summilux 35mm pre-asph.
Old 12-31-2016   #1
kengai
Registered User
 
kengai is offline
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 9
summilux 35mm pre-asph.

what is the Summilux 35mm pre-asph? how it acts on the M-P 240?
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-31-2016   #2
Fraser
Registered User
 
Fraser is offline
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 1,448
35mm f1.4 pre the aspherical version works fine on all Ms famous for 'Leica glow' when shot wide open, only annoying thing is its tricky to code as it has a different kind of lens mount.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-02-2017   #3
Chromacomaphoto
Registered User
 
Chromacomaphoto is offline
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 282
Have a look here for how it performs on various cameras:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/foru...ad.php?t=49501
__________________
http://www.chromacomaphoto.com
Photos of Thailand and Thai people. Bangkok street and candids, urban landscapes, and lots of film work plus a blog on all of this.
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #4
aldobonnard
Registered User
 
aldobonnard is offline
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 280
I can compare with the 35mm v4 CRON and Zeiss 35mm f2 (which is equal in performance to the Leica 35 asph f2, albeit with better distortion).
The 35/1.4 Lux pre-asph (German made version) has no problem with using on a M digital. The profile exists in Leica M bodies => coding is not an issue at all.
At f/1.4 the pre-asph lux image is finely defined but with some glow in the finest structures.
At f/2, it's much better and already sharp, not as sharp as the summicron v4. However it will still equal the previous 35mm summicron versions.
At f/2.8 it's not as clinical sharp as the summicron v4 or the Zeiss, but not much to split them. Despite being less sharp (on a M digital), I prefer the summilux image because it won't bring moiré as much as the other lenses : lots of time saved in post processing.
At f/2.8, not much for the pre-asph summilux user to complain. Will remain less sharp than the cron v4 and Zeiss but not enough to justify one over the other.
From f/4, the summilux has a better resolution than the Cron v4, but not as good as the Zeiss and I suspect not as good as the Cron/Lux Asph.
A great advantage of the pre-asph lux over the modern asph is their zero-distortion.
Drawback: 35 lux (as well as 50 lux) lenses will exhibit a focus shift on M9/M240/M depending on the aperture and the distance. Each lens may behave differently depending on how the designer or serviceman has set up the sweet spot of the lens. This wasn't a problem with film-M's but definitely is with a digital M. I can confirm this from my renewed experience on a M9 serviced less two months ago service at Wetzlar.
Only solution not to be bothered, use summilux FLE lenses or digital-orientated summarit lenses.
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #5
damonsong
Registered User
 
damonsong is offline
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 94
I actually just did some test shots on my MP240 yesterday. I have to say it they turn out better than I expected, smooth across the frame and can be sharp enough once you step down to 2.8. Below are some of the test shots, I left them un-edit (out of camera bw jpg) so you can see if you like how it renders. Mine is the v2 canada version.

At 1.4
by damonsong, on Flickr

At 1.4
by damonsong, on Flickr

at 2.8
by damonsong, on Flickr
__________________
Instagram: damonsong_bw
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #6
fenixv8
Registered User
 
fenixv8's Avatar
 
fenixv8 is offline
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 115
from my research. I want one as well.

https://www.rangefinderforum.com/for...d.php?t=159909
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #7
maddoc
... likes film.
 
maddoc's Avatar
 
maddoc is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: 三鷹市
Age: 51
Posts: 7,154
A couple of years ago, I did a direct comparison between the 35mm Summilux pre-ASPH (latest German made batch) and the 35mm Summicron vs4 and at f/2.0 the Summilux already had a better resolution and sharpness was better than the 35mm Summicron.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aldobonnard View Post
I can compare with the 35mm v4 CRON and Zeiss 35mm f2 (which is equal in performance to the Leica 35 asph f2, albeit with better distortion).
The 35/1.4 Lux pre-asph (German made version) has no problem with using on a M digital. The profile exists in Leica M bodies => coding is not an issue at all.
At f/1.4 the pre-asph lux image is finely defined but with some glow in the finest structures.
At f/2, it's much better and already sharp, not as sharp as the summicron v4. However it will still equal the previous 35mm summicron versions.
At f/2.8 it's not as clinical sharp as the summicron v4 or the Zeiss, but not much to split them. Despite being less sharp (on a M digital), I prefer the summilux image because it won't bring moiré as much as the other lenses : lots of time saved in post processing.
At f/2.8, not much for the pre-asph summilux user to complain. Will remain less sharp than the cron v4 and Zeiss but not enough to justify one over the other.
From f/4, the summilux has a better resolution than the Cron v4, but not as good as the Zeiss and I suspect not as good as the Cron/Lux Asph.
A great advantage of the pre-asph lux over the modern asph is their zero-distortion.
Drawback: 35 lux (as well as 50 lux) lenses will exhibit a focus shift on M9/M240/M depending on the aperture and the distance. Each lens may behave differently depending on how the designer or serviceman has set up the sweet spot of the lens. This wasn't a problem with film-M's but definitely is with a digital M. I can confirm this from my renewed experience on a M9 serviced less two months ago service at Wetzlar.
Only solution not to be bothered, use summilux FLE lenses or digital-orientated summarit lenses.
__________________
- Gabor

flickr
pBase
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #8
sepiareverb
Dead ringer for Mr Grinch
 
sepiareverb's Avatar
 
sepiareverb is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: St Johnsbury VT
Posts: 7,453
On the M9 I've printed a file shot through the summilux at F4 40x50", stunning.
__________________
-Bob
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #9
JHutchins
Registered User
 
JHutchins's Avatar
 
JHutchins is offline
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Juneau, Alaska
Posts: 242
I did a comparison recently between a early version 2 Canadian Summilux (in fairly poor condition including a couple of meaningful scratches on the rear element) and a version 2 Canadian Summicron and I didn't think there was much to choose between them in evenly lit daylight scenes. In fact, to the extent I had a preference it was definitely for the Summilux at all apertures in such conditions. Where there are point light sources or very bright patches against a dark ground the Summilux is a bit more unruly until you get to f2.8 when it starts to get well behaved again. Overall I had a weak preference for the way the images from the Summilux look. The decision on which to keep was mostly a tradeoff between that extra stop of aperture and the Summicron's closer focusing distance -- really frustrating that the Summilux doesn't focus as closely as the Summicron. In the end, I kept the Summilux, warts and all and love it. Here's a shot from yesterday (stopped well down):

  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #10
damonsong
Registered User
 
damonsong is offline
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 94
Great shot!

