35 Lux Asph vs. 35 Cron Asph vs. 35 Cron IV

[Chuck Hatcher]

Everybody likes to defend their champion, so I'll chime in as another pre-ASPH Summicron (IV) fan. In addition to its optical character, which will be debated from now on, there is its smaller size (not an inconsiderable advantage in my opinion), and the fact that you can get a good one for around $1000-$1200 or so. Mine is chrome, and I found it new in box along with new chrome 50 and 90 Summicrons and an M6 body, all disguised as a "collectible" LHSA 25th anniversary set. Collectible or not, it's all in everyday use now.

New retail for the 35 ASPH Summicron is $2295 and for the Summilux is $3395. Of course used prices for the newer lenses would be lower, but not that much lower!

Improvements in lens performance is commendable, but it's important to remember these improvements are incremental and typically minor, and the old glass still works as well as it ever did. Actually better than it ever did, now that you can put it on an M8.

[bill vann]

While having had to sell my kit for health reasons in looking at the posted shots it confirms why after trying a number of 35mm lenses, crons and luxes, I kept the V4.

on my M8 as well as my M6 it has the best OOF rendering to me, more so in print than on monitor and i always make final decisions on how they print up to 24x36"

Wish i could have figured out how to put it on something else when i had to change kits

bill vann

[norm_snyder]

Carsten--
Thanks for your effort, and getting going a useful discussion. I'll look forward to your continued experiment.

LCT--Thanks for posting the article. I had missed this, and it made for interesting reading. I, too, found that it confirmed some of my previous experiences. I wonder how some of the Nikon-S lenses I remember, but haven't owned or been around in years [Sold the SP years ago], like the original 105mm f2.5 would have fared.

NS

[tummydoc]

To me it's obvious: look at the fence posts in the background of the second series of shots. Note the smooth OOF of the Type IV, and the harsh double-image of the 2 ASPHS. The Type IV isn't called King of Bokeh for nothing

[Jack_Flesher]

Originally Posted by tummydoc

To me it's obvious: look at the fence posts in the background of the second series of shots. Note the smooth OOF of the Type IV, and the harsh double-image of the 2 ASPHS. The Type IV isn't called King of Bokeh for nothing

I agree. Pretty much all of the Leica M ASPH's have what I would call "clumpy" Bokeh. However, that said, I wiould add that IMO the two 35 ASPH's and the 28 Cron ASPH still have the best Bokeh of M ASPH's, and for whatever reason the clumpiness is not visibly present at closer subject distances...

The one lens Carsten is missing is the pre-ASPH Lux 35 -- a very different signature still -- I will try and grab some shots similar to his with mine and post them here for discussion later today...

[j. borger]

Another vote for the 35 cron IV ......i prefer it to my 35 cron asph by far .... not for the bokeh only, but for the much nicer tonalities in B&W .. especiallly stopped down.
I seriously consider selling the cron 35 asp ....

[innerimager]

Originally Posted by lightpainter

yep, there's a point, Peter, and with the M8, where the Lux asph becomes a 50mm lens, it's really nice to have the option of using the 1,4 stop for portraits or street shots to get the backgound a bit out of the way

Hi- I agree, and my basic lens on the M8 is the 35 lux asph, as my basic on the M7 is the 50 lux asph. Although I must say that lately, the 24 elmarit is nudging the 35 lux off the body more and more, but I'm shooting more landscape with it than I would the 35, which is more used for street and concert work best....Peter

[Jack_Flesher]

Here are some 35 Lux Pre-ASPH images. I attempted to make them similar enough to Carsten's for worthwhile comarison, but accept my appologies as they are not very; I had higher-contrast light and many more speculars. Hopefully they are of benefit nonetheless...

I think it is intresting to note the distinct signature differences in this lens between its f1.4 and f2 apertures at the far distance, as well as how different it is from each of the trio Carsten posted...

All shot with AWB, no IR filter, uncoded lenses and lens recognition off, ISO 320. In order they will be closer focus at f1.4 then same at f2, then distance focus at f1.4 then same at f2:

[carstenw]

Interesting pictures. That lens has really nice bokeh where it works, but it does get kinda nasty when it doesn't. It also has that old Leica glow wide open. I like that for some work. The 50 Lux Asph occasionally has a tiny bit of that, as does the 35 Lux Ashp, and of course, the 75 Lux and Noctilux. Most current M lenses don't have it though.

I wonder if I should do some B&W shots with these lenses. It might be interesting to compare the contrast, but then, I find that the best B&W results are not achieved without post-processing, so it would be hard to be fair.

[carstenw]

Now here is a case where the Lux stomps both the Cron IV and the Cron Asph in bokeh, both wide open, and also at f/2. The Cron Asph also comes out slightly better than the IV. This is probably a similar effect to what I noticed once upon a time a few weeks ago when I was playing with Holger's Cron IV at a cafe, and seeing wild bokeh from the IV.

I think it is worth noticing here that the IV does not always come out on top in the bokeh department, king or not. Even Mike Johnston notes this in his bokeh comparison. Great bokeh when it works, and it often does, but not always. The newer lenses do maintain their pose overall, even when they don't have as nice bokeh as the IV.

