SUMMILUX-M 35mm f/1.4 ASPH or SUMMICRON-M 35mm f/2 ASPH

[Maksarti]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello Dear Leica forum members,

 

I plan to buy my very first Leica (M240) in a few weeks, so I wondered what 35mm lens should I get. I have done some research but found very little information. Mr. Ken Rockwell (LEICA Lens Names) suggests that "The SUMMICRON is the best lens made by LEICA — or anyone — in any particular era.", "LEICA's f/1.4 SUMMILUX are ultra-speed lenses optimized for low-light photography. They are bigger, heavier and more expensive than the SUMMICRON, with slightly diminished optical performance.", "When LEICA decided to introduce a line of cheap lenses in 2007, it recycled the SUMMARIT name for these f/2.5 lenses." How true are those statements?

 

So basically I am choosing between SUMMILUX-M 35mm f/1.4 ASPH and SUMMICRON-M 35mm f/2 ASPH i guess?

 

What is your opinion on that topic?

[lct]

Welcome to the forum . You will find a lot of posts about this topic here. As a happy owner of (too) many 35mm lenses, i can tell you that all current models from Leica are very good to excellent. If you want a fast lens the Summilux 35/1.4 asph "FLE" is probably the best. If f/2 is OK for you, you'll have the choice between the Leica Summicron 35/2 asph and the Zeiss Biogon 35/2. And if f/2.5 or f/2.8 is enough for you, the Zeiss Biogon 35/2.8 and the Leica Summarit 35/2.5 have no serious competitors aside from the Voigtlander 35/2.5.

[Advertisement]

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

[pop]

Is there any particular reason for not considering the Summarit? Those are very sweet lenses which do not expose some of the shortcomings the others exhibit. Contrary to your source, those are not cheapies even if they are less expensive than the other ones you named.

[Mr_Jones]

Buy the 35 summicron. You can get some great examples second hand and it's an incredible lens. If you prefer 50mm you can crop the M240 files to begin with and find out how many you prefer cropped to that length.

 

I spent years assembling a kit of fast Leica lenses and Rockwell is right in some ways, the summicrons are a great balance of performance and weight.

 

For low light photography the M240 has amazing iso performance in comparison with previous digital M's and I prefer to use a flash for portraits in low light now that High Speed Sync is available on the M240/SF58.

 

I'm always surprised when shooting outdoors in good light, the lenses tend to be open around 5.6 the whole time and the summicrons make sense because the size and weight balances perfectly with the camera body. However if you want to experiment with macro and indoor photography the M might not be the best system to invest in.

 

Just my opinion formed by experience. I do like the 50 1.4 asph, it's my favourite lens but it is heavy and I rarely use 1.4. All the lenses perform better at smaller apertures and 1.4 is a very small depth of field for most photographic work.

[Guest Ansel_Adams]

I think all 3 Leica 35s are excellent. Image quality is not really a consideration - they are all great.

 

I would focus on:

 

1. Lens cost

2. Lens speed (max. aperture)

3. Lens size

 

In no particular order.

 

I chose the 35 Cron ASPH myself :-)

[Jennifer]

I think Ken full review of the 35 Cron was done at a time when Leica was still producing the pre FLE version Lux. If you read his full review of the newest Lux he enthuses similarly as to the Lux being "the best ever". That being said, having bought the 35 FLE Lux myself, I do seriously wonder whether the substantially smaller and lighter Cron, which by all accounts is an extremely fine lens, wouldn't have done 95% of what I use a 35 for just as well but at half the price.

[jcraf]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

.....That being said, having bought the 35 FLE Lux myself, I do seriously wonder whether the substantially smaller and lighter Cron, which by all accounts is an extremely fine lens, wouldn't have done 95% of what I use a 35 for just as well but at half the price.

 

You are correct. I have just sold my FLE and use the tiny v4 Summicron now for my 35 needs. I have owned the 35 Summicron asph in the past (twice) and it too is a stellar performer.

 

Don't get me wrong, the 35 Lux FLE is marvellous, but over £3.5k marvellous?

 

The little Summarit is also superb. The homepage photo on my Zenfolio site was taken with that lens.

 

Rockwell should be taken with a pinch of salt IMHO. His reviews are too sensationalist and uneven.