I feel the same way about the summilux, mine is in fairly great condition.

I had this lens for a couple of years now, I've never really use it until now that I sold the Cron v4. I was very impressed with the performance, and regretted I did not use this lens enough (or at all) while I had the M9.

If you can find one with the 12054 hood and price is not bad then that's the way to go. Since you can only mount a filter (I want to use ND filter) with the hood on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JHutchins View Post
I did a comparison recently between a early version 2 Canadian Summilux (in fairly poor condition including a couple of meaningful scratches on the rear element) and a version 2 Canadian ...
__________________
Instagram: damonsong_bw
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #11
JHutchins
Registered User
 
JHutchins's Avatar
 
JHutchins is offline
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Juneau, Alaska
Posts: 242
I bought one of the cheap reproductions of the 12504 hood on ebay. It took a while to arrive from Hong Kong but I'm perfectly satisfied with the shade itself and it does unscrew, like the original, to allow use of a Series VII filter. And a shade is quite important for this lens -- it's famously flare prone.
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #12
damonsong
Registered User
 
damonsong is offline
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 94
Thanks!

I actually ordered the same one too, I don't feel like 1-200 for a real one. The replica one still have not arrive yet, but it's good to know they work well because I was worry about the fitting.
__________________
Instagram: damonsong_bw
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Weeks Ago   #13
iaeaix
Registered User
 
iaeaix is offline
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 48
There is v1 and v2 Summilux 35mm pre-asph. I have seen post in this forum shows v1 Summilux, that I feel it is better performing than v2 and Summicron v4, I did not test it myself for the resolution type of test, but I found the v1 render overall better than v2, in my taste, YMMV.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Weeks Ago   #14
Erik van Straten
Registered User
 
Erik van Straten's Avatar
 
Erik van Straten is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,341
Quote:
Originally Posted by iaeaix View Post
I found the v1 render overall better than v2
Yes, I agree, but the v1 is therefore much more expensive.

Erik.
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Weeks Ago   #15
iaeaix
Registered User
 
iaeaix is offline
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erik van Straten View Post
Yes, I agree, but the v1 is therefore much more expensive.

Erik.

Erik,
I have the V1 and V2 but never did side by side comparison (did not intend to anyway).
Although I did sometimes feel that when I use V1, but I have never been sure. so I got that feeling mostly based on your post, your posted photos from v1 was very nice.
Also saw it was said that v1 has 9 elements? Are you aware of anything like that?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Weeks Ago   #16
damonsong
Registered User
 
damonsong is offline
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 94
Would you kindly do a quick comparison? I can't find any information out there to compare the result of them in detail. Very interesting!

Quote:
Originally Posted by iaeaix View Post
Erik,
I have the V1 and V2 but never did side by side comparison (did not intend to anyway).
Although I did sometimes feel that when I use V1, but I have never been sure. so I got that feeling mostly based on your post, your posted photos from v1 was very nice.
Also saw it was said that v1 has 9 elements? Are you aware of anything like that?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
Instagram: damonsong_bw
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Weeks Ago   #17
kermaier
Registered User
 
kermaier's Avatar
 
kermaier is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Northern New Jersey
Posts: 1,642
Careful! Some examples of the pre-aspherical Summilux cannot be used on some Leica digital M bodies. If it has the thicker rear element shroud, it can scrape against the inner baffles of an M9, when focused toward infinity.
__________________
M9-P, Fuji X100
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Weeks Ago   #18
iaeaix
Registered User
 
iaeaix is offline
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by damonsong View Post
Would you kindly do a quick comparison? I can't find any information out there to compare the result of them in detail. Very interesting!


What are you looking for?
I could do it but I need to know what kind of detail are we targeting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Weeks Ago   #19
iaeaix
Registered User
 
iaeaix is offline
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by kermaier View Post
Careful! Some examples of the pre-aspherical Summilux cannot be used on some Leica digital M bodies. If it has the thicker rear element shroud, it can scrape against the inner baffles of an M9, when focused toward infinity.


I agree we indeed need to be careful.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Weeks Ago   #20
damonsong
Registered User
 
damonsong is offline
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 94
Thanks,

Maybe with a still object in the center, some distance between the object and the back ground. From F1.4 to f5.6?

Quote:
Originally Posted by iaeaix View Post
What are you looking for?
I could do it but I need to know what kind of detail are we targeting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
Instagram: damonsong_bw
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Weeks Ago   #21
Michiel Fokkema
Michiel Fokkema
 
Michiel Fokkema's Avatar
 
Michiel Fokkema is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the Netherlands
Age: 51
Posts: 974
I used to have the summilux pre-asph but found it not usable at 1.4. Way to soft. I can't afford the APSH summilux versions and have now settled on a summicron asph. 2.0 is fast enough for me anyway.
__________________
Some Pictures
The BLOG
The website
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:38.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.