The filter must be placed between the two parts of the hood and the upper (vented) part must be screwed into the lower part (which has the clips) to hold the filter. I checked with my hood but cannot use only the lower part with filter.

Cheers,

maddoc

NB23

01-18-2008, 21:55

maddoc

01-18-2008, 22:03

Ho! My bad! For some reason I mixed the 12504 and 12518 and I was sure the 12504 could do it. Indeed, now that I am home I see the 12504 can't hold a filter. Wouldn't it be better if t was like the 12518 (holding a filter between it and the lens) heh?
It would be much better if it was like the 12518 hood. In my opinion, the detachable hoods made from plastic (as for the Super-Angulon and Noctilux) are the best solution, since they provide better protection when bumping the lens into something...

maddoc

01-18-2008, 22:11

Rico

01-18-2008, 23:29

Ho! My bad! For some reason I mixed the 12504 and 12518 and I was sure the 12504 could do it. Indeed, now that I am home I see the 12504 can't hold a filter. Wouldn't it be better if t was like the 12518 (holding a filter between it and the lens) heh? You were correct originally. I found many references on photo.net about the 12504 holding a Series 7. Mine unscrews to reveal a promising cavity, although I don't have a filter to test.

Harry Lime

01-19-2008, 00:40

Lots of negativity about it here, but for those that can appreciate what it does its a wonderful lens.

It works for Jim Marshall...
;-)

NB23

01-20-2008, 18:38

http://www.angelfire.com/ne2/nenadbojic/35Summilux/Web-66920018.jpg

Chris101

01-20-2008, 20:22

Hmmmm. I see that picture all the time, and think that I shouldn't take it because the airplane will be so small. Now I see that kind of thinking is wrong.

NB23

02-02-2008, 23:18

Hey Chris! I just love your simple and true to life comments. :-)

Feathers McGraw

02-03-2008, 17:47

http://www.angelfire.com/ne2/nenadbojic/2007/Web-Paris2007-18.jpg

NB23, I really love this picture. I'm sure questions from total newbies are your least favorite kind, but could you tell me more about this? Could you tell me about your gear, and technique?

Feathers McGraw

02-03-2008, 17:58

This one is amazing as well, NB - the man is obviously yawning but there is a almost a quality of anger in his expression. It's a photo of a very mundane moment, yet one which becomes almost surreal because of the double reading. Decisive moment, indeed.

I thought I used the 21 S-A for this shot but I was wrong. I checked my negatives and indeed, it was shot with the 35 summilux pre-asph on M3 (using the whole viewfinder + Some imagination for composing). Indeed, the eiffel tower would have been much smaller if a 21mm lens was used. I will correct the other post when I have time.

http://www.angelfire.com/ne2/nenadbojic/2007/Web-Paris2007-10.jpg

NB23

02-13-2008, 22:27

Feathers,

I'm very sorry for not answering before. Excuse me for that.

The Paris picture of the Couple was pretty straighforward (as all my street shots). I had the lens ready, prefocused and the light measured in advance. The only thing left was to bring the camera to my eye and click as soon as there was something interesting happening.

The Yawning picture was shot with my M3 and the 21mm f3.4 super angulon lens.

My street gear was M3 camera for B&W (I used Agfa APX-400 exclusively during the trip) and a M4-P for color (the idea was that a newer camera has more accurate shutter speeds). I used Velvia 50 for my colors shots.

NB23

02-13-2008, 22:29

http://www.angelfire.com/ne2/nenadbojic/Cuba/Web-Cuba2007-23.jpg

maddoc

02-13-2008, 22:32

.............
Great ! :) Looks like the dog on the left side was a little upset ? Cuba ?

NB23

02-13-2008, 22:38

Oh yes, he was ready to eat me alive... but only from far away. Those small dogs usually run away as soon as we get closer :-) The one on the right was a poseur, only barking when the boss was barking. I love Dogs!

Yes Cuba... I wish I was there right now.

NB23

02-14-2008, 21:52

http://www.angelfire.com/ne2/nenadbojic/35Summilux/Web-20080215-1.jpg

http://www.angelfire.com/ne2/nenadbojic/35Summilux/Web-20080215-2.jpg

marke

02-16-2008, 17:30

Love it. Canine displays passive/aggressive.

http://www.angelfire.com/ne2/nenadbojic/Cuba/Web-Cuba2007-23.jpg

NB23

02-16-2008, 20:30

Love it. Canine displays passive/aggressive.

Indeed. Thanks.

How was the wedding?

jackal2513

02-17-2008, 03:50

............
lol... great pic

Samsam

02-17-2008, 03:57

NB23, did you already compare the summilux pre asph and the summicron preasph 4th ? i have the summicron, even if it has the old leica look and a 3D effect, the bokeh is too much progressive for me ( even at f/2 ). I'm thinking about replacing it with the Summilux preasph ( already have the ASPH version ), what do you think ?

tomasis

02-17-2008, 04:09

http://www.angelfire.com/ne2/nenadbojic/35Summilux/Web-20080215-1.jpg

summilux vignettes? at widest aperture? It was surprise for me (at positive way). I considered to ditch of 35mm lens if I quit with digital and I haven't used this 35mm on filmbody yet. But it looks like I'll keep this for this pretty vignetting haha

lawrence

02-17-2008, 04:17

Samsam, I have both and at apertures smaller than f2 the Cron is better in my opinion. At f2 the Cron loses a lot of contrast and of course you don't have the option of f1.4 while the pre-ASPH Lux gives quite a lot of vignetting at wider apertures. Mind you, if you are shooting on the street at EI 1600 you probably wont mind as long as you get some kind of image. A superior lens (optically) to the Lux is the f1.2 Nokton but it's just a bit too big and heavy for daily shooting. It's going to be very interesting to see how the new Nokton 35mm f1.4 compares to the Lux as it looks to be about the same size. Personally I'd wait for this because s/h Luxes are somewhat pricey.

lawrence

02-17-2008, 04:21

summilux vignettes? at widest aperture? It was surprise for me (at positive way). I considered to ditch of 35mm lens if I quit with digital and I haven't used this 35mm on filmbody yet. But it looks like I'll keep this for this pretty vignetting haha

Ah, we posted at the same time and I said something similar about the vignetting. Another strange thing about the Lux is that the plane of focus isn't flat at wider apertures i.e. you kind of get a curve of sharp focus. And yes, there's loads of flare and coma and other stuff to help you get that '50s look :)

Samsam

02-17-2008, 05:10

thx you lawrence for your answer, i've been asking several times but never got answers :) I should probably wait for the first Nokton 1.4 reviews.
However, the fact that the summilux preasph has vignetting and less sharpness than other lenses doesn't bother me, i prefer lenses with strong character :)

NB23

02-17-2008, 08:58

Samsam, I think replacing it for the excellent and unique 35 preasph would be a good thing to do. I never tried the asph nor the summicron, but I know very well the pre-asph has its followers.

