35mm Summicron ASPH or Pre-ASPH?

[j. white]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

After several years of using only a Tri-Elmar, I've been bitten by the Summicron bug. I've been shooting the 50mm (current version) and am quite taken by the difference those extra stops, and the smaller size make. It makes me want a 35 as well. I've read a number of comparisons between the two (many feel the ASPH is a "clinical" lens or the older versions are more "painterly"), but my question is: between the 35 ASPH and Pre-ASPH, which renders images closer in appearance or "fingerprint" to the 50?

 

Many thanks!

 

 

-J.

[Advertisement]

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

[simonpg]

J, both are excellent. But I bought the ASPH version after a 2 week trial with the pre-ASPH version - for only one reason.

 

I have relatively large hands and the pre-ASPH is quite a bit smaller in the hand and I found it annoying to focus. But the ASPH version is slightly larger and felt just right in my hand.

 

BUT, I agree with others who say the ASPH is clinical - it is higher contrast; but it renders detail throughout the field extremely well. So, on technical issues only the ASPH is marginally superior.

 

However, like you say, the pre-ASPH renders image more like the Summicron-M 50mm. I have that lens and it is my favourite - beautifully smooth with a lovely drawing throughout the field.

 

BUT, if you love the Summicron-M 50mm image rendering, I suggest you try the Zeiss ZM f2.0 35mm lens. It is wonderful and has that lovely not too clinical look.

 

In fact if Zeiss made the ZM f2.0 35mm when I bought my ASPH, I would have taken the Zeiss (and saved money!).

 

I mainly shoot Hasselblad 6x6 with Zeiss lenses and love the way Zeiss lenses perform. Zeiss is not "better" than Leica, just different - designed to a different brief.

 

So, you are right about how clinical the 35mm ASPH is and the pre-ASPH is more like the current 50mm 'cron; but you should consider the new ZM 35mm f2.0 as it is also excellent and more like the current 50mm 'cron in the way it renders images.

 

Good luck.

[cron]

try the ZM 2/35 !

 

I have this Zeiss-lens in use together with the Summicron 50 and Elmarit 24;

photographing most time with slide-film, this is a really fantastic combination in perfect harmony

[pemayeux]

There is a discussion going on about this on the M8 forum:

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/29964-35-lux-asph-vs-35-cron.html

 

I have the 35 'lux asph and there is nothing clinical about it. It is by far my favorite lens for not just low light performance, but also sharpness and contrast control in very bright sunlight.

[j. white]

Thanks for the replies all! Your insights have been most helpful.

 

I too have shot a Hasselblad for years and love the Zeiss lenses, at least on 6x6. But alas I found a deal on the ASPH 35 that I could not pass up and am going to give it a go. The example shots in the current M8 thread have given me more confidence in it than I'd had based on the many comments posted here and elsewhere.

[hankg]

I shot Hasselblad as well and love the Zeiss look. I tried the 35 Biogon and while it had the typical desirable Zeiss characteristics of edge to edge sharpness combined with smooth transition to a soft OOF area the lens was spoiled for me by excessive contrast. It would be great with color negative film but I would not use it for E6 (slide) film or digital except in flat overcast lighting.

 

It seems all the ZM lenses share this characteristic. If they had more moderate contrast I'd might be using the Zeiss lenses instead of Leica. The price performance ratio of the Zeiss is very attractive.

[pluton]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The current 35/2 will match the current 50/2 best among all the 35/2's. The previous 35/2(c.1979) is good, but has a pleasant veil of low contrast wide open---it's still usable, mind you!

The previous(c.196x?) 35/2 was the only one with 6 elements, and it shows...astigmatism is so un-corrected you can see it on a sharp 10X print!

The original 35/2 from the 50's-well, I've never had one, but some of those Ernst Haas shots from that time period have a fascinating look...

[Joop van Heijgen]

The current 35/2 will match the current 50/2 best among all the 35/2's. The previous 35/2(c.1979) is good, but has a pleasant veil of low contrast wide open---it's still usable, mind you!

The previous(c.196x?) 35/2 was the only one with 6 elements, and it shows...astigmatism is so un-corrected you can see it on a sharp 10X print!

The original 35/2 from the 50's-well, I've never had one, but some of those Ernst Haas shots from that time period have a fascinating look...

 

The 3rd type 35/2 summicron ('73-'79) has the fingerprints of the '50 lenses, but has the modern sharpness, without the 'too sharpness' of the actual 35/2!

 

It is leight 170 gr. and compact (near Summicron 2,0/40 CL)

 

Second hand the prices are at about €700,-

[think]

The current 35/2 will match the current 50/2 best among all the 35/2's. The previous 35/2(c.1979) is good, but has a pleasant veil of low contrast wide open---it's still usable, mind you!

The previous(c.196x?) 35/2 was the only one with 6 elements, and it shows...astigmatism is so un-corrected you can see it on a sharp 10X print!

The original 35/2 from the 50's-well, I've never had one, but some of those Ernst Haas shots from that time period have a fascinating look...

 

Both the V2 and V3 were 6 element configurations. Most descriptions of these 2 list them as the same optical formula with a change in handling...the little aperture flag was replaced with a more common ring on the V3. There are comments about, though, that the formula was tweaked on the third version. I'm not sure if that was ever verified by anyone at Leica.