35mm Summicron ASPH worth it?

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Is there a big difference between this one and the summarit?

The Summarit may have less tendency to flare or focus shift, which the Summicron may exhibit to a small degree.   For practical purposes, in my prints, the Summicron has served well over a long term.

 

Only you can tell if 35 is your cup of tea... or how lenses compare for your needs and tastes.   Best to try and see.

 

Jeff

[Guest]

Hi Stephen,

 

For my opinion absolutely yes. I have bought mine three years ago and I love it. You could spend a lifetime shooting with this 35mm lens and never need another. It's always sharp, even wide open, even in the corners, at any distance.

 

Try and see this amazing lens

[Advertisement]

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

[mujk]

Yes, if you can afford it, the Summicron 35 ASPH is definitely worth it. It's my most used lens on the M9 and produces very sharp and contrasty pictures, also wide open. Some people even think it's too contrasty and that the last non-ASPH version has a nicer bokeh. Don't know. I have only compared it to a Zeiss Biogon 35, and of these two the cron definitely has more (micro)contrast. It's probably sharper too, at least wide open.

 

The cron 35 ASPH is also quite different from the cron 50, both mechanically and optically. The 50 has a different focussing ring, a built-in hood. It has a bit less contrast, but in my opinion a very nice bokeh, which is of course more visible because of the shallower dof (compared to the 35 at the same aperture).

 

I have not had any problems with flare on the 35 when using the standard square hood.

 

Markus

[wpm]

I've enjoyed reading all of the comments. I recently bought a 35 summicron asph with a hood that fell off at will. I sent it to Leica in New Jersey, who were very responsive. 

They fixed the problem in a timely manner and the hood is firmly attached and both the aperture ring and focusing ring have the right amount of resistance for my taste.

I've just today bought a new 35 summilux asph fle, as there was always something about it that I liked. I'm just beginning to explore it and will compare it with the summicron.

I'm not in a position to keep them both, so it'll be interesting. The 'cron does seem to be a bit more contrasty than I am used to. Not better or worse, just more. Don't know if

that will make me keep it or not. For those with loose hoods on 'crons under warranty, there is a solution.

[adespen]

I use the round metal hood as I misplaced the square cover several times. It cost me $55 to replace in LA, So it now stays back in its box while I am very happy with an imitation metal silver round hood. My 35 is chrome and my 50 is black. I thought I was a 50 Cron person but the 35 Cron is the one lens I have with me as I meander through Italy on my way to Paris.

it is a wonderful lens with no flare that I noticed and incredibly sharp too.

Happy as Larry here.

Edited May 3, 2015 by adespen

[wlaidlaw]

That small square of plastic for the 35 ASPH Summicron lens hood must be the world's most expensive per gram. I assume it must come from the same people who sold the US Army, "Composite Material, Variable Impact Tool, Manual Operation, for Single Person Use" (a hammer) at $1200 per item. I thought I was in the market for one, as I lost mine last week-end. Luckily my brother found it in the rear seat well of the classic car I had been driving. The price seemed very variable as well. French dealers have it between €55 and €25. US dealers seem to want $55 and Ffordes in the UK have it at £22-50. 

 

Wilson

[albertospa]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have much to say about the Summicron 35 asph, I used it for about two years but I never liked it, produces a striking magenta cast, high contrast with very dark shadows. It seems very clear because it is very contrasted but the definition is actually just enough. I finally bought a Summicron 35 V4 which I find better for various reasons, this has a very correct color response, a very modulated contrast, the definition in the center is higher than the aspherical model and it have a very nice bokeh. This explains the reason the shops are full of Summicron 35 asph used! 

[wlaidlaw]

I have much to say about the Summicron 35 asph, I used it for about two years but I never liked it, produces a striking magenta cast, high contrast with very dark shadows. It seems very clear because it is very contrasted but the definition is actually just enough. I finally bought a Summicron 35 V4 which I find better for various reasons, this has a very correct color response, a very modulated contrast, the definition in the center is higher than the aspherical model and it have a very nice bokeh. This explains the reason the shops are full of Summicron 35 asph used! 

Admittedly I have only been using my 35 ASPH Summicron for around two months but I have looked back at the photographs I have taken with it and cannot find a single one with a magenta cast. I took a series of a car collection inside a pale grey walled building, all with the 35 Summicron, as that happened to be the only lens I had with me. If anything was to produce or show a magenta cast, that would. I have even hovered a colour eye dropper over the pale grey and it is close to neutral on the RGB numbers.

