01af Posted July 6, 2012 Share #21 Posted July 6, 2012 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) I can see what you mean with 'adds life without being distractive'—still I prefer the 11874's smoother out-of-focus rendition. From the back of my head I vaguely remember a bokeh comparison someone else did the other day between 11874 (original Summilux-M 35 Asph) and 11663 (current Summilux-M 35 Asph with floating elements) where the 11874's bokeh, at full aperture, also looked smoother than the 11663's. Unfortunately, the 11873 (Aspherical) was not included in that test. Now I wonder how the 11873 and the 11663 would compare in this regard ... By the way, if you want a smooth bokeh with a fast lens then stop it down a little. At one or even just half an f-stop down from wide open, bokeh usually is much nicher than at full aperture. So when testing lenses for their bokehs, it makes sense to check out more apertures than just the widest. Edited July 6, 2012 by 01af 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 6, 2012 Posted July 6, 2012 Hi 01af, Take a look here 35mm Summilux ASPH. vd 35mm Summilux ASPHERICAL. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
wparsonsgisnet Posted July 6, 2012 Share #22 Posted July 6, 2012 PS.... I will get the tripod out and blow up some image parts over the weekend I think that would be very helpful. In the first pair of pix, it appears to me that the ASPHERICAL version is blurred, so it's hard to compare properly. I see the difference particularly in the right edges of the bottles and in the bolt on the metal leg upright. The second set of images show a great deal of warmth and energy. Thanks for showing us the images from this lens. Does anyone know how many of the ASPERICAL version exist? Regards, Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
helged Posted July 6, 2012 Share #23 Posted July 6, 2012 Interesting indeed. I find the bokeh of the new 35 mm Summilux (11663) somewhat distracting for two reasons (at least at f1.4): Highlights get a disk-like look, as a blurred variant of out-of-focus highlights captured with mirror-lenses. Secondly, major out-of-focus structures tend to get surrounded by something looking like a ghost pattern. Two examples from yesterday may illustrate what I try to explain, both shot with 35 mm Summilux (11663) at f1.4 and with focus close to 0.7 m. For the highlights, see reflections in the lower right corner of the picture of the cat; for the ghost-like pattern, see the region between the persons body/arm (also the arm has a somewhat strange rendering, I think). This being said, the lens is sharp with lots of microcontrast. -Helge 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! 5 Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/183177-35mm-summilux-asph-vd-35mm-summilux-aspherical/?do=findComment&comment=2056904'>More sharing options...
Paul J Posted July 6, 2012 Share #24 Posted July 6, 2012 (edited) Interesting indeed. I find the bokeh of the new 35 mm Summilux (11663) somewhat distracting for two reasons (at least at f1.4): Highlights get a disk-like look, as a blurred variant of out-of-focus highlights captured with mirror-lenses. Secondly, major out-of-focus structures tend to get surrounded by something looking like a ghost pattern. Two examples from yesterday may illustrate what I try to explain, both shot with 35 mm Summilux (11663) at f1.4 and with focus close to 0.7 m. For the highlights, see reflections in the lower right corner of the picture of the cat; for the ghost-like pattern, see the region between the persons body/arm (also the arm has a somewhat strange rendering, I think). This being said, the lens is sharp with lots of microcontrast. -Helge I really like the bokeh and effects (ghosting etc) in these shots. Edited July 6, 2012 by Paul J Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted July 6, 2012 Share #25 Posted July 6, 2012 Does anyone know how many of the ASPERICAL version exist? Around 2000 I believe. There is currently one on ebay Leica M Summilux 1.4/35 mm #3461114 Aspherical E46 | eBay Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted July 6, 2012 Share #26 Posted July 6, 2012 Around 2000 I believe. There is currently one on ebay Leica M Summilux 1.4/35 mm #3461114 Aspherical E46 | eBay Hmm.... $17,000 bokeh... 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted July 6, 2012 Share #27 Posted July 6, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Around 2000 I believe. There is currently one on ebay Leica M Summilux 1.4/35 mm #3461114 Aspherical E46 | eBay I realise you're not necessarily advocating that members consider purchasing the lens at this price but I would personally be cautious of this vendor on the basis of another of his BIN auctions for a 'Leica SM Biotar', which is a Carl Zeiss Jena 7cm f/1.4 Biotar that he's offering for $12,550. He describes the lens as having "clean optics" yet the photos show all manner of nasties on the front element. Pete. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IWC Doppel Posted July 7, 2012 Author Share #28 Posted July 7, 2012 (edited) I did do a few shots to compare focus, a couple at F2.8. First shot in both cases the ASPHERICAL, the second ASPH. both at F2.8 ISO 500 and 1/60th. I wouldn't assess anything too significant into the sharpness as both focussed quickly by hand on a tripod and you will see I have just missed the bottle label on the ASPH. shot, that's the 'scary' back focus, both shots obviously very close. Ofcourse it could be my miss focus ! If you look carefully at the 7 on true '750ml' you will see the ASPH. is a little sharper, I have not noticed any focus shift with the ASPH in real life and shoot more at 1.4 where is is correct anyway. The only obvious difference is the colouring. Not visible on this size image but the ASPHERICAL does show a tad more 'pop' than the ASPH. on a larger image. Regarding the price of the ASPHERICAL, not sure if it helps or not but I was lucky enough to see one at a price I knew I wouldn't lose trying it out. Hence the reason for ownership, it certainly isn't 'worth' £10k for the improvement in Bokeh. I do really like it though.... At F2.8 there isn't much between these lenses IMO, but I still would choose the ASPHERICAL. It still hints at more depth and I like the colour 'density and tones'. I'll also try a few 'real shots' closed down a little and see how I get on 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! Edited July 7, 2012 by IWC Doppel Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/183177-35mm-summilux-asph-vd-35mm-summilux-aspherical/?do=findComment&comment=2057235'>More sharing options...