 

The must have FLE lens in the range is, again IMO, the 50' Lux. (Yeah, I know we're talking 35s here). My 35 FLE never delivered the magic of which the 50 is capable.

[250swb]

Put it this way, at f/5.6 you won't see a great deal of difference between them so your choice is down to other considerations.

 

So take with a pinch of salt those who say a particular lens is fantastic just because the own it (they often need to reassure themselves it was the right choice) and choose based on what you envisage using it for. So if you don't like basing your photography around most of it being out of focus (bokeh) you don't need a fast lens to use wide open, but if you do like the idea of a small and compact lens then a slower lens could be ideal.

 

Steve

[Al_OOF]

I can speak from personal experience only about my 35 summilux asph (not FLE) that is the lens I love the most among mine and I think the best compromise for a picture with an excellent sharpness and contrast without being too harsh.

At 1.4 it seems to be able to add light where it is flat and without much life.

I did some tests, for curiosity, with the 35 Summicron of a friend of mine. A rather fast test but the impression is that they are very, very similar.

Perhaps the Summicron has a slightly higher contrast while the summilux a slightly higher micro-contrast but I did not have enough evidence to say for sure.

[cirke]

I do like the 50 1.4 asph, it's my favourite lens but it is heavy

heavy the 50mm Summilux ?? :eek:

[Mr_Jones]

heavy the 50mm Summilux ?? :eek:

 

I have the chrome version, it's heavy compared to the other lenses in my travel kit 28/2.8 35/2 90/4.

[Jennifer]

heavy the 50mm Summilux ?? :eek:

 

Well, relatively speaking it is. 335gms for the black Lux as against 240gms for the black Cron.

[JeffWright]

Hello Dear Leica forum members,

 

I plan to buy my very first Leica (M240) in a few weeks, so I wondered what 35mm lens should I get. I have done some research but found very little information. Mr. Ken Rockwell (LEICA Lens Names) suggests that "The SUMMICRON is the best lens made by LEICA — or anyone — in any particular era.", "LEICA's f/1.4 SUMMILUX are ultra-speed lenses optimized for low-light photography. They are bigger, heavier and more expensive than the SUMMICRON, with slightly diminished optical performance.", "When LEICA decided to introduce a line of cheap lenses in 2007, it recycled the SUMMARIT name for these f/2.5 lenses." How true are those statements?

 

So basically I am choosing between SUMMILUX-M 35mm f/1.4 ASPH and SUMMICRON-M 35mm f/2 ASPH i guess?

 

What is your opinion on that topic?

 

Personally, I'd recommend you pick up a used, current version, 6 bit coded 35 summicron or summarit. Use it for awhile, make sure you like the "rangefinder experience" without committing as much money. You'll be able to sell a used 35 summicron or summarit for close to what you pay for it. The Summilux loses 10%-20% of it's value the minute it walks out of the dealer's door if you buy it new.

[Maksarti]

Thank you everyone for your advice, i was yesterday at Leica and decided to go with SUMMICRON-M 35mm f/2 ASPH because I loved it, seriously! For me it is not only about quality but also and about feel, I loved how it is portable but at the same time powerful!

Now i need to choose a 50mm lens, I tired 3 they had but the seller was to confusing, I didn't get to try all different types because it became too uncomfortable for me to be there

 

I looked at SUMMICRON-M 50mm f/2 and it was interesting, but it is out of stock or on preorder. The salesman also sad they have a older one, but he didn't show it to me for some reason, what he meant by older one? Also had no chance to try out SUMMILUX-M 50mm f/1.4 ASPH. what is your opinion on those lenses?

 

Just to clarify I am interested in Leica lenses only, I might look at Zeiss and Voigtländer later on.

 

Thank you.

[Guest Ansel_Adams]

Congrats on your new lens. Great choice. The Summicron is such a great lens. I would start a different thread about the 50s - that way you will probably get more feedback. I think the 50 Summicron is also a great option, a nice glance in terms of speed, size and price. Perhaps the store was referring to the version III or IV summicron? The IV is the same optically as the current version V. The 50 Summilux is a stellar lens also, but bigger and more expensive. You cannot go wrong with either.

Edited July 7, 2014 by Ansel_Adams

[lct]

I looked at SUMMICRON-M 50mm f/2 and it was interesting, but it is out of stock or on preorder. The salesman also sad they have a older one, but he didn't show it to me for some reason, what he meant by older one? Also had no chance to try out SUMMILUX-M 50mm f/1.4 ASPH. what is your opinion on those lenses?