 

Yes it is a very contrasty lens and if I was to look for a lens to use on black and white film, I would probably choose either my 35 ASPH Summilux or more probably my 40mm Summicron C. With digital it is so easy to extract detail from the shadows with either a shadow slider or playing around with the curves/levels on the DNG, that it is just not a problem. If I were to be taking a series of photos with this lens inside a dark historic building, that might be one of the very few times I would opt for uncompressed rather than compressed DNG, as I think you get fractionally better shadow recovery from the uncompressed than the compressed DNG's but it is marginal. Mind you for that situation, I would more likely opt for the 35 Summilux or 50/.95 Noctilux than the 35 Summicron.

 

As someone who bought an ex-demo Summicron 35 ASPH just a few months ago, I can tell you there are very few late/mint condition, coded second hand ones around in Europe. I ended up buying an ex-display one from Leica Montmartre. 

 

I regret to say from when I talk to other Leica users about this lens, you seem to be out on a bit of a limb not liking the 35mm ASPH Summicron. When I mentioned I was thinking of getting one to have a lighter alternative to my very heavy chrome/brass 35 Summilux and a better lens than my 40mm Summicron C, everyone I spoke to said "go for it, it is a wonderful lens". Everything I have seen of it since buying it, bears this out. The only adverse comments I got were that some examples can suffer from aperture shift and it is slightly prone to flare but then many Leica lenses are in comparison to Zeiss ZM lenses, which seem virtually flare proof. 

 

Wilson

[Mornnb]

Yes it is a very contrasty lens and if I was to look for a lens to use on black and white film, I would probably choose either my 35 ASPH Summilux or more probably my 40mm Summicron C. With digital it is so easy to extract detail from the shadows with either a shadow slider or playing around with the curves/levels on the DNG, that it is just not a problem. If I were to be taking a series of photos with this lens inside a dark historic building, that might be one of the very few times I would opt for uncompressed rather than compressed DNG, as I think you get fractionally better shadow recovery from the uncompressed than the compressed DNG's but it is marginal. Mind you for that situation, I would more likely opt for the 35 Summilux or 50/.95 Noctilux than the 35 Summicron.

 

 

 

 

 

Wilson

 

The Summarit 35mm is more contrasty than the Summicron. This makes it a great lens for B&W on digital and it is my go to lens for street photograph, as it gives very rich looking black and white photos, is extremely flare resistant and looks tiny and unthreatening.

[albertospa]

Wilson I'm happy for you if you are satisfied with your 35 Cron aspherical. I have tried my lens with two other specimens and the performance was similar, indeed one of the three samples was even lower by definition (the dealer took it over and changed it because the problem was obvious). There are many opinions on this forum and on the net who agree with my opinion. However, it is always difficult to judge a lens because each feature can be bad for me and for others positive. But if you photograph the same subject with the 35 Cron asph and with another 35 mm you can see that the picture made with 35 cron asph has a magenta tone.

Edited May 30, 2015 by albertospa

[250swb]

But if you photograph the same subject with the 35 Cron asph and with another 35 mm you can see that the picture made with 35 cron asph has a magenta tone.

 

We are indeed in a new era of photography. Once upon a time contrast and colour cast would be adjusted in the darkroom or in digital post-processing as a normal means of adjusting the image to how you want it to look, but nowadays the answer is to buy a new lens.

 

Steve

Edited May 30, 2015 by 250swb

[wlaidlaw]

We are indeed in a new era of photography. Once upon a time contrast and colour cast would be adjusted in the darkroom or in digital post-processing as a normal means of adjusting the image to how you want it to look, but nowadays the answer is to buy a new lens.

 

Steve

Yes given how accurate (cough cough) Leica's AWB is, setting a white/grey point is so routine in C1, that I barely realise I am doing it. Just out of interest I have taken two images one with the 35 ASPH Summicron and one with the 35 ASPH Summilux at f4 fixed colour temperature of 5000ºK on a tripod. Can you tell (without cheating and looking at the EXIF's) which was the Summilux and which the Summicron? I had to correct the exposure, as for some reason one lens was a fraction darker than the other but otherwise no corrections. If there is one with a magenta cast, I can't see it. 

 

Wilson

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 May 30, 2015 by wlaidlaw

[honcho]

....If there is one with a magenta cast, I can't see it. 

 

Wilson

 

It could be hidden behind the strong cyan cast in your two comparison images.

 

35 summicron asph is a fine and versatile lens.  I wouldn't be without it.

[wlaidlaw]

It could be hidden behind the strong cyan cast in your two comparison images.

 

35 summicron asph is a fine and versatile lens.  I wouldn't be without it.