IWC Doppel Posted July 7, 2012 Author Share #29 Posted July 7, 2012 (edited) Physical size differences, ASPHERICAL weighs 335g with hood, 292g without. ASPH. weighs 348g with hood (12451) and 319g without. Sorry about relatively poor iPhone pictures It is word saying that the 12451 hood fits the ASPH. and I prefer this to the original hood, sorry if this confuses anyone ! 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! Edited July 7, 2012 by IWC Doppel Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/183177-35mm-summilux-asph-vd-35mm-summilux-aspherical/?do=findComment&comment=2057280'>More sharing options...
Paul J Posted July 7, 2012 Share #30 Posted July 7, 2012 I realise you're not necessarily advocating that members consider purchasing the lens at this price but I would personally be cautious of this vendor No not advocating at all just adding to conversation. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted July 7, 2012 Share #31 Posted July 7, 2012 Thanks for the comparison pics! 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mongrelnomad Posted July 7, 2012 Share #32 Posted July 7, 2012 For me it's the AA all the way. The bokeh has real pop and personality, but without overwhelming the image. It also renders subjects sharp but without that brutality of the most recent Leica lenses. I'd love one (and buy one) for a decent price from a trusted seller! 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
swamiji Posted July 7, 2012 Share #33 Posted July 7, 2012 (edited) For me it's the AA all the way. I don't understand. AA usually refers to Apochromatic Aspherical. Both of these lenses are Aspherical, but neither are Apochromatic. The only AA lenses that I am aware of are the 90mm, 75mm and now the 50mm. There is even a question to the effectiveness of having a Apochromatic Wide lens. Edited July 7, 2012 by swamiji Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted July 7, 2012 Share #34 Posted July 7, 2012 Nice comparison. It's rare to see results of the Aspherical. I'd, however, go for the Chateau Musar over Labouré-Roi. S-) I was waiting for a comment like that. Good for you. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted July 7, 2012 Share #35 Posted July 7, 2012 I don't understand. Some people simply feel an overwhelming, irresistible compulsion to invent their own names for things that already have a name. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IWC Doppel Posted July 7, 2012 Author Share #36 Posted July 7, 2012 I don't understand. AA usually refers to Apochromatic Aspherical. Both of these lenses are Aspherical, but neither are Apochromatic. The only AA lenses that I am aware of are the 90mm, 75mm and now the 50mm. There is even a question to the effectiveness of having a Apochromatic Wide lens. You are mostly correct Steve Huff amongst others refer to the ASPHERICAL as the double A, 'AA' as it has two aspherical surfaces. I will refer to it with its full name to avoid confusion 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted July 7, 2012 Share #37 Posted July 7, 2012 Perhaps this has been covered above, but I did not see it. So where does this leave lens #11870 (Summilux-M 35/1.4) in the mix? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted July 7, 2012 Share #38 Posted July 7, 2012 ...So where does this leave lens #11870 (Summilux-M 35/1.4) in the mix? 11870 were version 1 (1961-1966, silver with chrome front rim) and version 2 (1966-1995, black anodized) Summilux 35/1.4 pre-asph without goggles. So neither A nor AA there. What about PAWOG folks? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IWC Doppel Posted July 7, 2012 Author Share #39 Posted July 7, 2012 I do hope to try and compare to the FLE and I would love to try the pre asph 11870, but never have Sorry about any interesting comparison shots, it's beer batter for something nice and unhealthy, cooking in the kitchen in this weather Shot with the ASPHERICAL at F1.4 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! 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/183177-35mm-summilux-asph-vd-35mm-summilux-aspherical/?do=findComment&comment=2057530'>More sharing options...
gvaliquette Posted July 7, 2012 Share #40 Posted July 7, 2012 (edited) IWC, Thanks, I love this! Great opportunity to compare both lenses. Although Puts says that: "Generally this lens performs in an identical way as the ‘aspherical’-version. There are a few very subtle differences: the ‘asph’ version has on axis slightly lower contrast, but a more even performance in the field at apertures 1.4 and 2. From 1:2.8 both are equal in image quality." Clearly, you are showing that the lenses do not quite perform "in an identical way"! The next question is: Does anyone else have a 35 mm Summilux ASPHERICAL available to test against yours? Since the aspherical surfaces were ground by hand, how much variation is there from sample to sample??? Guy Edited July 7, 2012 by gvaliquette 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.