About the vignetting, it isn't apparent on pictures, usually, exept when shooting bright scenes such as snow. Mainly because the meter get fooled. And with the higher contrast, the vignetting appears exaggerated. I still like it this way, doesn't bother me one bit.

Samsam

02-17-2008, 10:45

Thanks you NB23 and 35mm delux, i think i will sell my Summilux ASPH and get a pre-asph, the summilux asph is too modern for me, and i prefer "vintage" tones.
Vignetting and extreme sharpness are not important to me, the main word for me is "Character"

35mmdelux, may you tell why you like the 35 Lux ASPH better ?

marke

02-17-2008, 21:13

How was the wedding?

Awesome. Nearly 400 people. A lot of those attending were just in awe of the music and level of musicians and singers and said they had never experienced a wedding anything like this before. My wife (still getting used to saying that!) had quite the vision how she wanted this thing to turn out. When you marry a professional opera singer, you can't lose in the music department! :) And when I saw her emerge from behind the wall, it was almost surreal!

It was quite a project and it's amazing how many things could have gone wrong, but didn't. We had a crack sound crew that handed me the the master CD just as we got done with the (90 minute) receiving line. It couldn't have sounded much better if it had been produced in a studio. I got a CD of the RAW files from the photographer yesterday. The only thing left to get is the video now, which is still in editing.

I've been so busy with the house since we got back from the honeymoon. Got dumped on with more snow too. But if I ever get some free time, maybe I can get some pictures up to share. Thanks for asking, Ned.

NB23

02-17-2008, 21:26

400 people, wow! Sounds like it was a great wedding. I'm glad for you!

Andrew3511

02-18-2008, 02:30

Here are two shots from Venice last weekend, both at full aperture and shows the 35mm lux at its worst with the highlights bleeding with flare and some coma. If you can live with this (I can) you get the character and the lightest smallest f1.4 lens available.

56057 56058

Andrew3511

02-18-2008, 02:37

Stopped down things are much better

56059 56060

NB23

03-13-2008, 22:36

"The Seventh"

http://www.angelfire.com/ne2/nenadbojic/Web-20080314021932.jpg

NB23

03-27-2008, 21:51

"... and then, he ate the bicycle"

http://www.angelfire.com/ne2/nenadbojic/35Summilux/Web-20080328003116.jpg

Mean Panda

04-09-2008, 10:58

First picture posted. I am still learning how to make a good scan.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2228/2401681240_1f4dc7076b.jpg?v=0

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2072/2401415859_d0b2364132.jpg?v=0

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2410/2402236094_76bfd6a3d7.jpg?v=0

NB23

04-09-2008, 20:45

Good shots, Panda! Great lens, heh?

Here's one from last week's roll...

http://www.angelfire.com/ne2/nenadbojic/35Summilux/Web-20080410003810.jpg

ampguy

04-09-2008, 20:59

The cron asph 35/2 may be better at f2 and up, and smaller and cost less than the 1.4 lux asph.

That's my opinion, and I think the opinion of Puts, Leica, and others. But I'm always willing to look at unphotoshopped images from any lens.

hehe.. nah.. this was the Nokton on the R3A taken back in 2005.

If I had a 35 Lux I would have posted something already - for the time being, I guess I may hunt down a 35 Lux ASPH or a 35 Cron ASPH - not that I can afford them.. but then again.. ya only go around once eh? :D

Dave

Mean Panda

04-09-2008, 21:09

thanks Ned, Summilux pre-asph is always great for B&W. But I am quite disappointed with what a film scanner can do for BW film.

NB23

04-09-2008, 21:10

The shot above was with my 21. Sorry for the mistake... I will post a few more with the 35 as soon as I scan them.

However, I feel the 21 S-A is very close to the 35 summilux pre-asph in terms of Aura or personnality (add the summarit 5cm f1.5 and you have an incredible and unique Trio).

maddoc

04-15-2008, 23:15

M4-P + Summilux 35 pre-ASPH (DELTA400)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3143/2418366066_b56504340c.jpg

tomasis

04-16-2008, 08:14

maddoc, this shot is very cool. When I looked at this "briefly", I get instant impression that it was shot under daylight. but when you look more at details and recognize the opposite :D

Samsam

04-16-2008, 11:54

http://www.samysnider.com/zp-core/i.php?a=a-night-on-the-pont-alexandre-iii&i=Scan-080414-0010.jpg&s=600

NB23

04-16-2008, 13:37

Samsam

04-16-2008, 13:56

Hi NB23,
thanks for the compliment, especially coming from you ( love your shots )
you can see more shots with the 35mm summilux preasph on http://www.samysnider.com
I really enjoy this lens, it's so perfect, the size, the glow, the tones, the handling, thanks a lot for your advice.I would buy another one if i lost this one. Everybody who wants to have a 35mm and the Leica glow should choose the Preasph, it's so unique.

http://www.samysnider.com/zp-core/i.php?a=a-night-on-the-pont-alexandre-iii&i=Scan-080414-0008.jpg&s=600

little dodging with PS, tri-x + rodinal

Riccis

04-16-2008, 14:44

Everybody who wants to have a 35mm and the Leica glow should choose the Preasph, it's so unique.
little dodging with PS, tri-x + rodinal

Who's selling one? I want it!

Like I said before, great shots Sam!

