View Full Version : 35 'Lux pre-asph vs. 35 'Cron v3 / v4
I've been thinking about trading in my pre-asph 35mm Summilux for a v3 or v4 Summicron (plus cash) a lot lately.
Since I don't really need the f/1.4, I wonder wether the Crons are noticeably sharper at f/2?
I'am not really looking forward to all that swapping and waiting for the postman, since all i want to do is go out and shoot, but I just noticed i don't like the vintage Leica look the pre-asph 'Lux delivers that much anymore.
The upsides I see:
- Cash. Since the 'Lux is more expenisve than the 'Cron, keeping the 'Lux is like wasting money (I'am not using f/1.4 anyways)
- Better IQ ?
- Making someone with a desire for f/1.4 happy :p
So, are the 'Crons actually sharper at f/2, so it's the worth the hassle?
Thanks in advance,
I think the Summilux is pretty much identical to a v4, f2 and up. Only one difference besides size: the 0.7m min. focus of a cron; which helps if it's the only lens you have out. Then again, the asph cron is all around better than the v4, when you look at measurements.
I personally love my v3, and have a 35/1.4 Nokton when I need the speed.
I agree with ferider on this. I have both the pre asph lux and v4 cron and at F2 they are practically the same. The 1.4 of the lux gives that glow look but above that it's pretty much a 'cron.
Pricing. Pre asph lux's are in the €1200-1400 range for nice ones. The v4 'cron has recently gone mad price wise and I've tracked loads on the 'bay and are in the same range! I just sold a user at significantly less but for exc or mint- expect to pay €1300, $1800+
You can actually get an asph 35 for less now.
I think price-wise the lux and cron are almost the same these days.
I have both. I think the v4 cron is sharper than the lux at f2. But will you or anyone really notice?
The real difference is the closer focus of the cron.
I'm actually in the process of making this very switch. I have a wonderful 35 pre-asph lux. But I've just picked up an almost mint copy of the V.3 cron.
The advantages for me: The closer minimum focusing distance and the ability to shoot without a hood (must have the hood on the pre-asph lux if you want to use a filter.
And I love the rendering of the cron, which makes a very nice all-around lens for the M8.
Will I miss the wide open look of the lux? Probably at times. But not enough to keep it as I continue my efforts to simplify my RF kit.
Yes, the Summicron is technically better at f/2 and maybe even at f/2.8. At f/4 you'd be very hard put to see any difference and at f/5.6 I don't believe there is one.
I had both and sold the Summicron because I normally shoot at either full bore (where the Summilux wins hands down, being a stop faster) or at f/4 and below.
But if you prefer the look of the Summicron, then that's the lens for you.
Hi Niels, they're on par at f/2, maybe slightly better for the cron, and even not sure about that, then the Summilux is better from 2.8 onwards. I have opted for the Summilux pre-asph for that reason, since it gives me the extra-stop sometimes needed (even so it's undeniably rapidly soft towards the edges at F/1.4 and suffers from (delightful) aberrations). This extra stop for F/1.4 has many times allowed me to take pictures at night using normal E100 slide film. Quite appreciable (and valued, it seems!)
But if you don't mind losing some aperture stops, then take the Summarit 2.5. I own this one also, and it is sharper than the Summicron Asph, which is something remarquable, for the price. Considering the F/2.5 is actually a f/2.4, you're losing 0.5 stop for a lot less money. The leica summarit range is indeed a marvel, underestimated a lot (good for second-hand buyers!), for just half a stop loss. Almost nothing, really.
for terms of price - it seems Summicron v3 is nearly halfpriced compared v4 or Summilux pre-asph, maybe 2/3
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.