35mm Summicrons: I vs. IV

[theblotted]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

most people regard the version I (M3 goggle or M2) and version IV (pre-ASPH) of 35mm Summicron as the best versions (aside from ASPH). i want to know the difference between the two, esp performance wise. anybody have shots comparing the results?

 

i tried a search here and elsewhere but came up short; no direct comparisons.

[lars_bergquist]

The v.1 lens had fairly low contrast wide open, but definition was quite even across the image field. Stopping down raised the contrast, and definition was excellent at 5.6.

 

V.2 has high contrast centrally at f:2 and a contrast fall-off from center field to the corners. General contrast does not have to rise much when stopping down, but the corners improve very much and performance is very good indeed at 5.6, but the MTF curves are in fact slightly lower there than those the v.1 produce!

 

Still, the v.4 is one of my favourites. It is actually better on the M9 than it ever was on film (the fairly strong vignetting is compensated) and it will perform beautifully at 2.8 and 4, and very usefully at 2.0. Because of its compactness, it is my 'walking about lens'. I have had it retro-coded in Solms; my specimen is an engraved 'Jubilee' one from 1983.

 

The old man from the Age of the v.1

 

Below is a pic taken at 1:2.8 with the v.4. Note the good rendering of light sources in the upper right corner.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[bill]

I had a v4 for years, but sold it in favour of the CV 35mm 2.5 "pancake", preferring the rendition, which is crisper and (imo) very well suited to monochrome. It's all down to personal taste - many lenses are not "better" or "worse", just different. I treat them as a palette (or maybe brushes) to get the result I want.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[Overgaard]

The Version IV is known as "King of Bokeh" and how much better/more boke it has compared to the previous is a good question. I don't have the answer.

 

I have the Version I which is milky and all fully open at f/2.0 ... and I guess that is a style or a brush as Bill intelligently put it (I'm going to use that, Bill). What I admire the most in this lens is the sparkling bokeh and the blown light. But it is also the blown light I dislike when I need definition and shoot with the sun in my back and it should be quite clear (but isn't as clear as an ASPH).

 

I have quite many samples of the chrome 35/2 Version I on my website, perhaps that can give you an impression of that. In periods I like it, in other periods I long for an ASPH version of the 35mm to get precise definition, sharpness and contrast. I think I might change it into the new 35/1.4 to get an ASPH that is sexy at the same time.

 

Samples:

leica.overgaard.dk - Thorsten Overgaard's Leica Sites - Leica 35mm Summicron-M f/2.0 rangefinder lens

leica.overgaard.dk - Thorsten Overgaard's Leica Pages - Leica M9 Digital Rangefinder Camera - Page 4 : Seven pairs of socks and one Leica M9

 

And here is by the way one I did a few days ago. Nice bokeh, soft contrast (enhanced in Lightroom):

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Xmas]

I had a v4 for years, but sold it in favour of the CV 35mm 2.5 "pancake", preferring the rendition, which is crisper and (imo) very well suited to monochrome. It's all down to personal taste - many lenses are not "better" or "worse", just different. I treat them as a palette (or maybe brushes) to get the result I want.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

Hi Bill

 

I can understand that, I have had in 35mm

 

- lux, CV f2.5, J12, Canon f/2 & f1.8

 

Swapped the J12 cause if interfered with baffles on Canon P, kept the rest.

 

Been known to take the same scenic shot on several lenses.

 

The only caveat is the lux needs an elastic band and the late crons rectangular hood, to tame its contra jour signature.

 

Most of the time I use the CV, small light and cheap to replace if I 'juggle' it.

 

Noel

[01af]

And here is by the way one I did a few days ago. Nice bokeh ...

Huh!? This bokeh you consider nice? Umm ... to me it looks rather harsh. Not really ugly but not really nice either. Which lens did you use for this?

[Overgaard]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Huh!? This bokeh you consider nice? Umm ... to me it looks rather harsh. Not really ugly but not really nice either. Which lens did you use for this?

 

Ha ha, bokeh should eb added to the list of things not to discuss (together with politics and religion). It's the 35/2 Version I at 70 cm closest focus, f/2.0. I LOVE it!

[k_g_wolf ✝]

>> 01af

 

Try some bokeh- studies for youself and you will see, that this is a rather

splendid sample-photograph submitted by Thorsten. I can´t detect any

harshness in it, on my screen it appears just perfect.

 

Perhaps it is indeed better not to talk bokeh at all - you NEVER get to an end of

discussion.

 

Best

 

GEORG

[01af]

Ha ha, bokeh should be added to the list of things not to discuss (together with politics and religion).

Sure, bokeh mostly is a matter of taste. I can see what you like in this, umm, 'sparkling' kind of bokeh. But I happen to dislike it. Maybe it works in some images, but not in this ... for me.

 

 

It's the 35/2 Version I at 70 cm closest focus, f/2.0. I LOVE it!

Version I—phew. I'd be very surprised had it been version IV.

[peter_n]

The v.4 thing seems to be internet chatter. Here's a well-known comparison of the v.4 with the ASPH. You can buy the ASPH new, it's got nice OOF, the front doesn't fall off, and it's not overpriced.

[lars_bergquist]

I have tried the CV pancake lens. It had bad decentering. The reason Cosina can sell these lenses so cheaply is that they spend less care on assembly and QC. You get what you pay for. This bad performance, and the fine showing of my old v.4, led to my decision to code the Summicron and take it back into regular use.