Riccis

NB23

04-16-2008, 15:50

Ya, it's great!

Gabor,
I like your shot. Again, the character and the fact that it looks like daylight while it's nighttime makes the shot very special.

maddoc

04-16-2008, 23:40

tomasis and Ned, thank you !!! This lens became my mostly used lens again, since my other favorite lens is still in service .... :bang:

Two more:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2297/2419740167_fce76cbca0.jpg (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/%3Ca%20href=)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3123/2419740271_9f5bd69f0f.jpg (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/%3Ca%20href=)

Cheers,

maddoc

gertf

05-11-2008, 16:45

Just received mine in the mail, but noticed that the aperture closes unevenly. I'm assuming this is not 'normal' ? Will try and get a photo up to show what I mean

NB23

05-11-2008, 18:41

Just received mine in the mail, but noticed that the aperture closes unevenly. I'm assuming this is not 'normal' ? Will try and get a photo up to show what I mean

Congrats!!!

An uneven aperture (oval instead of round) can be normal. What's important is its overall diameter. Test at all f-stops and check for uneven exposure between frames. If all is well exposed, then all is normal.

Aperture blades shouldn't look, sound nor move in a flimsy way.

gertf

05-11-2008, 20:23

Ned,

Thanks for the advice. I'll shoot a test roll with it today and see how it turns out.

Congrats!!!

An uneven aperture (oval instead of round) can be normal. What's important is its overall diameter. Test at all f-stops and check for uneven exposure between frames. If all is well exposed, then all is normal.

Aperture blades shouldn't look, sound nor move in a flimsy way.

maddoc

05-15-2008, 18:44

... somewhere ...

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2040/2489375078_aca421e235.jpg

NB23

05-15-2008, 19:40

Good stuff, Doc! Looks like you and me are keeping these threads alive :)

Riccis

05-15-2008, 19:54

Good stuff, Doc! Looks like you and me are keeping these threads alive :)

Ned:

If you point me somewhere I can buy one of these, I'll keep you guys company :cool:

Cheers,

maddoc

05-15-2008, 20:17

Thanks Ned ! :) The 35 Summilux pre-ASPH is not that bad lens ... :D

Listak

05-19-2008, 22:03

Here are a few shots. I just a rookie.

anoldsock

05-20-2008, 11:06

http://www.samysnider.com/zp-core/i.php?a=a-night-on-the-pont-alexandre-iii&i=Scan-080414-0010.jpg&s=600

I love these! Good work Sammy.

shikuro

05-26-2008, 21:08

I'm still debating if I should switch back to the 35 ASPH or maybe buy a 28mm 2.8 Elmarit to complement this lens. This lens when scanned is super soft (i'm using a Canon 8600). Do you guys normally use unsharp mask, say 50% 0.7 and running the filter twice? I am also finding it hard to work with colours especially wide open. I'll post another shot in colour that is wide open when i find it.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v285/shikuro/2519630481_a87c43822d.jpg
f16 1/125 Provia 100

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v285/shikuro/2370917212_2ce13eb61c.jpg
f2.8 1/30 Neopan 1600 (pulled 800)

Samsam

05-27-2008, 17:32

Clearly, the 35 Lux ASPH beats the preasph in term of sharpness. However, having myself a 35 Summilux ASPH, a 35 Summicron IV, and a 35 Summilux preasph, i can definitely say that my favorite lens is the Preasph one: the bokeh/tones/glow you have with the Preasph, you won't get it with an ASPH lens ;)

shikuro

05-27-2008, 19:30

yeah i can understand the draw to the glow and softness of the summilux pre-asph. In your images (which are really nice), it seems like there is a degree of unsharp mask used, i could be wrong though. I'm just curious how much unsharp mask people use with this lens. thanks

Rik

05-28-2008, 07:48

just two shots, taken on Rollei Pan 25, straight scans..
with my 35 Summilux, first one at f1.4, second one at f11

lawrence

05-28-2008, 10:23

http://www.lawrenceimpey.com/jools/images/135-14-56-15_small.jpg

Loads of glow in this one (the points of light in the audience are mobile phones).

ampguy

05-28-2008, 11:24

It's so refreshing to see unmanipulated photo examples from nice lenses.

just two shots, taken on Rollei Pan 25, straight scans..
with my 35 Summilux, first one at f1.4, second one at f11

gertf

06-01-2008, 19:47

My first shot with the pre-asph

Light was shocking, shot wide open on Tri-x rated 3200 dev in microphen. Hence the grain.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3189/2543284899_f589c55e54.jpg

quadtones

06-02-2008, 21:36

Hello all,

Wonderful work on this thread. I have been looking for a pre-asph Lux for some low light club photos, but will use it on both M6's and my M8. Is anybody noticing any backfocus problems, as many seem to think is typical of the ASPH verson?

Thanks,
Norm

NB23

06-02-2008, 21:47

Superb images indeed!

Keep them coming, keep them coming!

Travis L.

06-04-2008, 16:07

Latest of many.

http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t27/lewisaurus/indy.jpg

Indiana Jones preview party.

NB23

06-05-2008, 17:28

From the walk today... Stopped at the gym.

http://www.angelfire.com/ne2/nenadbojic/M8/Web-L1000491.jpg

NB23

06-05-2008, 17:29

On the way to the gym...

http://www.angelfire.com/ne2/nenadbojic/M8/Web-L1000486.jpg

NB23

06-05-2008, 18:30

What is there to get? It's a wrecked chair in a backalley and a guy in a sauna. No new style, just keeping a thread alive and hoping more and more people will join.

And I like the pics for what they are.

NB23

06-05-2008, 19:00

I'm not criticising the pics. They just feel very different from your street shots.:)

The film shots are different because they are film. There is a difference in film Versus digital and people's late reactions tend to show this...
I also don't try to emulate the film look with digital files so this is what it is I guess.

Travis L.

