w44neg Posted February 24, 2014 Share #1 Posted February 24, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) I picked up a Leica M9 the other day. It's my first camera of this type and already I adore it. I wanted to work my way into the system but I'm finding that I'm already getting into it, and I'd like the abilities a faster lens. The lens I came home with was the 35mm Summicron ASPH f2. It's optical quality has far surpassed even what I'd hoped for, but I find that I'm using it indoors quite a lot already and I'm starting to think I should try and swap it in for a Summilux f1.4 ASPH (floating element type) to get the extra stops. How does this lens perform wide open? The summicron appears to be very sharp at f2 so is the summilux going to be the same at its widest? In the past I've found lenses need to be stopped down to offer great sharpness but Leica seem to buck that trend of course. Any views and comparisons would be great Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 24, 2014 Posted February 24, 2014 Hi w44neg, Take a look here I picked up a Summicron... should I have gone for the Summilux?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
FrozenInTime Posted February 24, 2014 Share #2 Posted February 24, 2014 The 35mm Summilux ASPH ( mine is the non FLE ) is spectacularly good at f/1.4. Leica's MTF charts show the 35/1.4 at f/1.4 is as sharp as the 35/2 at f/2. file:///Users/donald/Downloads/New%20Summilux-M%2035%20mm%20ASPH%20Technical%20Data_en.pdf file:///Users/donald/Downloads/Summicron-M%2035%20mm%20ASPH%20Technical%20Data_en.pdf With the M9's modest high ISO performance every stop of light counts. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted February 24, 2014 Share #3 Posted February 24, 2014 I'd keep the Summicron and get the 50 Summilux ASPH. 9 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomB_tx Posted February 24, 2014 Share #4 Posted February 24, 2014 I've had Summicrons (35 & 50) with my M4 (later added M6) since 1969 and have always been happy I chose them instead of the faster lenses - due to both size and results. And that was through the film years where ISO 160-400 was high for available light. So when I hear about the M9 needing faster glass I roll my eyes. I find the M9 and Summicrons still well matched. 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted February 24, 2014 Share #5 Posted February 24, 2014 I'd keep the Summicron and get the 50 Summilux ASPH. +1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrozenInTime Posted February 24, 2014 Share #6 Posted February 24, 2014 (edited) If the OP is struggling with a 35/2, using a 50/1.4 under the same conditions can sometimes be worse: In low light, a 50mm Summilux can effectively be no faster than a 35mm Summicron - due to hand hold ability and camera shake being proportional to focal length. Indoors under domestic room lighting ISO 800 1/50s @f/1.4 with a 50mm lens or 1/30s @f/2 with a 35mm lens are not unusual conditions. Or alternatively, other than people sitting at a table, I would want faster shutter speeds to reduce motion blur. Using a 50mm instead of a 35mm increases likelihood movement tracking focus error due do the reduced depth of field. i.e. I find a 35/1.4 gives a me a stop advantage over a 50/1.4 in small group and family situations. Edited February 24, 2014 by FrozenInTime Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted February 24, 2014 Share #7 Posted February 24, 2014 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) Point taken FIT, but I think John and I were suggesting he expanding lens arsenal rather than replacing the 35 Summicron with the 35 Summilux. For that extra stop he could just push the ISO. The 50 Summilux ASPH renders quite beautifully and is also a vey versatile John would think similarly to me that that although the 35 Summilux ASPH it is an extraordinary lens with respect to resolution, it's rendering can be a bit sterile with ho-hum out of focus rendering. I have a love-hate relationship with it and find that it is one of my least used lenses even though 35mm is a very convenient focal length. I have considered a 35 Summicron or pre-ASPH 35 Summilux to replace it. Edited February 24, 2014 by MarkP 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rramesh Posted February 24, 2014 Share #8 Posted February 24, 2014 I started with the 35 Summicron. Got a 50 Summilux next and over time replaced the 35 Summicron with a 28 Summicron. Whether a 28 or 35 Summicron, the 50 Summilux would be a great companion. You will soon realize that with an M or M9, having multiple lenses is the way to go as each has its own unique advantages. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted February 24, 2014 Share #9 Posted February 24, 2014 I started with the 35 Summicron. Got a 50 Summilux next and over time replaced the 35 Summicron with a 28 Summicron. Whether a 28 or 35 Summicron, the 50 Summilux would be a great companion. You will soon realize that with an M or M9, having multiple lenses is the way to go as each has its own unique advantages. +1 You, John and I see the world through 28 & 50, another reason my 35 gets little use Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tobey bilek Posted February 24, 2014 Share #10 Posted February 24, 2014 Generally available light is poor quality that will not yield great photos no matter how fast the lens. