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: 1,506
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 02-21-2017   #4
aldobonnard
Registered User
 
aldobonnard is offline
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 283
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 02-21-2017   #5
damonsong
Registered User
 
damonsong is offline
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 116
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
__________________
damonsong_bw
YouTube
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-21-2017   #6
fenixv8
Registered User
 
fenixv8's Avatar
 
fenixv8 is offline
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 126
from my research. I want one as well.

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

Old 02-21-2017   #7
maddoc
... likes film.
 
maddoc's Avatar
 
maddoc is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: 三鷹市
Age: 51
Posts: 7,175
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 02-21-2017   #8
sepiareverb
genius and moron
 
sepiareverb's Avatar
 
sepiareverb is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: St Johnsbury VT
Posts: 7,581
On the M9 I've printed a file shot through the summilux at F4 40x50", stunning.
__________________
-Bob
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-21-2017   #9
JHutchins
Registered User
 
JHutchins's Avatar
 
JHutchins is online now
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Juneau, Alaska
Posts: 262
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 02-22-2017   #10
damonsong
Registered User
 
damonsong is offline
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 116
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 ...
__________________
damonsong_bw
YouTube
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-22-2017   #11
JHutchins
Registered User
 
JHutchins's Avatar
 
JHutchins is online now
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Juneau, Alaska
Posts: 262
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 02-22-2017   #12
damonsong
Registered User
 
damonsong is offline
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 116
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.
__________________
damonsong_bw
YouTube
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-28-2017   #13
iaeaix
Registered User
 
iaeaix is offline
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 50
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 02-28-2017   #14
Erik van Straten
Registered User
 
Erik van Straten's Avatar
 
Erik van Straten is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,751
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 03-01-2017   #15
iaeaix
Registered User
 
iaeaix is offline
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 50
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 03-01-2017   #16
damonsong
Registered User
 
damonsong is offline
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 116
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
__________________
damonsong_bw
YouTube
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-01-2017   #17
kermaier
Registered User
 
kermaier's Avatar
 
kermaier is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Northern New Jersey
Posts: 1,663
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
For Sale:
Canon 50mm f/1.2 LTM Lens
Canon 35/2.8 LTM Lens
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-03-2017   #18
iaeaix
Registered User
 
iaeaix is offline
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 50
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 03-03-2017   #19
iaeaix
Registered User
 
iaeaix is offline
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 50
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 03-05-2017   #20
damonsong
Registered User
 
damonsong is offline
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 116
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
__________________
damonsong_bw
YouTube
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-05-2017   #21
Michiel Fokkema
Michiel Fokkema
 
Michiel Fokkema's Avatar
 
Michiel Fokkema is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the Netherlands
Age: 51
Posts: 976
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

Old 04-07-2017   #22
edwliang
Registered User
 
edwliang is offline
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by damonsong View Post
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.
hi, may i ask what s/n your copy is?
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-07-2017   #23
Erik van Straten
Registered User
 
Erik van Straten's Avatar
 
Erik van Straten is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,751
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?

No, I've never heard it. The first version was made from exotic glass, so the lens was very expensive. Therefore it didn't sell. Leitz made a version with cheaper glass, from number 222XXXX. The first version is quite good at full aperture, but the second version is horrible. Later on the lens was improved, but I still find the first version the best. I also like the Ollux hood much better than the later one.

Erik.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-07-2017   #24
edwliang
Registered User
 
edwliang is offline
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erik van Straten View Post
No, I've never heard it. The first version was made from exotic glass, so the lens was very expensive. Therefore it didn't sell. Leitz made a version with cheaper glass, from number 222XXXX. The first version is quite good at full aperture, but the second version is horrible. Later on the lens was improved, but I still find the first version the best. I also like the Ollux hood much better than the later one.

Erik.
Hi, Erik, what about the performance of early version 2 with metal infinity lock.?
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-07-2017   #25
nobbylon
Registered User
 
nobbylon's Avatar
 
nobbylon is offline
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Nederlands
Posts: 2,656
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michiel Fokkema View Post
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.
I've had a few and always ended up selling. Vastly over rated. Horrible wide open and I disliked the aperture ring too close to the hood.
For 35 I've settled on a biogon C
If you must have Leica on the front then the V4 or aspheric 35's are more than most of us need.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-08-2017   #26
Erik van Straten
Registered User
 
Erik van Straten's Avatar
 
Erik van Straten is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,751
Quote:
Originally Posted by edwliang View Post
Hi, Erik, what about the performance of early version 2 with metal infinity lock.?
The second version, with numbers from 222XXXX, is horrible. They are black and have metal infinity stops. Lenses of later series are improved, I don't know from wich number.

The first version has numbers from 176XXXX until 216XXXX. They are in chrome. (Some are in black.) These are the good ones. They are made from exotic glasses. They use the OLLUX shade. They are known as "steel rim". These lenses are very good indeed.

Leica M3, Summilux 35mm f/1.4 steel rim (goggles), Tmax400.

Erik.



Erik.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-08-2017   #27
astro8
Registered User
 
astro8's Avatar
 
astro8 is offline
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Sydney
Age: 54
Posts: 547
I have a 216XXXX in black, but is a versionII.
__________________
-Greg

My RFF Gallery

  Reply With Quote

Old 04-08-2017   #28
Erik van Straten
Registered User
 
Erik van Straten's Avatar
 
Erik van Straten is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,751
Quote:
Originally Posted by astro8 View Post
I have a 216XXXX in black, but is a versionII.
Probably a goggled one. It can be that it has the good glass. Did you try it?