06-05-2008, 19:00

Stayin' alive

Vikings
http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t27/lewisaurus/vikings.jpg

Glass Blower at work
http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t27/lewisaurus/parker06-1-book.jpg

Glass Blower at play
http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t27/lewisaurus/parker-3.jpg

Play Free
http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t27/lewisaurus/Play-Free.jpg

JU-52 (sorry repost)
http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t27/lewisaurus/junkers.jpg

maddoc

06-05-2008, 19:16

From the walk today... Stopped at the gym.

http://www.angelfire.com/ne2/nenadbojic/M8/Web-L1000491.jpg

This one I like for its colors. It reminds me of Velvia somehow.

maddoc

06-05-2008, 19:18

Travis, nice shots !! #2 and #4 that I like a lot. The Ju52 isn't bad either, did you use a filter in the last one ?

NB23

06-05-2008, 21:38

http://www.angelfire.com/ne2/nenadbojic/M8/Web-L1000471.jpg

35mmdelux

06-05-2008, 22:25

great shots. the icon for me anyway is the 35 Lux' Asph -- sharper, crisper than my 35 IV. costs a chunk of dabloons but worth it. the only other lens I like as much is my 120mm makro-planar on a tripod.

Travis L.

06-06-2008, 04:16

Travis, nice shots !! #2 and #4 that I like a lot. The Ju52 isn't bad either, did you use a filter in the last one ?

No filter, I just burned the sky in a bit.

BTW that is PlusX shot at 400 and souped in Diafine. I need to experiment with that combo some more, I really liked the results.

Travis

NB23

06-06-2008, 21:18

Balls to Pink Floyd... continued.

http://www.angelfire.com/ne2/nenadbojic/M8/Web-L1000523.jpg

maddoc

06-06-2008, 21:31

I don't get the title but like this shot. The guy in his reflecting vest looks funny and it makes a good contrast with the background.

NB23

06-06-2008, 21:37

I'm working on my Balls to Pink floyd project for over 2 years now... It's a hard to understand project, even by me... One day I'll post the whole series.

gertf

06-07-2008, 00:16

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3069/2557318631_5464f8fe8d.jpg?v=0

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3101/2555319411_af86a4b373.jpg?v=0

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3159/2556146862_8b9dd5baa6.jpg?v=0

NB23

06-07-2008, 08:53

http://www.angelfire.com/ne2/nenadbojic/M8/Web-L1000465.jpg

NB23

06-07-2008, 15:18

"Salope in Red"

http://www.angelfire.com/ne2/nenadbojic/M8/Web-L1000642.jpg

visiondr

06-09-2008, 06:36

I'm really enjoying this thread. I had completely overlooked the 35 Pre aspheric Lux until now. Still, that 1m minimum focus could be a deal breaker for me. I take a lot of shots at 0.7m.

NB23

06-10-2008, 13:26

Yes, the minimum focus distance is a bit too long.

visiondr

06-13-2008, 21:07

Then again, I could easily just pull out the 50 mm Elmar-M and shoot the close up stuff with that. You get more magnification with the 50 and it focuses at 0.7 m.

tbarker13

06-15-2008, 21:13

Thinking about buying one of these lenses. Tried out one that belongs to a friend of mine. So I gave it a whirl a couple weeks ago when I came across a local classic car club having a group get together to clean their cars.

I like the way the lens renders, though it is definitely softer used wide open. These were shot around f/4 or f/5.6

60738

60740

visiondr

06-15-2008, 21:18

maddoc

06-15-2008, 21:57

@ f/1.4:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3120/2583270124_90e37bfd7b.jpg

anoldsock

06-15-2008, 21:59

I assume, that's an Asph lens, correct?

@ f/1.4:

maddoc

06-15-2008, 22:04

I assume, that's an Asph lens, correct?

No, it is the pre-ASPH version. (Unfortunately, the photo is slightly soft (blurred) because of 1/30s :o)

findwolfhard

06-16-2008, 22:22

http://www.samysnider.com/zp-core/i.php?a=a-night-on-the-pont-alexandre-iii&i=Scan-080414-0010.jpg&s=600

Wonderful!
Avec sincere remerciments! Wolfhard

visiondr

06-16-2008, 23:16

@ f/1.4:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3120/2583270124_90e37bfd7b.jpg

Gabor, as I've mentioned to you before, I love this shot warts and all. The way this lens draws is part of why this image seems all the more actual and current. It feels like we're all there in the room with you watching the salary men laughing and relaxing after another workday.

tomasis

06-17-2008, 04:45

@ f/1.4:

I couldn't believe that it was shot at f1.4. where is the glow? ;) maybe movement bluriness did take away that glow :(

maddoc

06-17-2008, 17:13

Ron and tomasis, thank you !! :) About the glow, it could be that blur "destroyed" it or the UV filter. At least the UV filter is the reason for flare I have recently in some of my photos taken with this lens. :o

deepwhite

09-29-2008, 04:01

I recently got a 35lux preA. I thought about starting a new thread, but then remembered that there was already a great one here in RFF.

The "Leica Glow" @ f1.4. Love and hate. I played with it a little bit and found that, about 50% of the time I don't need, nor want, that glow. Yet when I want it, it's great.

@f2 it's already sharp enough. From f2.8 and above I just can't ask for more.

Here is a shot with R-D1s, with that "f1.4 Leica Glow":

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3039/2897810401_243963a7ec_o.jpg

I love this lens. Probably the favorite after the Noctilux. Let's keep this thread going.

maddoc

09-29-2008, 04:16

What is the "Leica glow" ? Anyhow ... I like the lens. :)

M5 / Tri-X:

http://www.pbase.com/gsamj/image/103802555.jpg

maddoc

09-29-2008, 07:32

http://www.pbase.com/gsamj/image/103821802.jpg

Erik van Straten

09-29-2008, 12:16

It's also a fine landscape lens. Shot with M2.

Erik.

magnus.frank

09-30-2008, 00:47

Hello everybody, this is my first post here. The 35/1.4 pre-asph is one of my favourite, the glow is magic. Thank you everybody, this thread is quite refreshing in the digital asph-era. I hope to share some pictures with you as soon.

Bob Helmond

09-30-2008, 03:16

Amen, NB23

If there was only one lens to have, my old Summilux 35 would be it.

