35 Summicron 4th version vs 35 Summilux pre-ASPH?

[Bosk]

Curiosity has got the better of me again and now I'm pondering the idea of upgrading my 3rd version 35 Summicron to something better.

Due to budget constraints, all of the ASPH 35's are beyond my reach and therefore I'm considering both the 4th version 35 Summicron (said to be sharp wide-open and with great bokeh) and the pre-ASPH 35 Summilux which I don't know quite so much about.

I know that the Summilux is a tad more expensive than the 4th Summicron, and I've also been told that the Summilux is slightly soft @ 1.4, possibly with some vignetting.

My main concern is how both lenses perform @ f2. If the Summilux is equal to the Summicron at this aperture then I'd almost be getting an extra stop 'for free', or so goes my thinking. (I'm sure it's a little more complicated in actuality)


So I guess the real question I'm asking is... if you could only own one, which of these two lenses would it be for you?
Many thanks for your opinons.

Post deleted by posters request

[pvenables]

Good point made by Magus.

While I love my v4 Summicron because it's tiny and sharp, I wouldn't say it would MASSIVELY outperform many 35mm lenses past or present, Leica or otherwise, especially at normal print sizes. It seems that it's been hyped quite a bit. My prints are nice but I doubt anyone would look at them and say "wow, that's definitely a v4 Summicron shot !!". Mine also vignettes noticeably till f4, without filters or hood, and this can be a PITA sometimes. I have a 1960 50mm DR Summicron which doesn't vignette at all, even at f2, so I don't know why my 35mm is so prone. Were I spending good money again on a 35mm I would want to be sure that there was no noticeable vignetting even at full aperture. If the extra stop is important to you I'd seriously look at the Summilux.

Paul

[sleepyhead]

Hi Bosk, I've owned two of the summicron 4th versions (sold them), and I currently use a later version 35mm pre-ASPH summilux. In my opinion, trading your third version summicron for a forth version makes no sense, as you'll end up spending money and not notice much difference. I haven't tried the third version, but apparently its bokeh isn't much different from the fourth version.

I love my pre-ASPH summilux so far (only had it about a year, and haven't had time to shoot so much 35mm film lately). But so far, so good. It's about the same size as the summicron, I find it very sharp from 2.8 to 11, and sharp enough for my needs wide open. I generally shoot Neopan 1600 in very dim lighting with this lns, so I figure that the grain and small amout of camera shake are gonna limit my resolution more than a little softness at f/1.4. People berate the flaring of this lens, but I have not found it bad, and even when some bright lights are in the frame, the flare is more of a diffuse glow rather than a sharp bright distraction - so I kinda like the atmosphere that it sometimes conveys.

The summilux takes series 7 filters - these can be a pain in the butt if you're constantly changing filters, but I just use a UV which lives on the lens (actually in the shade, which livs on the lens...)

If you can afford it, perhaps you can buy or borrow a pre-ASPH summilux, shoot a few rolls under different conditions vs. your summicron, and then sell the one you don't want.

Good luck. Enjoy.

Post deleted by posters request

[Ronald M]

There are slight sharpness improvements with each version or none at all. just cost reductions from fewer elements.

The big performance jump is to Aspheric models.

Pre AsPH `lux flared and has lowish contrast full open. The lens shades are difficult to find and it does not use the normal 39mm filters.

Magic image quality? Never saw it. Different than modern lenses? Yes. If you want the older look, get the first version, DR or Rigid, and 90 2.8 Elmarit or 90 `cron from the `60`s. Ok to substitute a Summaron 35 and elmar 50.

[Trius]

There was a recent thread on the Biogon, and there is a Biogon pool on flickr.

[Sparrow]

X-Ray
How do the Zeiss Biogon and CV Nokton compare?

[nrj]

I own the v3 pre-asph cron and have tried the v4. I also owned the 1.4 asph and compared the 2 asph. My preference was the v3. v4 has marginally more contrast wide open and was slightly sharper in the centre at f2 but the v3 fingerprint, transition to OOF and sharpness are excellent. Wide open and at 2.8 its possible to detect some lack of uniform rendering across the field but I've only noticed this on two slides out of the thousands I've shot with the lens. Also the v3 supposedly has an 'optical mirror' designed to reduce flare and make the use of a hood less important. I usually use mine without a hood with no noticeable difference to having a hood - works for me and I don't like flare. The asphs for me do not draw as well and particularly wide open do not have the smooth rendition of the v3. The 1.4 asph came out better in this respect than the 2 asph.