A cast is pretty much inevitable if you are locking the colour temperature to avoid the camera compensating for a colour cast in a lens by changing the applied colour temperature. As I am pretty confident that my 35 Summicron has no significant magenta cast, I was not going to spend hours trying different fixed colour temperatures, looking for a neutral result. 

 

Wilson

[honcho]

Well there you go. 250swb already made the point about correct pp (and RA4 printing, for that matter) when it comes to dealing with 'colour casts'.  Introduce one yourself and you will be dealing with it later. Or not.

[BjarniM]

Hi, I'm currently in the market for a 35mm lens. I own a 50mm Summicron and a voigtlander 21mm.

 

is the 35mm Summicron ASPH worth it? Does it flare a lot? is there a big difference between the 50mm and 35mm?

 

Is it worth it?

Well, that depends on how you define things. I can only speak for my self. I shoot portraits, concert photography, landscape and architecture and for me, it's absolutely worth every penny, even though you could buy two Canon L lenses for the same price as the Summicron.

 

Coming from a DSLR system, which was heavy lugging around for a whole day, it's a joy to use such a small, light and compact lens as the Summicron 35 mm ASPH that delivers such a outstanding image quality.

 

My copy of the lens is dead sharp, free of distortion (almost), great contrast and renders colours beautiful and has such a nice character. No, it's not a zoom, but i use my feets to get what i want in the frame.

 

I have enlarged pictures up to 60 x 90 centimeters, and they are just as perfect as they could be. If they aren't sharp, it's either because the subject was out of focus or because i have used too slow shutter times. The lens never lets me down, and i mean never.

 

Does it flare a lot?

No, not that i have noticed after using it extensively for almost a year now. I don't think it flares more then my Canon L lenses i did own and use before i switched to Leica.

 

Is there a big difference between the 50mm and 35mm?

I can not tell you since i don't own a 50 mm Leica, "only" two 35 mm Summicrons. But i can tell you, that the 35 mm is so good, that you will not have any problems cropping a 50 mm picture shot with the 35 mm.

 

But here you would have to consider depth of field and bokeh, which isn't the same for 35 and 50 mm, and that the 50 mm can fill small subjects better in the frame than the 35 mm because they both have 0.7 meters as the closest focus.

Edited May 30, 2015 by BjarniM

[algrove]

Wilson

I seem to be seeing more contrast in image 1. If the Cron is more contrasty than the lux then #1 is the cron.

[lct]

I own both 35/2 asph and 35/2 v4 as well and did like the later a lot since the eighties but the 35/2 asph has less flare, less focus shift, is significantly sharper, especially at f/2 and f/2.8, and has no color cast per se in my experience at least. It is just more contrasty such as some colours like red and magenta may look too saturated if one doesn't reduce contrast and/or saturation in PP, especially with raw converters having some overcooked red and/or magenta tones in their default settings. As for bokeh, that of the 35/2 asph is indeed more contrasty such as it is sometimes, but not always, harsher than that of the 35/2 v4 but it is generally smooth at f/2, more so there than that of my 35/1.4 FLE. Besides, the Summarit 35/2.5 is also a contrasty lens with generally smooth bokeh and has somewhat less flare than the 35/2 asph but it is softer in borders and corners at f/4 and below so i use it mainly on crop cameras.

[wlaidlaw]

Wilson

I seem to be seeing more contrast in image 1. If the Cron is more contrasty than the lux then #1 is the cron.

Lou, 

 

I would agree and you are correct. I was surprised how evident the extra contrast was. I suppose I should not be, as I changed from a 35/2 ZM Biogon to the Summilux and immediately noticed the reduction in contrast. I suspect the 35 Biogon is even contrastier than the 35 ASPH Summicron. Its problem is that it is soft at the corners at f2, the thought being that Zeiss was pushing the envelope in taking a Biogon to f2. Given that they already had a 35mm/f2 rangefinder lens in the super sharp 35/2 Planar G, it seemed an odd decision to opt for the Biogon design. It might have been, with the Japanese input into the lens design, that they were looking for kinder bokeh than the 35/2 Planar, which to be kind, was "unique". 

 

Wilson

Edited May 30, 2015 by wlaidlaw

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[albertospa]

If my impressions do not coincide with those of other users, if this is true, then the Leica places on the market copies of the same lens with rendering very different. However my impressions are consistent with those contained in the popular site "diglloyd" and also with other impressions found in various forums (I forget where).

However, it is always a matter of taste. I can say that, in my opinion, the 35 asph cron is a lens that I did not like, in a tone magenta, compared to all other lenses for my Leica (21 Biogon, 28 cron asph, 35 cron IV, 50 cron, 50 Lux, 90 elmar)