For shooting at night in the streets of New York with Tri-X at EI 200 and landscapes with an impossible-to-duplicate-otherwise pictorial effect wide open with the finest grained film, it simply cannot be beat.

antistatic

09-30-2008, 04:11

http://www.pbase.com/gsamj/image/103802555.jpg

Fantastic shot Gabor

David

maddoc

10-01-2008, 06:16

David, thank you ! :)

deepwhite

10-01-2008, 12:02

More 35lux preA + R-D1s. I really love the color of this lens.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3083/2905629066_8131bfcce4_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3265/2905629080_3af3478c04_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3174/2905629086_147f1c8834_o.jpg

Erik van Straten

10-01-2008, 12:48

I'm really enjoying this thread. I had completely overlooked the 35 Pre aspheric Lux until now. Still, that 1m minimum focus could be a deal breaker for me. I take a lot of shots at 0.7m.

The M3 version of the 35mm Summilux (with viewfinder attachment) has a minimum focusing distance of 0.65m.

Erik.

maddoc

10-07-2008, 22:30

http://www.pbase.com/gsamj/image/104201455/large.jpg

M5 / Tri-X / HC-110

bankcheck

10-07-2008, 22:42

35mm Summilux pre-asph + Fuji Natura 1600.

Steve Hoffman

10-17-2008, 16:30

This thread has prompted me to pull out my titanium 35 pre-ASPH 'Lux and give it a try again. It's so nice and light, easy to focus and sort of soothing to work with.

Thanks for this thread!

deepwhite

10-19-2008, 16:49

Snapshot while waiting on the car.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3276/2955949187_7e1ee8be98_o.jpg

R-D1s

maelswarm

11-01-2008, 22:22

I got mine not long ago, and was surprised at how small it was. Of course, compared to the VC 40/1.4 it's about the same size. I'm not a fan of the coma or the "glow", which reminds me of the Nikkor 50/1.2 AIS.

Erik van Straten

11-02-2008, 02:16

Beautiful pictures Maelswarm! And you say you do not like the "glow"? You are a master in exploring it!

Are your pictures scanned from film or from prints? If, from prints, what scanner do you use? I love your results.

Erik.

maelswarm

11-02-2008, 08:09

Thanks Erik, these are scanned from negs using an Epson V700. I'd love to be able to make my own prints but don't have the space for it.

deepwhite

11-02-2008, 22:55

Great shots maelswarm! Glow or not. ;-)

I love old lenses. Much softer than ASPH ones, and much nicer then cheap ones. Beautiful.

maddoc

12-14-2008, 19:29

Very nice, maelswarm !! :) Keep posting !!

A recent one (M2 / Tri-X)

http://www.pbase.com/gsamj/image/107072179.jpg

maddoc

02-22-2009, 23:22

http://www.pbase.com/gsamj/image/107726580.jpg

maddoc

02-25-2009, 17:22

snow, snow, snow ....

http://www.pbase.com/gsamj/image/109590717.jpghttp://www.pbase.com/gsamj/image/109590718.jpghttp://www.pbase.com/gsamj/image/109590719.jpg

(M6 / T-max 400 new / T-max developer)

MikeL

02-25-2009, 19:34

Love the last one Doc, kinda apocalyptic.

maddoc

02-25-2009, 19:43

Mike, thank you ! :)

... the last one could also be called "cemetery of bikes" ... at least it is free from flare :D

buckpago

02-27-2009, 05:11

artist/painter, Ronald Caringal, painting in his studio/gallery The CUBICLE.

http://lh6.ggpht.com/_XsM9U3BTp7I/SQmVUqzaHUI/AAAAAAAAA9E/Ciep3z_r_FQ/s800/800px-35nokt-neo400-020web.jpg
the Leica Glow!

maddoc

02-27-2009, 06:40

... the "Leica glow" really doesn't matter, your photo is great !!

Glad to see some more shots taken with this lens. :)

Cheers,
Gabor

artist/painter, Ronald Caringal, painting in his studio/gallery The CUBICLE.
the Leica Glow!

maddoc

02-27-2009, 21:21

http://www.pbase.com/gsamj/image/109624335.jpg

buckpago

03-01-2009, 00:00

http://lh6.ggpht.com/_XsM9U3BTp7I/SAwDWE_1P7I/AAAAAAAAAdY/wu0wtOoMjJA/s800/20080420L-M4p-sLUX35-023BHP.jpg
PIER 18 dump site, Tondo, Manila.

hey maddoc, thanks for the appreciation.

maddoc

03-01-2009, 21:19

Hey Buck, a very good one again !

Still winter where I live ...

http://www.pbase.com/gsamj/image/109734352.jpg

Gabriel M.A.

03-02-2009, 04:48

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3247/3057379081_6d50fe8408.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/gabrielma/3057379081/)
Leica M8 + 35mm f/1.4 Summilux pre-asph

Gabriel M.A.

03-02-2009, 04:49

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3514/3276671780_1ec2bc5d1c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/gabrielma/3276671780/)
M8 + 35 Summilux pre-asph

Gabriel M.A.

03-02-2009, 04:50

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3376/3275851467_e1e8a61a03.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/gabrielma/3275851467/)
M8 + 35mm Summilux pre-asph

Gabriel M.A.

03-02-2009, 04:51

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3565/3279558541_1d4fb1081e.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/gabrielma/3279558541/)
M8 + 35mm f/1.4 Summilux pre-asph (@ f/2)

maddoc

03-02-2009, 19:11

Gabriel, with the M8 you let the lens sing ! I like the colors in your photos a lot ! :)

Another night shot from me (M5 / S800)

http://www.pbase.com/gsamj/image/109785223.jpg

Cheers,

Gabor

Melvin

03-02-2009, 20:07

So, which of the shots on this thread were taken wide open?

maddoc

03-02-2009, 20:12

From my shots (the recent ones, starting from #176) all were taken at f/1.4 except in post #184 (f/4.0) and #185 (f/5.6).

Gabriel M.A.

03-03-2009, 06:45

Gabriel, with the M8 you let the lens sing ! I like the colors in your photos a lot ! :)

Thank you :) One of the "secrets" is to have a properly calibrated monitor and properly profiled RAW file.