Nik

Post deleted by posters request

[Sparrow]

Magus, I do hope one day you will start a RFF gallery and share with us what must be the most beautiful photographs you make with your wonderful Leica lenses.
I’m sure that the superiority you can see so clearly in those optics will then be decisively demonstrated to the rest of the community proving the superiority of your equipment and vindicate your dogmatic, and it has to be said sometimes bigoted stance on other manufactures products.
In eager anticipation, regards

Post deleted by posters request

[Benjamin Marks]

Aww man. Now you're gonna bust on the Duke?

I traded in my 4th gen 'cron for the current asph, and I keep a CV 35/1.2 for the long Vermont winter nights. My only head-to-head comparison between 35's was between the 4th gen 'cron on an M6 and Nikon's 35/2 autofocus on an F4. I shot a friend's wedding with both. Enlarged to 11x14, the 'cron had a slight but noticeable edge in resolution over the Nikkor, which could easily have been attributed to other factors in the shoot (e.g. mirror slap at 1/60 sec.).

My preferred FL is a 50, but I have a couple of pics taken with the 35 asph where the phrase "scary-sharp" comes to mind, including a picture of my father taken with the asph on an RD-1 in the light of a north-facing window where the detail preserved is just amazing.

I used the CV 35/1.2 two years ago in Moscow at night side by side with the Noctilux and I have to say, in conditions that adverse, one is glad to have the extra speed.

[Gabriel M.A.]

Originally Posted by Crasis

If that was so, well then objective reality loses.

We wouldn't want subjective reality to win over objective reality, no. Otherwise, we let the Bizarroists win.

I liked the 35 Summicron 4th version, but after much analysis, I just couldn't see why it was awarded the "Bokeh King" title. I'd call it the "runner-up for Bokeh Prime Minister", but then there would be a revolt and the ensuing coup-de-connards would just drive the ASPH prices up.

imvvvvvho, the 35 Ultron has a slight edge over it. The 35 'cron 1st Version has a nicer rendition, but in the "performance" arena, it's not for MTF Graph and brick wall addicts.

My twopence.

[Flyfisher Tom]

This thread has all the makings of a lens jihad brewing

[Crasis]

Originally Posted by Flyfisher Tom

This thread has all the makings of a lens jihad brewing

All lenses not made by Pentax are the devil, and should be wiped from the minds of the unbelievers. 70 new lenses to those who die for the cause!

[x-ray]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

X-Ray
How do the Zeiss Biogon and CV Nokton compare?

The Biogon is a better lens for general use but the Nokton really excells at wide apertures. The Biogon is certainly my first choice for day to day use even over the summicron v4.

The Biogon is a very smooth but very sharp lens. Contrast is excellent without being harsh and to this point have not seen any sign of flare even with direct sun hitting the front element. Both the Nokton and the Biogon are built quite well with buttery smooth controls.

The Nokton performs very well under normal shooting conditions but really excells in the dark where high flare might be a problem like very bright light sources in the frame and 1.2-2 are needed. It certainly outperforms the v1 summilux and even the v4 summicron. Many put it down because of size but relative to my 35mm 1.4 L canon lens it's not large at all. If you're looking for a doo all lens that really does a nice job in the dark and respectable in daylight and size is not a problem then the CV 1.2 is the lens. From images that I've seen I feel the asph summilux is more prone to flare than the Nokton.

Post deleted by posters request

[Captain]

for me the Japanese never got anything optically right (in the SLR domain

Wow im impressed, never met anyone that has tried every SLR optic made in Japan before. Im sorry I questioned your biased opinions previously.

[x-ray]

Here are two examples of the flare issue with my 1968 summilux.

In the cross shot note the inverted cross to the right of the primary image. This happened many times when a bright source was in the frame. It was always an inverted duplicate of the primary image. My guess is internal reflections between elements. I don't remember whether it only happened at 1.4 or smaller stops but it certainly happened many times. It's on both frames and happened in every frame that i shot with my summilux but none with my 50 summicron or elmarit.

