Pre-Lux 35 soft lens?

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Just acquired a Summilux 35 pre-asph from 1989 thanks to Jack Flesher's and other members' pics on this forum.

Not that soft at f/1.4 at first glance.

Prints look great, kudos for the advice guys.

(R-D1, 200 iso, f/1.4, 100% crop)

 

[fotografr]

It's a beautiful and much maligned lens. I love mine and the glow it produces when opened up.

 

Wonderful portrait, by the way!

[Advertisement]

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

[stunsworth]

LCT, that was my first Leica lens. Every time I see someone saying what a bad lens it is I look back to the photographs I took with it and wish I had never sold it.

[Guest malland]

Right LCT, who says one can't use wide-angle lenses for portraiture? I like the look better than the subsequent ASPH lens, although the latter could may be better for landscape — that is really a question.

 

—Mitch/Huahin

[lct]

Wonder if this 1989 copy is not sharper than earlier ones at full aperture?

Reminds me of my late Pre-Lux 50 which is far from being a soft lens contrary to what i've read here and there on the web.

[rosuna]

The pre-ASPH 50mm is very sharp wide-open at the center, but very soft at the borders. I suppose this is the "classical look".

[luigi bertolotti]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'll NEVER give away my Lux 35 chrome of 1960 !

[lct]

The pre-ASPH 50mm is very sharp wide-open at the center, but very soft at the borders. I suppose this is the "classical look".

Hi Ruben, not sure if there is only one pre-asph 50 my friend.

The one i used to use 20 years ago was rather soft but my current copy (from 1996) is obviously sharper.

Not as sharp as the 50 asph of course but i would say reasonably so in the center and not that soft at the borders.

I only shoot with APS-C digicams though.

Just shot this masterpiece for your possible edification (R-D1, 200iso, Pre_Lux 50, f/1.4, FF & 100% crop).

Would be sharper with your M8 surely.

 

http://tinyurl.com/rv7w/EPSN3400-afterweb.jpg

http://tinyurl.com/rv7w/EPSN3400-aftercropweb.jpg

[lars_bergquist]

The 35mm Summilux did not change optically from its introduction in 1962 to its demise in 1994-5. Coatings improved, but not general performance (contrary to some myths).

 

Wide open, contrast is low on center, decreasing to very low around the edges: fine detail does progressively vanish. There is much stray light, both in the forms of flare, of 'irradiation' (light areas 'eating away' at the dark ones) and of veiling glare, spilling over from highlight areas to much of the rest of the picture. Add lots of coma, and I often found it difficult to find any sharp detail at all even if focusing was perfect!

 

Performance is passable from f:4, good at f:8, though even here the Summilux handles stray light less well than a Summicron, especially a V.4 one. So the lens was in fact slower(!) than a V.4 Summicron, which can be used with confidence wide open, especially on the M8 which crops away some dubious corners.

 

I hated the lens and sold it. I bought the current ASPH Summilux, but even so, I have kept my V.4 Summicron, and use it.

 

The old man from the Age of Walter Mandler

[lct]

Lars, may i ask if you've owned or otherwise used a late pre-asph 35/1.4? If so, have you had the opportunity to compare it to an early copy actually?

[tomasis7]

I purchased recently the lens for my rd-1 also (Canada version #2.39 1970??)

 

For me, it looks quite soft at the widest aperture but the contrast improves drastically at f1.7 (half stop down). That's enough for me since we got PS/LR ASPH and CV40 bokeh turns off me so preasph was only alternative I had to get pictures with nice bokeh for my eyes

 

I'm far more interested for aesthetics than clinical sharpness so I'm very satisfied with the lens though I feel that focusing is quite stiff and it exhibits a bit more coma/flare at f1.4 than I'd like. I think that I gonna use f1.4 for special occasions (like as a softar) and f1.7 for more practical use.

 

I'm interested to see tests between two lens with different coatings. But as Lars said, I believe that it doesn't matter a lot for resolution since optical formula is unchanged. Maybe contrast goes up a bit with the improved coatings so it may appear to be sharper..

[rosuna]

Hi Ruben, not sure if there is only one pre-asph 50 my friend.

The one i used to use 20 years ago was rather soft but my current copy (from 1996) is obviously sharper.

 

I think the optical formula didn't change from 1962 to 2004 (?).

 

The R-D1 has a x1.53 crop factor, and this eliminates much of the suface covered by the light circle of the lens. On the other hand, sharpness depends on print size and any statement must be done in relative terms, of course.

[lct]

Of course any statement must be done in relative terms, Ruben, but it is interesting to share our personal experience in a forum like this IMO. Did you use a pre-asph 35 or 50 with your M8 or a film camera?

[rosuna]

I used a pre-APSH 50mm, loaned by a friend, on my M8, just for testing. I liked it a lot, but the fingerprint is very different to that of the ASPH version.

[lars_bergquist]

Lars, may i ask if you've owned or otherwise used a late pre-asph 35/1.4? If so, have you had the opportunity to compare it to an early copy actually?

 

My experience is of a late specimen. They say that the early ones are even worse, but Leitz did emphatically deny any optical change – it was always a seven-element modified double Gaussian, in fact very like the V.4 Summicron, which is puzzling. Any improvement is probably due to improved coating.

 

The old man from you know where ...

[lct]

Thanks guys. The different coating won't make me loose the famous 'glow' hopefully.

[Xavier Ray]

I'm glad you like the 35 v1 summilux. I used one for many years in some tough conditions and while it was the best at the time I can't say I miss getting rid of mine, I purchased it new in 1968 and used it on many PJ assignments including this assignement with president Richard Nixon in 1970. I did a shot in the stadium where he was speaking and fortunately shot with other lenses. The shot attached is at 1.4 and is a good example how harsh lighting with effectively point sources can wipe out an image using tha v1. I also found under some contrasty conditions that I would get secondary images ghosting in the image. Some can be seen is these examples. for those who have never experienced this you might find it interesting. This happened a number of times and after the first i always made certain to avoid this lens under these conditions.

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!

[lars_bergquist]

I think Xavier's contact chart says everything, doesn't it? This was exactly my experience too. All sorts of uncontrolled chance effects have been promoted as "art" nowadays, and that is all right with me, I'm just not into that end of the business.

 

The old man from the Age Before Coating

[lct]

Do you mean that you've got the same results with your late copy Lars?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[wizard]

Leica's double Gauss design 35mm lenses all appear to be somewhat flare prone. I have been told the 35mm Summilux "flares like mad", and while I do not own that lens, I do have a V4 Summicron 35mm. It is generally a very fine lens, certainly one of my sharpest Leica lenses, but what I dislike is its relative propensity to produce flare. I have had shots ruined by flare patterns similar to the ones shown above, and now take extra care when using this lens to avoid any unwanted strong light sources from hitting the front lens element.

 

Andy