Gabriel M.A.

03-03-2009, 06:46

So, which of the shots on this thread were taken wide open?

All of those that are mine, except where noted (at the bottom of each image).

buckpago

03-04-2009, 23:49

this one reminds me a photograph I took when I was in Akihabara Station, this one was shot with m4p 35mm lux pre asph on a 100tmax wide open.

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_XsM9U3BTp7I/SSBbcKm8eZI/AAAAAAAABJk/vDZOXCWCnmk/s800/xxxNeopan400-021.jpg

taxi38

03-06-2009, 01:38

Is there a scale of "goodness" with this lens?Mine is made in Canada,serial no.3253715which is 1983.Is there a difference between the German and Canadian models?..........thanks,Neil.

kevin m

03-06-2009, 04:32

By any objective standard, this lens is a poor performer.

On the plus side: It's small and handles nicely; It's performance is decent by f2.8.

On the minus side: By modern standards it's simply horrible wide open. It draws more like a pinhole lens or a Holga than any modern 35mm lens. Coma, flare and distortion abound. And, contrary to internet word-of-mouth, it's performance is still relatively poor at f2.0. It doesn't really render a modern-looking image until f2.8.

To paraphrase Roger, it's the sort of thing for people who like this sort of thing.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3614/3333148062_7b740b4fb1_b.jpg

35 pre-aspherical Summilux @ f1.4.

MikeL

03-06-2009, 06:07

Kevin, is it at all possible you had a bad version? Objectively, mine has pretty good resolution (relative to modern standards, 35mm specifically) at f2.

kevin m

03-06-2009, 06:29

My lens was nearly mint. It still demonstrated a level of ghosting flare at f2.0 that simply wasn't up to modern standards. (The little Skopar 35/2.5 I owned along with it was much better.)

If you like the look, that's cool. I've seen some great shots with the lens, myself. But what one "likes" is purely subjective. :)

J. Borger

03-06-2009, 06:38

I had 2 versions of the lens: titanium very late german made versions.
I had two because i was stupid enough to sell my first, so now i have one ;)

- Both versions are perfectly usable wide open.
- Never showed the flare sometimes reported here.
- From f2,8 to f16 are sharper/ show more resolution then a chrome 35mm type IV german made cron i owned
- At f2 it is a hard call between the cron and my lux pre-asph.

From all i have seen from this lens i can only draw 2 conclusions:
- there is sample variation .. and especially the later german models are very good lenses... much better than their reputation
- performance with R-d1 and M8 is even better than with film Leicas.

Here are 3 testshots wide open.... not what i would call unusable or soft like a holga.

maddoc

03-06-2009, 06:46

- From f2,8 to f16 are sharper/ show more resolution then a chrome type IV german made cron i owned
- At f2 it is a hard call between the cron and my lux pre-asph.

That is exactly my experience, too. Last year, I had both lenses (the 35mm Summilux-M pre-ASPH (German) and the 35mm Summicron-M IV (Canada)) and shot a quick comparison using ISO100 film and tripod. At f/2.0 the Summilux-M shows a little less contrast compared to the Cron but resolves fine details better. After adjusting the levels, the photos taken with the Summilux looked better. I have sold the 35mm Summicron-M IV since then...

J. Borger

03-06-2009, 06:52

And a couple of shots stopped down with R-D1 or M8/ pre-lux

Melvin

03-06-2009, 08:40

I
- performance with R-d1 and M8 is even better than with film Leicas.

Here are 3 testshots wide open.... not what i would call unusable or soft like a holga.

They do look good. I do think that the cropping of the digital cameras helps though, since the worst aberrations show up toward the edges of the photo.
The lighting conditions also appear very even, and the seamless quality of digital helps with resolution.(I took some test shots with this lens recently, and the grain of the tri-x film obscured the finest level of detail.)

On the other hand, Kevin's photo is pushing the limits of the lens where it is most vulnerable:flare.

I don't think that aberrations in a lens have that much to do with production tolerances, especially a Leitz lens. They're in the design. But correct me if I'm wrong.

J. Borger

03-06-2009, 09:43

I don't think that aberrations in a lens have that much to do with production tolerances, especially a Leitz lens. They're in the design. But correct me if I'm wrong.

From the books it looks that the lensformula of the 35 lux pre-asph through the years is the same.
I know nothing about lensformulas or physics. But simply looking at samples of pictures on-line i see pictures with this lens where i can't believe it is the same lens ... not good indeed.
I have no explanation for this but i am not the only one seeing this.

For the digital Part: Maddoc usses a similar late version of the lens as mine with FILM and comes to the same conclusion when he compares it to the 35 summicron iv which has a very good reputation and is of similar vintage: the 35mm summilux is better on many aspects including resolution!

The 35 summilux pre-asph suffers from coma and is not the most flare resistant lens in my bag but it is my favourite 35mm lens.
When it comes to a more modern look and flawless performance the ZM biogon and 35 sumicron asph are better lenses by all means. But here is more to a lens!
I have used and owned: 35 summicron asph, 35mm summicron iV, 35mm summaron 3,5 LTM and 35mm summarit. I sold all the others because the 35mm sumilux pre-asph is my favourite.

Melvin

03-06-2009, 15:11

J. Borger: I'm a fan of the 'lux myself. I just think that how well it performs has a lot to do with how it's used.

Tom A

03-06-2009, 16:13

The 35f1,4 was Leicas response to the Nikon 35f1.8 and to some extent the Canon 35f1.5 in the early 60's. I have had one, in one form or another, since that time. So, it is not the sharpest 35 around, but who cares. IF you were shooting at f1.4 in the early sixties, you probably shot either press or magazine work. Color was still a bit of a novelty and editors were leery, because it was expensive to print! They wanted shots that made it possible to write a caption and identify who,what,when,where and possibly why! Razor sharp images were a bonus, but not really what counted.
The first generation of the 35f1.4 wasn't that good, but nobody rejected a shot because it had "look at the come here, and the field curvature is bad or "mechanics" like that" OK, occasionally they grunted about flare "Oh, cant get the face of that guy - I will cut him out".
I still have one, a late one, #34xx xxx (too lazy to look up the number!). I still use it and it is not bad at all. My Nokton's, the 35f1.4 SC's are better - but the Summilux works well too. Just keep spotlights out of the frame.
The thing with vintage lenses is - they do have personality and sometimes that can improve on an image. OK, my big beef with the 35f1.4, even my late one, is the close focussing to 0.9m only - on the other hand, if needed I can crop it.
I like what you guys have up on this thread - some good shots. They would most likely have been just as good with a Nokton, an Asph Summilux or a Canon 35 or any of the multitude of 35 lenses around today.
A lens is just another tool - the quality of the work depends on the skill of the worker using it - more than anything else!

maddoc

03-06-2009, 18:24

Jack, I too like the last one (BW) of your "northumbria" series !! Indeed a strange place, would like to see more.

