Leica-M 35mm

[rocheung]

I have just got a 35 F2 V3.

I found there is something special of this lens. I have got the summaron 2.8 and the summarit 35 F2.5 already. But I found the V3 is especially warmer coor reproduction , rather than others, so the output is more yellowish and the color is brilliant than others a little bit. Is it the signature of this lens? Is there any difference between V2??

One more question, how do you rate the Summarit 35 F2.5? I heard many people are not very preferred to use it. I don't know whether they dislike it psychologically because of its reputation , or it is really not up to the V4 grading. But when I use it, I still feel it is very very good. What does everybody here think?

[horosu]

I think the Summarit is a superb lens. E. Puts, if I recall correctly, rates it higher than the ASPH Summicron

[35mmdelux]

Leica would not tarnish its reputation with bad glass. For a short while I had the 75mm Summarit and its a beauty. Sold it -- rather, traded it, in favor of the 90 APO.

[rocheung]

but many people don't agree E puts. But I know somebodies sold their ASPH and V4 and buy the summarit

[Krosya]

Ok,
I dont have a Summarit. but from the pictures I have seen - its a good lens. However, I am, as I suspect many other RF users are low light/fast lens fans, its just too slow for many. So, lenses like Summicrons, Summilux, Hexanon, Noktons in 35mm fl offer a better choice for many at the same or better price as Summarit.

[rocheung]

i agree there are many big aperture fans here. If it is LUX, i have no-say, but if Cron , just less than 1/2 stop, somebody said it is 2.4, Is there such big advantage?

haha, Imagine SUmmarit is F2 too, may be it is really a New king of Bokeh. Now it is just a "Sit-in King of Bokeh" haha

[horosu]

I think with a digital body a 2.5 max. aperture is much less of a problem than on film bodies.

[Benjamin]

I think with a digital body a 2.5 max. aperture is much less of a problem than on film bodies.

Oh yes because an M8 or R-D1 is just soooo much better at high ISO settings than fast, modern, film emulsions not.

[rocheung]

Does a M8 user say summarit is good , and a non M8 user say it is bad?

[dof]

Does a M8 user say summarit is good , and a non M8 user say it is bad?

I wouldn't generalize it thusly. It is a special lens within the much-vaunted category of Leica 35s. However I would generalize that many, if not most, shooters prefer as fast a lens as possible in the normal 35 - 50 range. With so many fine alternatives at f2.0 and f1.4, the Summarit loses some edge based on pure speed alone - regardless of the intended capture medium.

[Benjamin]

I was just replying to the comment offering the opinion that a slightly slower lens is less of an issue to digital users. My thoughts are that the Leica is meant to be great in lowlight, and that the current crop of digital RF's are pretty crappy at high ISO settings. Modern film emulsions cope better in my opinion, if one needs to gain the half stop.

[Benjamin]

I am of course talking about the 1250 ISO of the M8 and not whatever a 5D can do, which I'm sure is lovely clean compared to (even slightly) pushed film.

[rocheung]

It is interesting to further discuss. According to Ben's opinion, will 35 Lux became the real dominator over the Cron if it is a big benefit for larger aperture?? But from the general users response, the most popular is still summicron. I　don't know whether it is price dominated or with other reasons. But from Ben's logic, Most of the people must go for Summilux when max aperture oriented. I just think the people should have to treat Cron unpopular when compare with Lux (seems not the case), and just the same as treating RIT more unpopular when comparing with Cron in the real world.

Sorry I am not expressing my point so well.

[35mmdelux]

The most popular is the Summicron. The Lux is fabulously popular for those who can afford it, as it costs 2X the Summicron (used). Cost of lenses has much to do with buyer preferences.

[Avotius]

I have the v3 summicron too and yes mine does render with warmer colors, but im not a huge fan of the lens in color, in black and white its pretty interesting though.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2105/2469857409_1d878f60ca_o.jpg

the lens has a higher contrast then I was expecting but it is still perfectly able to capture a wide range of gray tones.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2378/2469857395_5a06a8bb04_o.jpg

And yes the yellow cast in my color shots is pretty obvious, very...old lens style color and a much different look then my older screw mount 50mm f3.5 elmar

[notturtle]

I think with a digital body a 2.5 max. aperture is much less of a problem than on film bodies.


Unless you are shooting for shallow DOF, the critical issue becomes film speed/ISO. I consider the desired amount of DOF one of the fundamental decisions in any image, so I choose the appropriate aperture for DOF and as this is smaller than 2.5 99% of the time, regardless of light levels. Low light does not automatically mean that shallow DOF will look appropriate, so even if I had a F0.1 lens it would not work for me because few images would make any sense with such shallow DOF. Therefore, even as a film user, super wide apertures have limited use to me (personally) as the shallow DOF does not work for me.

[Avotius]

Unless you are shooting for shallow DOF, the critical issue becomes film speed/ISO. I consider the desired amount of DOF one of the fundamental decisions in any image, so I choose the appropriate aperture for DOF and as this is smaller than 2.5 99% of the time, regardless of light levels. Low light does not automatically mean that shallow DOF will look appropriate, so even if I had a F0.1 lens it would not work for me because few images would make any sense with such shallow DOF. Therefore, even as a film user, super wide apertures have limited use to me (personally) as the shallow DOF does not work for me.


yeah I dont buy the argument that aperture doesn't mater anymore with digital because ISO can be cranked up to deal with low light, it cant. An f4 at 3200 is still not going to cut the beans if you could have done it at f2 and 800 with similar results but a higher quality image not to mention getting those nice shallow DOF shots.

[horosu]

I shoot most of my pictures around f 5.6. When the light goes low, I try to use the best combination of f stop/shutter speed in order to get the picture. I usually use ISO 400 film, so digital should give me at least half a stop or more or available ISO. This is what I meant that for me, f.2.5 is a non-issue.

Of course, if you want that super shallow DOF you shoot at 1.4...