The second was shot wide open in a stadium at night. Note the excessive flare and the internal reflections in the upper right and left of the stadium lights. Most of my summilux images suffered this problem. It never happened with any of my other lenses or has happened with any other than the v1 35 summilux.

Even having a light outside the frame but striking the lens caused streaks of flare extending into the frame.

This is very typical of the summilux v1. While a very good lens and cutting edge in the 60's and 70's it really lags behind current designs. The lens is very over rated and extremely over prices. On the other hand the v2-4 exceeds the v1 summilux and can be purchased much chaeper. Consider the CV lenses which I feel are very close or equal to the v4 summicron and the Biogon that I like much better than the v4 summicron. All are less expensive with a new Biogon about the same price or a little less than a used v4.

[x-ray]

If you shoot with the sun to your back and never have a light in or near the edge of the frame then you'll be fine with the v1 summilux but if not be prepared.

[Crasis]

Originally Posted by x-ray

This is very typical of the summilux v1. While a very good lens and cutting edge in the 60's and 70's it really lags behind current designs. The lens is very over rated and extremely over prices. On the other hand the v2-4 exceeds the v1 summilux and can be purchased much chaeper. Consider the CV lenses which I feel are very close or equal to the v4 summicron and the Biogon that I like much better than the v4 summicron. All are less expensive with a new Biogon about the same price or a little less than a used v4.

The examples of flare for the v1 summilux are insane! I hadn't actually realized that a lens could flare that much!

As to the other 35s, I would really love it if either CV or Zeiss made a 35/2 as small as the v2-v4 crons. I just absolutely love the size of that thing and any bigger in a 35 would start to annoy me. I've heard really good things about the Biogon, although I'd love to see side by side comparisons with the v4 cron. I assume it has a different signature, possibly the more modern signature of asph lenses.

If anyone could point me to such a thing, I'd appreciate it

[x-ray]

I found the v4 just too small and difficult to change f stops with the hood on. While the camera is to my eye I have trouble getting my fingers on the small aperture ring without the release tabs of the hood getting in the way. If I remove the camera from my eye I can do it with no problem. For me the lens is just too small and things too tightly placed for my hands. I also do not care for the focus tab on Leitz glass after the 60's vintage lenses. Just my personal thing. On the other hand the Biogon is only slightly larger and about the same size as the 50 summicron. The aperture is easy to change even with the camera to my eye and the focus tab is only a little bump with a serated focus ring which makes focusing very easy for me. Just my thing.

I haven't had a chance to compare them side by side but will before I sell the v4. The look of the Biogon is more clasic than you might think. It has the sharpness and even illumination of the asph but very smooth in tone. I believe it's a very classic look to the images.

[Crasis]

Originally Posted by x-ray

I found the v4 just too small and difficult to change f stops with the hood on. While the camera is to my eye I have trouble getting my fingers on the small aperture ring without the release tabs of the hood getting in the way. If I remove the camera from my eye I can do it with no problem. For me the lens is just too small and things too tightly placed for my hands. I also do not care for the focus tab on Leitz glass after the 60's vintage lenses. Just my personal thing. On the other hand the Biogon is only slightly larger and about the same size as the 50 summicron. The aperture is easy to change even with the camera to my eye and the focus tab is only a little bump with a serated focus ring which makes focusing very easy for me. Just my thing.

I haven't had a chance to compare them side by side but will before I sell the v4. The look of the Biogon is more clasic than you might think. It has the sharpness and even illumination of the asph but very smooth in tone. I believe it's a very classic look to the images.

That's rather interesting. I wonder what would cause this to be the case? The classic look tends to come from lacking compensation for the higher order optical aberrations which cause, among other things, uneven sharpness peaking in the center (in a gaussian-like distribution no less). I think it is possible to correct for certain aberrations while purposely causing the lens to be deficient in other areas which, perhaps, attributes to the classic feel of the biogon.

I don't know how the biogon was optimized though so this is all just speculation.

[Flyfisher Tom]

Don,

As a big fan of your work, I would be very interested in seeing your results with the biogon. Particularly, if you have the time to test the 4th, biogon and the cv nokton, on the same subjects and same apertures if possible. cheers