Tom, thanks again for bringing it down to the facts ! :) The 35mm Summilux-M is what it is an outdated design from the early 60s (a Mandler design like the 75/1.4, 50/1.0) and there are improved lens designs available these days (especially the unbeaten 35mm Summilux ASPH) However, I like the flaws and squirks of the pre-ASPH version (except for the 0.9m close-focusing distance) and continue trying to get the best out of it ... :)

BTW, the only 35mm lens on top of my wishlist is the 35mm Summilux Aspherical (the first one), unfortunatley way to expensive ...

Cheers,

Gabor

deepwhite

03-06-2009, 23:34

It's really great to see someone posting negative comment on a lens, followed by some great shots taken by that very lens. I really enjoy that.

I don't think there's a "best lens for everything", and I don't think a forum is used to prove that. As an amateur, what I do in the forum is to learn, since I can really see great works from almost any lens in great hands.

Take the Lux35preA for example, I see all the photos, and I know it's not very flare-resistant; then I see two things:

(1) how a good photographer avoids the flare
(2) how a good photographer uses the flare as an advantage

The lux35preA is a "flawed" lens; everyone here knows it. What we enjoy seeing is how someone can get away with the flaws, or turn the flaws into magic.

Instead of hypnotizing ourselves. Which, if were ture, would your comment have had its ground, Kevin.

deepwhite

03-06-2009, 23:36

BTW, the only 35mm lens on top of my wishlist is the 35mm Summilux Aspherical (the first one), unfortunatley way to expensive ...
Gabor, I must go to Japan and meet with you. We love our Noc, love our SA21/3.4, loved our CronIV and then sold it for the Lux35preA, and both want a Lux 35 Asph if it were not that expansive. :cool:

maddoc

03-07-2009, 00:32

Gabor, I must go to Japan and meet with you. We love our Noc, love our SA21/3.4, loved our CronIV and then sold it for the Lux35preA, and both want a Lux 35 Asph if it were not that expansive. :cool:

... :D:) That would be great fun to meet !

kevin m

03-07-2009, 03:44

The lens suffers from (is blessed with?) severe coma and flare at full aperture.

Chacun a son gout, though. If you like it, you like it, right? The lens has its charms.

My personal favorite Leica lens was the 50mm pre-aspherical Summilux, another "less-than-perfect" lens. It has its charms, too, but it's more discreet about them, whereas the 35 pre-aspherical lux (like the Noctilux) practically screams its signature at full aperture.

buckpago

03-07-2009, 04:37

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3042/2559367631_2f4b45ed3b_o.jpg

taken by a Magical lens (35mmPreAsphLUX) made by the Creator with its Magical powers and love in the land of the mystery and miracles.

maddoc

03-07-2009, 06:32

... and that's a magical shot !! :) Great ! I like this one a lot.

taken by a Magical lens (35mmPreAsphLUX) made by the Creator with its Magical powers and love in the land of the mystery and miracles.

deepwhite

03-07-2009, 19:09

There is no "objective standard" about this sort of thing.

It's the people that are the most objective, not the writers, or the rules.

The problem about the "objective standards" is that great photos are coming out.

We're not saying the the Lux35preA is the best lens ever. We're just a bunch of people that, in the right time of our lives, come across this very lens and fall in love with it.

Please don't tell us we can't or shouldn't.

buckpago

03-08-2009, 15:37

http://lh6.ggpht.com/_XsM9U3BTp7I/Rw-htypvurI/AAAAAAAAATw/nUZYqv7mHSs/s800/015.jpg
EID UL-FITR marks the end of Ramadan,the holy month of fasting.

another photograph taken by a poor performer lens, the 35mmPreAsphLux.
this lens is blessed and it has magical powers.

buckpago

03-29-2009, 08:53

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3538/3394503888_802cf20c50.jpg

M4-P, 35mm summilux pre-asph, Fujifilm 100, Philippines, 2009.

maddoc

03-29-2009, 20:44

I very much like the composition in this one ! :)

M4-P, 35mm summilux pre-asph, Fujifilm 100, Philippines, 2009.

buckpago

03-29-2009, 20:57

thanks for appreciation, im am rediscovering the use of this lens this lens. I only have two 35s mm lens, the 35mm lux preasph and the 35mm f1.2 nokt. after using the modern 35mm f1.2 Nokt, I find it quite slow to use due to lack of focusing tab. I like the size this preasph.

martin s

03-29-2009, 21:03

That last shot really is great, removing the dust would improve it for me though.

martin

letvet

03-29-2009, 22:50

Ary & Gabor, you can get the 35 asph lux from Robertwhite.uk for $2,600 usd + VAT. Leica expanded their 15% rebate through March. Not bad compared to the CRAZY prices offered at other places.

maddoc

03-29-2009, 22:57

Ary & Gabor, you can get the 35 asph lux from Robertwhite.uk for $2,600 usd + VAT. Leica expanded their 15% rebate through March. Not bad compared to the CRAZY prices offered at other places.

Yes but ... I meant the 35mm Summilux Aspherical (not ASPH !) and the copy I have seen on Ebay had a BIN of ~ $ 6000. :eek:

Ted Witcher

03-29-2009, 23:30

Here's one...
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y214/TedZep/236362327_0963006dfe_o.gif

maddoc

03-29-2009, 23:40

Nice ! :):)

Taken with the 35mm Summilux Aspherical ?