One must remember that Leica is not in the business of making worse lenses with time, nor do they renew a design until they think there is something major to be gained. Often the old lens is simply left in the dust, but at other times, the old lens then becomes the venerable lens, and performs better than the replacement *in some situations*! The 35 IV does have nice bokeh and nice contrast sometimes, but other times it is way out there.

Order is the same as always, for simplicity: 35/2 A @ f/2, 35/2 IV @ f/2, 35/1.4 A @ f/2, 35/1.4 A @ f/1.4.

.

[carstenw]

Here is a shot where the modern lenses outperform the older lens. In the lower corners, the IV loses contrast and precision significantly. You can see it slightly in these shots, but zoomed in, it is more noticeable. Note that I didn't say it gets soft, because it doesn't leave that impression, but the contrast is definitely low, and the structures there are just harder to make out.

Of course, you may *want* that effect. It would help to eliminate distracting detail in the corners, if you could somehow make sure that the distracting detail stayed in the corners.

The 35 Lux Asph does get rather a nasty flare here, but I am inclined to forgive it due to its larger front element. That is the sun shining through the glass near the upper-right corner. That is just hard to work around for a lens designer. I also think it may be the infamous "lens letter reflection off IR filter" problem, given the shape of the artifact.

Sequence: 35/2A - f/2, 35/2IV - f/2, 35LuxA - f/2, 35LuxA - f/1.4.

Btw, if someone is interested in crops, please let me know, and I will try to accomodate.

.

[carstenw]

Here is a shot where the main difference seen is the vignetting. Note that the 35 IV is coded, the 35/2A is hand-coded (yay me), and the 35/1.4A is hand-coded, but has lost its touch, and is therefore uncoded. It still has less vignetting.

Some may prefer a little vignetting. I think I do myself. Then again, I prefer to add it to taste, rather than having it forced on me.

35/2A - f/2, 35/2IV - f/2, 35/1.4A - f/2 35/1.4A - f/1.4.

.

[carstenw]

Although this is something which could easily be changed in post-processing, I do notice that the 35/2IV has a somewhat yellowish cast to it. I am equalising the WB here, and setting the exposure to get a similar look, but not touching anything else.

[Jack_Flesher]

Interesting that the red patch flare in th etunnel shots is worse in the ASPH's -- and way worse in the Lux, than the non...

And I hear you on the background oof speculars with my Pre-A 35 Lux... They can get ugly all over-lapped like that. However, when the subject distance is just a bit further out, or the sun isn't shining directly into the lens, those often get the whispy halos (like the boat flag) and look pretty cool. I'll try and add some examples of that after the sun gets a bit lower

[carstenw]

Jack, if I am right, and it really is the letters reflecting off the IR filter, as documented in another thread, then the IV has an advantage: the letters on the front of that lens are on an angle, whereas the newer lenses have the letters parallel to the filter! Still, the win goes to the IV on that count, regardless of the reason. Funny how things work out.

I would be very, very surprised if the older lens was more flare or glare or whatever resistant in general though. It doesn't seem to match what I am seeing in the other pictures. Point the older lens towards light, and the contrast goes visibly down. Not lethally so, but you can see it. The newer lenses are more robust in the face of such conditions, but as we have seen, not perfect.

[Jack_Flesher]

There are three types of flare -- and I don't know the proper scientific names, but from what I regularly see, there is a general lowering of contrast, like a haze across the entire image, then the whispy halo-ing around sources like the flag on the boat in my wide open Lux shot, then these color color streaks in line with the direction of the light. WIth those definitions, I agree with you the the newer lenses do a better job with the first two types, for sure. But for whatever reason, the streaky red reflections seem to be more prevalent in newer glass, regardless of who makes it. Personally, I think it is because there are perhaps more internal elements with the ASPH's? I don't really know.

You could test the filter effect by removing it and trying to repeat it...

Here is a shot from my Canon 16-35 zoom lens -- note the three street lighs in the background just below and right of center -- then note their red opposites up above the moon (link so as not to confuse the thread): Jack Flesher Gallery :: Prague :: 5

Cheers,

[carstenw]

Ah, I had a beer there once, a few years ago, before I dove back into photography with a vengeance:

http://realityblur.com/places/travel...der_church.jpg
http://realityblur.com/places/travel...rague/beer.jpg

I will try to get that flare again, and then re-shoot it without the filter. Here is a link to the thread which I referenced:

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-...artifacts.html

[Jack_Flesher]

Yeah, but you had the Pilsner Urquel... The Krusovice is far superior!

,

[carstenw]

That was only the first night, and I had much to learn. My friend Rob (in the photo) picked out the Pilsner Urquel. Krušovice did indeed end up being my favorite, and I still sometimes seek it out, even here in Germany. The dark one, of course! Search for Krušovice to find the relevant text near the end:

october 2002, praha (prague)

[dpattinson]

Originally Posted by carstenw

Jack, if I am right, and it really is the letters reflecting off the IR filter, as documented in another thread, then the IV has an advantage: the letters on the front of that lens are on an angle, whereas the newer lenses have the letters parallel to the filter! Still, the win goes to the IV on that count, regardless of the reason. Funny how things work out.

Here's how the Secret Service solved the problem of pesky lettering around the lens (not a leica, but a rather nice RF all the same): Plaubel Makina 67