 

The harsh bokeh of the v.2/3 version is not just a matter of taste. It is caused by overcorrected spherical aberration, which is an ascertainable fact -- and it could no doubt even be quantified, if you insist on that. The v.4 has a more balanced correction, leading to smoother bokeh.

 

The ASPH is a fine lens, and what I have seen of it, its bokeh is even smoother than that of my v.4. But the improvement is not such that it tempts me to retire the v.4. Instead, I am standing (inofficially) in line for the new version Summilux. I will keep the 'cron for offhand use; it deserves it.

 

The old man from the Age of the 3.5cm Elmar

[bill]

I have tried the CV pancake lens. It had bad decentering. The reason Cosina can sell these lenses so cheaply is that they spend less care on assembly and QC. You get what you pay for. This bad performance, and the fine showing of my old v.4, led to my decision to code the Summicron and take it back into regular use.

 

Sounds like you had a bad one, Lars. That's a shame, but no reason for such sweeping generalisations; if it was, there are some Leica lenses that would end up at the bottom of the same bucket

 

I am actually on my 3rd Skopar - I foolishly "upgraded" the first when the M-mount version came out. I hated the handling of that version, and was fortunate to get another v1 from Robert White.

 

Oh, and I have a 3.5cm Elmar too... was it yours, perchance?

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[theblotted]

hi all, i do enjoy reading and learning all the examples, replies and side-bars... but it'd be greatly appreciated to hear comparison between just 'cron version 1 and version 4...

 

lars, is v4 considerably sharper than v1? how about color rendering, does v1 give too much of that old school Leica feel to it?

[lars_bergquist]

Sounds like you had a bad one, Lars. That's a shame, but no reason for such sweeping generalisations; if it was, there are some Leica lenses that would end up at the bottom of the same bucket

 

A lower level of assembly QC does not mean that ALL produced specimens are off. It means that the risk does significantly increase that you will get a bad'un. Human psychology is such that in a forum like this one, you will hear more often from those that were lucky, than from those who made a mistake.

 

And yes, there is a risk that you will get a 'Monday specimen' from Leica. But the risk is much lower, and that is part of what you pay for. Also, Leica are very careful of their reputation, and will go out of their way to make you a happy customer. I have encountered the same attitude at Carl Zeiss, by the way. Both companies know that their goodwill, accumulated over a century or more, are a vital part of their assets.

 

The old man from th Age of the 3.5cm Elmar (no, I was just a kid during the production of the 3.5cm Elmar. But I am a product of those same interesting times.)

[lars_bergquist]

hi all, i do enjoy reading and learning all the examples, replies and side-bars... but it'd be greatly appreciated to hear comparison between just 'cron version 1 and version 4...

 

lars, is v4 considerably sharper than v1? how about color rendering, does v1 give too much of that old school Leica feel to it?

The v.4 has much higher definition and contrast then the v.1 on axis and across most of the field; corners are about as soft as those of the v.1. Colour rendering of both lenses is very neutral, as with nearly all Leica lenses, but I am not sure that is what you are actually asking about. The (in)famous 'Leica glow' is not about colour rendering, but about residual optical aberrations -- chromatic, spherical, astigmatism and coma -- which are present in a higher level in the old lens designs. The v.4 has a higher level of correction than the v.1, which is a major part of the explanation for the improvement in definition wide open. The current aspherical designs take that characteristic one step further.

 

The old man from the Age of the 3.5cm Elmar

[pgk]

it'd be greatly appreciated to hear comparison between just 'cron version 1 and version 4...

 

lars, is v4 considerably sharper than v1? how about color rendering, does v1 give too much of that old school Leica feel to it?

I've owned both (I now use the Summilux asph). The v.1 showed more 'glow' wide open and was slightly softer. Contrast was (a little bit) lower but actually not too bad at all. I liked both lenses (more than the 'cron asph) but if I had a choice I would go for the v.4 which has IMHO a very rounded performance without the harder 'bite' of the current asph - I'm deliberately using subjective language because this is an opinion based on usage rather than comparative testing. I would happily own and use another v.4 as I would the pre-asph 35mm 'lux. Although neither of these lenses may match the asphs in performance terms, both might just represent the pinnacle of non-aspherical optical technology for their focal lengths and apertures, and their 'signatures', which result from those residual optical aberrations that Lars mentions, may well be the result.

[lct]

...Try some bokeh- studies for youself and you will see, that this is a rather splendid sample-photograph submitted by Thorsten. I can´t detect any

harshness in it, on my screen it appears just perfect...

Not sure if i did the same studies as yours but one of the objective criteria of harsh bokeh is doubled lines in out-of-focus areas and i seem to find some of them in Thosten's picture above. Now i'm on a laptot here so perhaps i'm wrong.

Edited May 7, 2010 by lct

[k_g_wolf ✝]

>> lct

 

Now that you say it, I can see it as well. To me, this does add to the dynamic

effect of the photograph.

 

What about a moving person ? Gardeners sometimes have to change their position ...

 

 

Best

 

GEORG

[lct]

...Gardeners sometimes have to change their position ...

F1 cars as well. It's easier to find doubled lines on inanimate objects for sure.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Overgaard]

The doubled lines is also what I see as the difference between the verion I and IV in hte samples, and I think the new Leica standard is the softer look. Though I like the "edgy" sparkling higlights in a background.

 

But the more "educated" you get in bokeh, the more you look for "stop signs", edges and all. If it adds life to an image without stealing the attention or disturb the main message of the image, I'm all for it, and often "sparkling" bokeh does (by which I think that I mean oof highlights with edges.)

 

I don't feel there is just one right answer for all images, which is why we (un)fortunately have to have several editions of some lenses