Hank Taylor Posted October 8, 2011 Share #1 Posted October 8, 2011 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) ;)Here is the same shots taken in Prague of a roofer, one was cropped to show you how excellent a 50 year old lens performs. Unless you are planning on shooting at f/1.4 and need the extra contrast and sharpness it doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense to spend the money when you can pick up an excellent Pre- Summilux at a bargain price. Love this lens! Hank 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! Edited October 8, 2011 by Hank Taylor change word. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/163724-the-fantastic-pre-35mm-summilux/?do=findComment&comment=1813041'>More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 8, 2011 Posted October 8, 2011 Hi Hank Taylor, Take a look here The Fantastic Pre 35mm Summilux. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
pico Posted October 9, 2011 Share #2 Posted October 9, 2011 (edited) In an objective test, the pre-asph 35mm Summilux is an ordinary, unremarkable lens unless it is is stopped down to, say, F/5.6. At 1.4 people rave about it's 'glow' which I can find in other less expensive, 'inferior' lenses of the Seventies. It is time to get over the myth. And WTF is THIS in the original. A little Photoshoping I presume? What else was 'fixed'? Edited October 9, 2011 by pico Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted October 9, 2011 Share #3 Posted October 9, 2011 And WTF is THIS in the original. A little Photoshoping I presume? What else was 'fixed'? ??? Are you talking about the highlight off a TV antenna? As to the 35 'lux pre-ASPH: A nice "35 f/2" lens, essentially equivalent to the last (v.4) 35 Summicron (including current used price and size and weight), with f/1.4 available for emergency use. Yes, a bit "dreamy" at f/1.4 - but "dreamy" has its uses sometimes. (See attached). For me, the main failing was the 1-meter close-focus limit. Too many times, the composition I wanted required 0.9, 0.8, or 0.7 meters. Otherwise, I'd still have one. 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! 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/163724-the-fantastic-pre-35mm-summilux/?do=findComment&comment=1813128'>More sharing options...
Hank Taylor Posted October 9, 2011 Author Share #4 Posted October 9, 2011 (edited) Thank you , appreciate your comments but just the same I love my pre 35mm Summilux. Since I don't shoot normally at f 1,4 using a lower f stop is just fine with me. I seriously doubt that after f/4 you can tell the difference. I understand the Pre has less distortion . Andy, I was referring to the ability of the summilux to hold detail when cropped or enlarge . See the man in red on the roof. Hank Edited October 9, 2011 by Hank Taylor Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted October 9, 2011 Share #5 Posted October 9, 2011 Andy, did you mean the photograph or the subject was dreamy;). He looks like he's had too many already:) Mark Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted October 9, 2011 Share #6 Posted October 9, 2011 hank - Well actually I was referring to Pico's comment. I can't see what he thinks you Photoshopped in the full-frame image. I don't doubt the ability to hold detail.... Careful, Mark, that is my beloved youngest cousin - and a very sober guy! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted October 9, 2011 Share #7 Posted October 9, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) hank - Well actually I was referring to Pico's comment. I can't see what he thinks you Photoshopped in the full-frame image. I don't doubt the ability to hold detail.... Careful, Mark, that is my beloved youngest cousin - and a very sober guy! :D Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shade Posted October 9, 2011 Share #8 Posted October 9, 2011 Sorry to say this, but if you dont need 1.4, why bother buying a summilux in the first place? Even the pre-asph version costs more than the summicrons, summarits, or summarons. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted October 9, 2011 Share #9 Posted October 9, 2011 This lens has a unique rendering at f/1.4. If you want to get dreamy results and real 'glow' i.e. halos around highlights with a 35mm lens, the pre-asph Summilux is the only option as far as i know. Otherwise it is plenty sharp at f/2.8 and on. Flares a lot though. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hank Taylor Posted October 9, 2011 Author Share #10 Posted October 9, 2011 Considering all comments, I do agree with your views. It;s not that I don/t shoot at f1.4 , I do, but for me, I don't feel it justifies paying that kind of money just to be tack sharp at f/1.4.. I love the dreamy look this lens give at f/1.4. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colorflow Posted October 9, 2011 Share #11 Posted October 9, 2011 I have the German made Titanium version which seems to be glued to my M9. I suspect these later versions have improved coating. It appears to flare quite a bit less than previous Canadian versions I owned and sold because of the flares. I also have both the Lux ASPH and "Aspherical" versions. But they can't beat the "Pre" for its compactness for outside walkaround use. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted October 9, 2011 Share #12 Posted October 9, 2011 (edited) My German black copy from 1989 does flare less than earlier ones as well. Less so than the CV 35/1.4 SC by the way. But flare is still a problem with this lens. Better avoid shooting light sources in the frame when flare is not needed. Edited October 9, 2011 by lct 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shade Posted October 9, 2011 Share #13 Posted October 9, 2011 The compactness of the pre-asph is awesome for sure.. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted October 9, 2011 Share #14 Posted October 9, 2011 hank - Well actually I was referring to Pico's comment. I can't see what he thinks you Photoshopped in the full-frame image. I don't doubt the ability to hold detail.... Careful, Mark, that is my beloved youngest cousin - and a very sober guy! My mistake - I was seeing an aerial or something and stupidly presumed that it was in the frame of the man in red. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted October 9, 2011 Share #15 Posted October 9, 2011 Sorry to say this, but if you dont need 1.4, why bother buying a summilux in the first place? Even the pre-asph version costs more than the summicrons, summarits, or summarons. Checked used Summicron prices lately? At KEH today: 35 Summicron v.4 pre-ASPH - bargain condition - $1,739 (excellent condition, $2,370) 35 Summilux pre-ASPH - bargain condition - $1,899 Summilux prices have inflated (I bought mine 2 years ago for $1,300) but Summicron prices have inflated even more. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shade Posted October 10, 2011 Share #16 Posted October 10, 2011 Checked used Summicron prices lately? At KEH today: 35 Summicron v.4 pre-ASPH - bargain condition - $1,739 (excellent condition, $2,370) 35 Summilux pre-ASPH - bargain condition - $1,899 Summilux prices have inflated (I bought mine 2 years ago for $1,300) but Summicron prices have inflated even more. Not trying to start a heavy debate, but - lets just say I like to discuss. The V.4 Pre-Asph cron is "mythically" or "said-to-be" bokeh King. Which inflated the price much more. The 35 Cron V.1, 2 or 3 is no where near 1700 USD. I actually bought a V1 with goggles, MINT like new condition, at 1600 USD. A "worse" condition was available too at my local dealer, and is asking for 1300 USD. A 35 Lux PRE-ASHP at MINT condition, would go around 2000 USD easy down here IMHO. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguewave Posted October 10, 2011 Share #17 Posted October 10, 2011 In an objective test, the pre-asph 35mm Summilux is an ordinary, unremarkable lens unless it is is stopped down to, say, F/5.6. At 1.4 people rave about it's 'glow' which I can find in other less expensive, 'inferior' lenses of the Seventies. It is time to get over the myth. And WTF is THIS in the original. A little Photoshoping I presume? What else was 'fixed'? I couldn't disagree more. This is one beautiful lens. It could be TriX 400 at it's rated speed or pushed to 800 or 1600 for beautiful B&W night noir images, or nightime work with my m8, always wide open. This lens is not the false beauty of hyper sharp & overly contrast laden images from the 50 & 35 ASPH lenses that are all the rage. These images bear no emotional connection to reality. I find them absurdly false with no emotional underpinnings. Hell, why don't you just shoot an MFT chart. That might just be the epiphany for you. In B&W, my frames either in film or with my M8, are some of my favorites. They bridge the gap between wish & reality without hammering you over your head & heart. There is something of a natural beauty & glow in the oof transitions and bokeh of this lens that makes it very appealing. It's very kind to faces and in deep blacks, it still allows the light to dim in a graceful way. Objective, what the f... is that. Get a copy machine for an objective tool. The 35 pre is a lens for making art, not recording some garbage image reprinted in a newspaper. Get real. Most newspaper photographers don't produce art. They produce fungible garbage that is forgotten with seconds of it's first view. There are certainlt many supreme photojournalists that can effectively meld art & storytelling, but frankly the tools have little to do their skill & their images. 5 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hank Taylor Posted October 10, 2011 Author Share #18 Posted October 10, 2011 I couldn't disagree more. This is one beautiful lens. It could be TriX 400 at it's rated speed or pushed to 800 or 1600 for beautiful B&W night noir images, or nightime work with my m8, always wide open. This lens is not the false beauty of hyper sharp & overly contrast laden images from the 50 & 35 ASPH lenses that are all the rage. These images bear no emotional connection to reality. I find them absurdly false with no emotional underpinnings. Hell, why don't you just shoot an MFT chart. That might just be the epiphany for you. In B&W, my frames either in film or with my M8, are some of my favorites. They bridge the gap between wish & reality without hammering you over your head & heart. There is something of a natural beauty & glow in the oof transitions and bokeh of this lens that makes it very appealing. It's very kind to faces and in deep blacks, it still allows the light to dim in a graceful way. Objective, what the f... is that. Get a copy machine for an objective tool. The 35 pre is a lens for making art, not recording some garbage image reprinted in a newspaper. Get real. Most newspaper photographers don't produce art. They produce fungible garbage that is forgotten with seconds of it's first view. There are certainlt many supreme photojournalists that can effectively meld art & storytelling, but frankly the tools have little to do their skill & their images. Right on Ben, I was wondering when you would get into the discussion . Your points are always well taken. It's great to see someone who knows this lens and truly appreciates how fantastic it can be in the hands of an artist. ( however I'm not including myself in this category as an expert). Best regards Hank Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hank Taylor Posted October 10, 2011 Author Share #19 Posted October 10, 2011 Not only is this a great lens but learning is weakness can be turned into an advantage., I love its small size and the fact it doesn't attract attention allows me to work close to my subject without being detected Best regards, Hank 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! 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/163724-the-fantastic-pre-35mm-summilux/?do=findComment&comment=1814739'>More sharing options...
Hank Taylor Posted October 11, 2011 Author Share #20 Posted October 11, 2011 In an objective test, the pre-asph 35mm Summilux is an ordinary, unremarkable lens unless it is is stopped down to, say, F/5.6. At 1.4 people rave about it's 'glow' which I can find in other less expensive, 'inferior' lenses of the Seventies. It is time to get over the myth. And WTF is THIS in the original. A little Photoshoping I presume? What else was 'fixed'? Excuse me Pico, It would be interesting to know what lenses you prefer to use. As a matter of record, I don't really think it make a difference which lens a person uses if he(she) is only interested is talking about lenses. Show me some of your pictures please. Hank Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.