Here's one...

Ted Witcher

03-30-2009, 00:02

Thanks. No, that's the shorty pre-ASPH Summilux on an M6TTL. Fuji Acros. An overcast day right beneath the Eiffel Tower.

Nigel Meaby

03-30-2009, 01:25

As Keith Barett might say "A couple of smashers there!". For those not familiar with the Welsh comedian Rob Brydon AKA Keith Barett here's a clip of his comedy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWMuJ1M24LY&feature=SeriesPlayList&p=C2D166C507030299&index=14
Thought this thread could do with a bit of humour after reading some of the posts!

Innerimager

03-30-2009, 11:47

Thanks. No, that's the shorty pre-ASPH Summilux on an M6TTL. Fuji Acros. An overcast day right beneath the Eiffel Tower.
Hi Ted - What a lovely, lovely portrait. Fabulous tones. And it makes me so happy I just bought a 50 pre-asph lux! (Sold my asph lux to so). best...Peter

piazza63

03-30-2009, 22:29

just got my 35 lux the other week and am loving it. I have never seen the lies glow until I got this lens. And the 1504 does unscrew to accept a series 7 filter. But one thing I havent figured out is if there is a cap that can go on the filter. I am paranoid that while the hood is on I might accidently face the lens towards the sun and was hoping there was a cap for that hood.

check out the Bokeh Poeple!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/aaronpiazza/3397996566/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/aaronpiazza/3397995936/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/aaronpiazza/3380892120/

maddoc

03-30-2009, 22:38

Aaron, #2 is great ! That 35mm Summilux pre-ASPH is nice :) You should try it at night also, it can flare nasty when there are spot lights just outside the frame but other than this it behaves nicely. :D

About the cap ... Try to get a cheap third party snap-on lens cap in a size that fits onto the hood. My guess is that E58 might fit (I tried E55 -> to small and E60 -> to large). Myself, I stick the front-cap of my Super-Angulon-M 21/3.4 inside the hood of the 35mm Summilux pre-ASPH and it works perfect.

deepwhite

04-01-2009, 10:57

Our Summilux 35/1.4 preA has been in my girlfriend's hands for a long long time. Here are a few of her shots:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3298/3262995955_856d1b451a_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3202/2960631127_347efe5982_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3212/2960631117_b82fbc84a9_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3025/2957990391_e4ee8fd273_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3243/2969067668_72d3f7017a_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3636/3309938521_b6bb91cff7_b.jpg

Ted Witcher

04-01-2009, 11:07

Hi Ted - What a lovely, lovely portrait. Fabulous tones. And it makes me so happy I just bought a 50 pre-asph lux! (Sold my asph lux to so). best...Peter

Thanks, man.

Ted Witcher

04-01-2009, 11:08

Our Summilux 35/1.4 preA has been in my girlfriend's hands for a long long time...

Well done!

maddoc

04-09-2009, 18:36

@ deepwhite Your GF has a good eye !! Fabulous shots !!:)

maddoc

04-09-2009, 18:38

... with yellow filter (KE XX 5222 film)

http://www.pbase.com/image/111129298.jpg

deepwhite

04-10-2009, 00:20

Ted & Gabor - thanks. My GF is very talented.

Here are some other shots she took during our recent Beijing trip. Also with M7 + Lux35 preA.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3316/3423565143_7eacbb4fb5_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3584/3421775226_5a485fbb72_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3607/3424373804_907c4f553b_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3382/3420966647_e26de0e1de_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3577/3421774012_afb47d01f5_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3558/3423565433_f69febf886_b.jpg

I think the Lux35 preA will stick with her forever. Maybe I should consider getting one for myself...?

maddoc

05-18-2009, 18:08

http://www.pbase.com/image/112704168.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/gsamj/image/112704480.jpg

M7 / P3200TMZ @ 1000ISO

maddoc

05-21-2009, 22:17

400TX / Yellow-filter

http://www.pbase.com/image/112820708.jpg

Sapporo seen from Mt Moiwa ropeway ...

helenhill

05-25-2009, 08:35

at present....MY FAVorite Lens :D

maddoc

05-27-2009, 20:14

http://www.pbase.com/image/113065617.jpg

Double-X 5222 @400ISO / Diafine

CorreCaminos

05-27-2009, 20:46

Hi y'all,

I'm very strongly considering the 35mm 'lux preAsph to complete my RFF kit.

Would you say that the signature of the 35/1.4 is similar to that of the 50mm 'lux preAsph?

And to those that think the 35/1.4 is not sharp, would you consider the 50/1.4 sharper than the 35mm 'lux or just about the same?

maddoc

05-27-2009, 20:52

2REP

05-27-2009, 21:56

Am I too late to join this thread? Simply I love the Pre-ASPH 35 'Lux .. some of my shots:

Exhibiting bokeh:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3027/3107019157_a85b13f547_b.jpg

The F1.4 signature that I love:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3360/3569251370_e15297d6a8_b.jpg

maddoc

05-27-2009, 21:59

One can't be to late for this thread ! :D Your second photo, lovely portrait !

2REP

05-27-2009, 22:11

Thanks Maddoc! I count myself lucky with the portrait shot, you know kids tend to wiggle when taking photo :)

specpro

05-30-2009, 02:54

Here's another 35mm 1.4 pre-asph shot

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=107783 (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/../photopost/showphoto.php?photo=107783)

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=107783

CorreCaminos

05-30-2009, 06:49

I had both of them, 35 and 50 Summilux pre-ASPH but replaced the 50 with a Noctilux. These lenses were all designed by Dr. Mandler and render quite comparable. A little soft wide open but great tones and not to high contrast. The 50/1.4 pre-ASPH is a little sharper than the 35/1.4 pre-ASPH and the latter can also flare nasty. Nevertheless, I like the 35mm Summilux pre-ASPH a lot. :)

Thanks maddoc. I like photos taken with the 35mm 'lux preAsph a lot but I do also like sharp photos. I'm perfectly happy with the 50/1.4, as it's just sharp enough, but I don't think I'd be happy with a lens that's even just a little softer than it.