Older means second hand i guess.

The Summilux-M 50/1.4 asph is probably the best 50/1.4 todate but it is significantly bulkier than your Summicron 35/2 asph.

The Apo-Summicron-M 50/2 asph is said to be the best 50 ever made but it is difficult to find out and is not affordable to everybody. I have no experience with it though.

The Summicron-M 50/2 is a very good lens which offers probably the best compromise for its size but competition is harder here. The Zeiss Planar 50/2 is a better performer but it is significantly taller.

 

Black Summilux-M 50/1.4 asph: 53 x 54mm, 335g

Black Apo-Summicron-M 50/2 asph: 47 x 53mm, 300g

Black Summicron-M 50/2: 44 x 53mm, 240g

Black Zeiss Planar 50/2: 68 x 52mm, 230g

LeicaM_5014a_tech.pdf

LeicaM_5020a_tech.pdf

LeicaM_5020_11826_tech.pdf

[microview]

I have the chrome version, it's heavy compared to the other lenses in my travel kit 28/2.8 35/2 90/4.

 

I agree: I bought a limited edition 1960s pre-asph 50mm Summilux (silver, focus to 3ft only) as I have preferred pre-asph to three examples of the Summilux ASPH I have owned, but it's a dead weight to go out with, on the M. I think my Canadian 50mm Summicron is marginally sharper (now it's been serviced by Malcolm Taylor, that it) and certainly a lot lighter!

Edited July 7, 2014 by microview

[rirakuma]

The pre asph 50 lux may compliment your 35 very nicely. There's so many different rendering in the 50mm focal length so you're pretty spoilt for choice. If you love modern or technically superb lenses then the 50 lux asph is undoubtedly one of the best. 50 cron v4/v5 is another strong contender but it does not render like the lux so you should keep that in mind. If you want the classic mandler look I would recommend the pre asph lux which is relatively cheap if you're willing to wait for a good deal.

 

Thank you everyone for your advice, i was yesterday at Leica and decided to go with SUMMICRON-M 35mm f/2 ASPH because I loved it, seriously! For me it is not only about quality but also and about feel, I loved how it is portable but at the same time powerful!

Now i need to choose a 50mm lens, I tired 3 they had but the seller was to confusing, I didn't get to try all different types because it became too uncomfortable for me to be there

 

I looked at SUMMICRON-M 50mm f/2 and it was interesting, but it is out of stock or on preorder. The salesman also sad they have a older one, but he didn't show it to me for some reason, what he meant by older one? Also had no chance to try out SUMMILUX-M 50mm f/1.4 ASPH. what is your opinion on those lenses?

 

Just to clarify I am interested in Leica lenses only, I might look at Zeiss and Voigtländer later on.

 

Thank you.

[Al_OOF]

in my experience I have gained these impressions:

Summicron 50 III; excellent sharpness and pictorial in the sense of more dense colors (acrylic? ...), very enjoyable - 50 summilux pre asph; pictorial, in the sense of colors more transparent and lighter than with Summicron but they seem more accurate. Just shades but noticeable.

First two diaphragms are a bit soft but then sharpness is well above the average requirement with great finesse of detail.

Compared to the Summilux, the cron seems to me that, under certain lighting conditions, doesn't differentiate well the lights by mixing a little the nuances.

I have compared the 50 lux pre vs aspherical only in low light condition (shop with neon) and in the latter it seems evident the absence of a "veil" or slight color cast that I have in the pre.

In short, the colors are purer and this resultes in a feeling of greater contrast, but not much more.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Three Legged Cat]

As a very novice photographer who was new to Leica last Summer, I had the same dilemma with my first lens: 35 or 50? Lux or Cron? Something completely different?! As I had little experience and no set agenda - I didn't know whether I wanted to focus on 'street' landscape or portraiture initially - in the end I had to just 'start somewhere', so went for the 35 cron. I found it small & discrete, easy to use, it performed beautifully, and it helped build my confidence and get me off to a flying start with my M240.

 

I've since added other lenses, but personally I was glad to start with this lens as it was easy and satisfying to use from day 1.

 

Just my opinion, but I hope this helps...