35 Summicron 8-element vs ASPH

[james.liam]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Might have a chance at getting one or the other at about the same price (~€1600). I'm shooting film only (unless I rent a Monochrome or other digital M). Obviously the older version has lower contrast and such but those of you who have or have used both, any insight and recommendation is appreciated.

[elgenper]

I have both. The 8-element (aka ´V1´) was used with my old M2, the Asph was acquired at the same time as my M9 (now I use only digital, so haven´t tried the Asph with film).

 

I feel the old V1 is a beauty, and noticeably smaller and lighter than the Asph. Only thing is, using V1 wide open is just too soft for my taste; the Asph is very good even at f/2. From 2.8 - 4 or so, while the old one is somewhat ´gentler´, there is really not much difference in detail (contrast is lower, of course, which can be an asset in contrasty light).

 

In short, I bought the Asph for its superior performance wide open. If I hadn´t needed the speed, there would have been no reason to get the new one, really. That said, if I had had neither and been offered both at about the same price, I would certainly have chosen the Asph.

[Advertisement]

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

[james.liam]

Appreciate the detailed response. Your arguments are compelling. I think I will opt for the ASPH, focus shift and all

Edited August 16, 2013 by james.liam

[tobey bilek]

Appreciate the detailed response. I think I will opt for the ASPH, focus shift and all

 

Good decision. 8 element is mostly hype

[Ivar B]

The 8-element high pricing is determined by its relative rarity and collector interest. I have one in my collection but unless you are interested in "special effects" such as a bit of flare at the wider f stops and generally soft rendering, this lens is hardly a user lens any more, at the very least not digital.

 

The 8-element and the ASPH lenses are so different they are hardly relevant candidates if you need to chose a 35mm lens.

[biglou]

Could happen you have a sub par one Ivar.

I own about all the 35mm made by Leica and this one is at the top for definition of details.

What it lacks a very little bit comparing with modern glass is some " sparkle " and clarity of colours, some contrast.

This explains why the prices are still high for a not so rare lens.

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

...

I think I will opt for the ASPH, focus shift and all

Focus shift? Never seen this with the 35/2 asph so far.

[james.liam]

Focus shift? Never seen this with the 35/2 asph so far.

 

So is the word from both Sean Reid and Lloyd Chambers. Slight rearward shift stopped down beyond f/2.8. Negated by f/8 because of DOF but allegedly making focus at f/5.6 unreliable.

[lct]

I repect all those good people but it is not my experience, that's all i can say.

[james.liam]

I repect all those good people but it is not my experience, that's all i can say.

 

Fair enough.

[Jon Pop]

Although Ken Rockwell is highly opinionated (I'd argue Sean Reid and others are too...I think they had a bad sample b/c I've never seen or heard of shift in the 35 Cron), he has a very good technical comparison of all versions of the 35 Summicron. This was an attempt, useful I thought, to cut through the various mythologies and legends about the various models. He has test shots taken with each version. Check it out, may be helpful.

[Jean-Michel]

Hi,

I use a 1962 Canadian-made Summicron with goggles on my M9. I originally purchased this lens to go on my M4 and used it on my M3 and M6. I wanted the goggles so that I could use the M4's 50 mm frame since I wear glasses. I am more than happy with the results with my M9 -- note that there is a marked difference in rendering between f/2 and f/2.8 or smaller, the difference with the M9 is much more pronounced than the difference seen when using film. At f/2, images tend to require a bit more adjusting in Lightroom for contrast and clarity.

Jean-Michel

[Falstaff]

Focus shift? Never seen this with the 35/2 asph so far.

 

My experience also.

 

Falstaff

[Simey]

I have both. The 8-element (aka ´V1´) was used with my old M2, the Asph was acquired at the same time as my M9 (now I use only digital, so haven´t tried the Asph with film).

 

I feel the old V1 is a beauty, and noticeably smaller and lighter than the Asph. Only thing is, using V1 wide open is just too soft for my taste; the Asph is very good even at f/2. From 2.8 - 4 or so, while the old one is somewhat ´gentler´, there is really not much difference in detail (contrast is lower, of course, which can be an asset in contrasty light).

 

In short, I bought the Asph for its superior performance wide open. If I hadn´t needed the speed, there would have been no reason to get the new one, really. That said, if I had had neither and been offered both at about the same price, I would certainly have chosen the Asph.

 

I'll second this. I had a v1 8 element 35mm for my first 10 years of shooting Leicas. It was sharp in terms of resolution but a bit soft and wide open it flared like crazy at any aperture. In the early 2000s I sold it (for quite a nice price) and picked up an asph. IMHO it's a much better lens, especially wide open. The bokeh is probably better on the older lens but a 35 isn't really a bokeh kind of lens.

 

The bottom line is that I don't see the point of a rangefinder lens with a maximum aperture that I am reluctant to use - it's not like I need it for focusing.

[james.liam]

I've resurrected this moribund thread to re-pose the question. I have recently shifted over to an M Monochrom from film and am collecting experienced-based opinions on the 8 element vs ASPH. Hype?

[IWC Doppel]

There was an interesting comparison shown recently and the colouring of the 8 element was very appealing, it's on my want list.

 

I'd look at the 35 MkIV as the resolution is remarkable and can surprise if stopped down a little it also has incredible depth (that Leica 3D) at f2.8,4 particularly f4. I bet this would be stellar on the MM

[Stein K S]

Although Ken Rockwell is highly opinionated (I'd argue Sean Reid and others are too...I think they had a bad sample b/c I've never seen or heard of shift in the 35 Cron), he has a very good technical comparison of all versions of the 35 Summicron. This was an attempt, useful I thought, to cut through the various mythologies and legends about the various models. He has test shots taken with each version. Check it out, may be helpful.

 

Hi

I too found the Ken Rockwell comparison (35 crons v1 through asph) very interesting. In short it confirms my only (but also major) complaint about my 35 cron v4... the corner sharpness, which in my opinion can "ruin" the wrong picture... All previous 35 crons seems to show the same behaviour while asph (obviously) show a giant sharpness improvement in the corners from wide open and also when stopped down.

One other observation can be that the 8-element v1 could appear to be the sharpest in the centre at f2,8 and at f4,0... even sharper than the asph...?

 

Probably nothing new to you guys, but anyway

 

 

PS: I own the 35 cron v4 and the 35 lux asph pre-fle and think I have the best from "both worlds"... Comments?

 

Regards, Stein

[james.liam]

It seems to me that there is a penalty to the latest designs that feature much improved wide-open performance compared to their elders, similarly seen in the latest non-APO 50 Summicron and that is focus shift at the mid-apertures.

[lct]

As far as my samples are concerned, the 35/2 asph has no significant focus shift whilst the 35/2 v4 has some but perhaps the reviewers you trust say otherwise, i don't know.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[gyoung]

I bought a goggled 35 Summicron with my M3, in '68 it was by far the best 35mm lens available for any 35mm camera and any others as fast as f/2 were very few and far between.

I bought an asph 35 Summicron for my M6ttl about 10 years ago. Both on film and on my Nex 6 its much sharper than the v1 8 element at the larger apertures, such is progress!

 

Gerry