Erik.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-08-2017   #29
astro8
Registered User
 
astro8's Avatar
 
astro8 is offline
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Sydney
Age: 54
Posts: 547
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erik van Straten View Post
Probably a goggled one. It can be that it has the good glass. Did you try it?

Erik.
It is an M2 version, no goggles, brass infinity lock. Beautiful at 1.4, very sharp starting at f2, hence no need for a 35 summicron for me.
It is a wonderful lens, my favourite lens.

__________________
-Greg

My RFF Gallery

  Reply With Quote

Old 04-08-2017   #30
edwliang
Registered User
 
edwliang is offline
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erik van Straten View Post
The second version, with numbers from 222XXXX, is horrible. They are black and have metal infinity stops. Lenses of later series are improved, I don't know from wich number.

The first version has numbers from 176XXXX until 216XXXX. They are in chrome. (Some are in black.) These are the good ones. They are made from exotic glasses. They use the OLLUX shade. They are known as "steel rim". These lenses are very good indeed.

Leica M3, Summilux 35mm f/1.4 steel rim (goggles), Tmax400.

Erik.




Erik.


looks great and do not have any problem at all @full aperture! no glow. however, it is $7000~$10 000 and above now in China! gee
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-08-2017   #31
damonsong
Registered User
 
damonsong is offline
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by edwliang View Post
hi, may i ask what s/n your copy is?
Sorry, I didn't see it until now.
Mine is V2(I think, no infinity lock). s/n is 26798xx.
__________________
damonsong_bw
YouTube
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-08-2017   #32
edwliang
Registered User
 
edwliang is offline
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by damonsong View Post
Sorry, I didn't see it until now.
Mine is V2(I think, no infinity lock). s/n is 26798xx.
thank you, the 1.4 pics are better than i expected/
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-08-2017   #33
damonsong
Registered User
 
damonsong is offline
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by edwliang View Post
thank you, the 1.4 pics are better than i expected/
I think so too! I wish this can focus closer, and I know the one with infinity lock can do that. But I just dont feel like paying so much for it, with that price I might just get a modern lens that has better overall performance and let go the vintage look.
__________________
damonsong_bw
YouTube
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-08-2017   #34
Erik van Straten
Registered User
 
Erik van Straten's Avatar
 
Erik van Straten is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,751
Quote:
Originally Posted by damonsong View Post
I wish this can focus closer, and I know the one with infinity lock can do that.
The ones with the infinity lock focus to 1 m (3 ft). The goggled ones focus to 0.65 m (about 2 ft). You can screw the optics of these lenses out of their mount and use them in another, just like a Summilux 50mm v1 or v2 or a Summicron rigid.

Erik.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-08-2017   #35
Erik van Straten
Registered User
 
Erik van Straten's Avatar
 
Erik van Straten is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,751
Quote:
Originally Posted by astro8 View Post
It is an M2 version, no goggles, brass infinity lock. Beautiful at 1.4, very sharp starting at f2, hence no need for a 35 summicron for me.
Can you screw out the lens head (the optical unit) out of this one?

Erik.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-08-2017   #36
astro8
Registered User
 
astro8's Avatar
 
astro8 is offline
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Sydney
Age: 54
Posts: 547
No, it doesn't just unscrew like on my rigid summicron.
__________________
-Greg

My RFF Gallery

  Reply With Quote

Old 04-10-2017   #37
agoglanian
Reconnected.
 
agoglanian's Avatar
 
agoglanian is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Orange County, CA
Age: 31
Posts: 804
I just got one recently that's in pretty decent shape, came with the original box and everything! It's a 1981 Canadian version (3140099), I will agree that it's not a superb performer wide open but I think it's definitely still usable, it's pretty usable from f/2 and very usable from f/2.8 onwards.

I also agree the aperture ring is a bit cramped but I don't often have to change my settings so I don't mind. I love how compact it is, though I do wish it focused to .7m as everyone else has said.
__________________
- Abram

M-A | M240 | F | FM3A | GR

Instagram. | Website.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-10-2017   #38
Erik van Straten
Registered User
 
Erik van Straten's Avatar
 
Erik van Straten is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,751
Quote:
Originally Posted by astro8 View Post
No, it doesn't just unscrew like on my rigid summicron.
OK, thank you, we can narrow down the change to 2167545.

Erik.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-17-2017   #39
AlejandroI
Registered User
 
AlejandroI is offline
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 50
I have v2, really love the lens, except for the fact that it only focuses until 1 meter, thats what kills it for me. Yes the lens is not that sharp at 1.4, but is good enough, and closing to 2.0 its already very sharp.

Flare is a big issue, so you need to be careful when you shoot. Some examples with the m240:


L1004793 by Alejandro Ilukewitsch, on Flickr


L1003836 by Alejandro Ilukewitsch, on Flickr


L1003037 by Alejandro Ilukewitsch, on Flickr


Untitled by Alejandro Ilukewitsch, on Flickr


Untitled by Alejandro Ilukewitsch, on Flickr


Untitled by Alejandro Ilukewitsch, on Flickr


L1000082-2 by Alejandro Ilukewitsch, on Flickr


L1006191 by Alejandro Ilukewitsch, on Flickr


L1005686 by Alejandro Ilukewitsch, on Flickr


L1002157 by Alejandro Ilukewitsch, on Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-17-2017   #40
analoged
Registered User
 
analoged's Avatar
 
analoged is offline
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: HNL/TYO
Posts: 193
Great images Alejandro!

Guess I'll ask since its the thing we all complain about with the pre lux...

Any close focus mods?

I would assume it would have been done and posted somewhere if possible!
__________________
M6-Lux 35 Pre Asph
SL2-Lux 50
  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 10:34.


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.