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted February 24, 2014 Share #11 Posted February 24, 2014 ...How does this lens perform wide open? The summicron appears to be very sharp at f2 so is the summilux going to be the same at its widest? In the past I've found lenses need to be stopped down to offer great sharpness but Leica seem to buck that trend of course... Yes the main difference of Leica lenses lies in their sharpness at wide aperture. If you're happy with your 35/2 asph at f/2 you will have the same feeling with the 35/1.4 FLE at f/1.4. I just find the latter's bokeh harsher at f/2 than the 35/2 asph at the same aperture. Also the focussing action of the 35/1.4 FLE is not as butter smooth as non-FLE lenses like the 35/2 asph. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Marc G. Posted February 24, 2014 Share #12 Posted February 24, 2014 +1 +2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted February 24, 2014 Share #13 Posted February 24, 2014 OP Keep what you have. As others have said expand your FL on your next purchase. Rent a 24/1.4 just for the fun of using a pretty wide lens at 1.4. Easy to use. Then watch out for the GAS effect to take hold. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted February 24, 2014 Share #14 Posted February 24, 2014 It sounds like you already have GAS. As you've only just bought this camera and lens, may I suggest that you learn to master it first, then you will know if you really need a faster lens. It's only 1 stop - I know this can make the difference sometimes, but will it be enough times to warrant the faster (larger, heavier, more costly) lens? 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted February 24, 2014 Share #15 Posted February 24, 2014 (edited) i.e. I find a 35/1.4 gives a me a stop advantage over a 50/1.4 in small group and family situations. But there's likely inadequate depth of field at f1.4 for such casual group settings in low light unless shooting at or near infinity. For such photographs I would have thought that a slight reduction in image quality using higher ISO to increase shutter speed and reduce aperture would be less of an issue - so again the Summicron should be fine. Don't get me wrong. I have plenty of Summiluxes (including the 35 and 50) so I'm aware of their advantages and disadvantages, and at times I wish I had the Summicron. In this situation another lens may well increase the versatility of the OPs system. Edited February 24, 2014 by MarkP Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
w44neg Posted February 24, 2014 Author Share #16 Posted February 24, 2014 Thanks all, this has been really helpful. It sounds like you already have GAS. As you've only just bought this camera and lens, may I suggest that you learn to master it first, then you will know if you really need a faster lens. It's only 1 stop - I know this can make the difference sometimes, but will it be enough times to warrant the faster (larger, heavier, more costly) lens? I've had GAS a lot lately but with the M9 I had planned on just the one lens, hence me going for a 35mm as that's the most usable range for me at the moment. I was just simply thinking I may have gone for the wrong 35mm with the extra stop on the 1.4, but I suppose it is only 1 extra stop as mentioned above. I'll probably stick with my current setup :-) 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted February 24, 2014 Share #17 Posted February 24, 2014 Thanks all, this has been really helpful. I've had GAS a lot lately but with the M9 I had planned on just the one lens, hence me going for a 35mm as that's the most usable range for me at the moment. I was just simply thinking I may have gone for the wrong 35mm with the extra stop on the 1.4, but I suppose it is only 1 extra stop as mentioned above. I'll probably stick with my current setup :-) You have a fantastic combination - enjoy it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bideford Posted February 24, 2014 Share #18 Posted February 24, 2014 It sounds like you already have GAS. As you've only just bought this camera and lens, may I suggest that you learn to master it first, then you will know if you really need a faster lens. It's only 1 stop - I know this can make the difference sometimes, but will it be enough times to warrant the faster (larger, heavier, more costly) lens? +1 (if the OP really needs the extra stop on the 50mm then maybe consider a used screw mount CV 50mm 1.5 - smaller and lighter and much less expensive....). James Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StephenPatterson Posted February 24, 2014 Share #19 Posted February 24, 2014 I was just simply thinking I may have gone for the wrong 35mm with the extra stop on the 1.4, but I suppose it is only 1 extra stop as mentioned above. I'll probably stick with my current setup :-) No wrong or right answer here. One stop of light gathering ability is more of an issue with the M9 than the M240, but the look of the 35 Summilux ASPH wide open is something magical for me, and the reason I shoot this lens. I agree that the smart thing, considering the incredibly short amount of time you've had to experience the 35 Summicron ASPH, is to shoot it every day for six months. It's a great lens, and after six months you will 1) Know what to do, and 2) Hopefully have some amazing images to show for your work. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoySmith Posted February 24, 2014 Share #20 Posted February 24, 2014 Thanks all, this has been really helpful. I've had GAS a lot lately but with the M9 I had planned on just the one lens, hence me going for a 35mm as that's the most usable range for me at the moment. I was just simply thinking I may have gone for the wrong 35mm with the extra stop on the 1.4, but I suppose it is only 1 extra stop as mentioned above. I'll probably stick with my current setup :-) Good luck with that - I too started with the one lens goal - a 35mm cron. 4 years later I have 7 lenses ! 1 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.