johnloumiles Posted July 21, 2015 Share #1 Posted July 21, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Any difference between the 35 Summicron v.2 vs the 40 Summicron in terms of overall image quality and bokeh? They were produced at the same time in Canada and on paper seem very similar with 6 elements in 4 groups. The 35 has ten blades vs. the 40s eight. Also the wiki shows Mandler as the designer of the 35 but not the 40. Estoteric opinions are welcome:) Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 21, 2015 Posted July 21, 2015 Hi johnloumiles, Take a look here 35 Summicron vs. 40 Summicron. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
johnloumiles Posted July 21, 2015 Author Share #2 Posted July 21, 2015 In the Leica Compendium Erwin Putts has nothing really nice to say about the 40. It was closest I've ever seen him to bashing a lens. The 35 is great in the middle and bad in the corners. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tobey bilek Posted July 21, 2015 Share #3 Posted July 21, 2015 My version 4 required F8 to be good in the corners. It now lives on the crop sensor M8. I bought a 35 2.0 ASPH for the M9. Boke seems the same, however I am not an expert on it. 40 has same filter thread diameter, pitch is different so common 39 filters will not screw properly. 40 matches 50 mm frame lines far away, 35 lines close. people often modify them to bring up 35 lines and then the mod is permanent. given a choice, I would pick a 35. V4 has a glued front cell. Do not handle the lens by front or square shade when mounting or dismounting. There are nice grippers on the back end. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomB_tx Posted July 21, 2015 Share #4 Posted July 21, 2015 I've used both the 35 v2 and 40 for decades, but the 40 only on the Leica CL as a pack-along camera. I was very satisfied with results of both on film. The v2 wide open does vignet quite a bit, and mine is a bit soft at f2. In fact my Nokton 35 f1.4 at f2 is sharper with less vigneting. I really like small lenses, but the aperture small tab control on the v2 isn't convenient, especially with the 504 hood clipped in place. On my M9 I've switched to a 35 Summarit 2.5 for a small travel lens, with the small 35 Nokton 1.4 available for low light. My 40 still stays on my CL and still is a good combination. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tobey bilek Posted July 21, 2015 Share #5 Posted July 21, 2015 Just to add, there is nothing wrong with 40 as a handy focal length. My Rollie 35 is so equipped. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dpitt Posted July 22, 2015 Share #6 Posted July 22, 2015 In really like my 40cron. The 40cron has its issues like filter thread and modification to 35mm frames is needed for practical use on M8 or M9. If you take care to tighten your filter not too much it is ok, and the 35 mm lines fit very nice on digital M's. Compared to my 35cron v3 it seems to have slightly less contrast, but looks more creamy. At half the price of the 35cron it is a real bargain because the difference in IQ is not that much. On the M8 I even like it more than the 35cron and on the M9, it is so close that I often take it when the 35 feels to wide for me. When comparing Leica lenses in the the price range of the 40 it is probably the best Leica lens you can get. The only one that comes close (or even better) is a 50cron collapsible in perfect condition, but those are very hard to find because the front glass is so soft that most are ruined by 'cleaning' marks. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 22, 2015 Share #7 Posted July 22, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) In the Leica Compendium Erwin Putts has nothing really nice to say about the 40. It was closest I've ever seen him to bashing a lens. The 35 is great in the middle and bad in the corners. Read again. That is an Elmarit 40 which did not make full production. About the Summicron 40 his judgement is that the IQ is somewhere between the Summicron 35 version 3 and version 4, which is pretty good. 7 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnloumiles Posted July 23, 2015 Author Share #8 Posted July 23, 2015 I stand corrected. I noted the last line too but still didn't pick up I was reading about the wrong lens. Read again. That is an Elmarit 40 which did not make full production. About the Summicron 40 his judgement is that the IQ is somewhere between the Summicron 35 version 3 and version 4, which is pretty good. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted July 23, 2015 Share #9 Posted July 23, 2015 Internet BS 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted July 23, 2015 Share #10 Posted July 23, 2015 Internet BS What in particular ? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rulnacco Posted July 24, 2015 Share #11 Posted July 24, 2015 I had the 40 M-Rokkor (the CLE version), which was to my understanding substantially the same lens--although possibly superior, with its improved coatings--to the 40 Summicron. I really liked the image quality, and it was a very nice, light and compact lens. What I didn't like about it, and why I eventually traded it in toward a Version 2 35 Summicron were: The focusing tab--it wasn't bad, but not nearly as nice as the 35 Summicron. 40.5mm filters--easier to find than those for the Summicron, but still a pain to have to carry a different size than E39. The collapsible rubber lens hood--the 12585 (which I have) or the 12504 is a lot nicer, and really I frequently shoot my 35 without a hood, as the one I have has the fairly well recessed front element. Worst of all, the 50 frame lines--that's why I finally got rid of it. To amplify on Number 4, which to me was the fatal flaw: I didn't want to file the frame line selector tab on the lens to bring up the 35 frame lines (even though those quite reasonably match the 40's field of view, at least on an M6 0.72), being as that is irreversible. So I employed a kludge where I used a pie-shaped cutout from an Ilford plastic film canister lid to prop the frame line selector lever in the 35 position when I had the lens on the camera. That was mildly irritating although it worked well enough, but the final straw came on the day I saw a shot that absolutely needed a 90. I quickly switched lenses, and found that the little plastic wedge had disappeared. I thought I'd dropped it on the ground, so I shot away. Unfortunately, I later found it inside the camera body. It hadn't damaged anything, but when I developed the film there was a prominently large, triangular blank area on the film where it had blocked the light. Once a bit of kit destroys my photos, it's got to go. Thing is, I really do miss the lens--it really does make nice images--and one of these days, I'll get another...with a CLE attached to it, where it will be right at home with the proper frame lines. But if image quality is your main concern--you needn't worry. It should produce exceptional images. And the field of view is indeed very nice, as it's not quite getting into the wide angles, as the 35 is, but it's more generous and much more similar to our actual field of view than the mildly telephoto 50. And if budget is a concern, other than perhaps some of Voigtlander's offerings, the 40 Summicrons/Rokkors deliver some of the best bang for buck goodness in the Leica world. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted July 24, 2015 Share #12 Posted July 24, 2015 I was previously looking for a 35 which would render and colour sympathetically with my 1.4/75 Summilux. I already had a pristine 40 Summicron (which had a CLA under the 3-month warranty by the dealer I bought it from in 2013) but initially dismissed it as not up to the job. So after looking around and seeking advice I decided that what I needed was a v3 or v4 35 Summicron but held off buying one. Then I tried my 40 Summicron which had been unused for a while and was very happy with the results. Yes it vignettes at f2.0, is a bit soft in the corners (but I have my modern lenses for that), with respect to framelines it is not very difficult to estimate where they would be, and although the filter issue is a bit annoying B+W 39mm filters can be screwed in not to tightly (I have an original series 4.5 UV for under the rubber hood). The 40mm FOV is also very versatile. It's clear from reading here that regarding IQ and rendering we are really splitting hairs between the 40 and pre-ASPH 35 Summicrons. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted July 25, 2015 Share #13 Posted July 25, 2015 In the Leica Compendium Erwin Putts has nothing really nice to say about the 40. It was closest I've ever seen him to bashing a lens. The 35 is great in the middle and bad in the corners. This. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted July 25, 2015 Share #14 Posted July 25, 2015 What in particular ? See post #13 above. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnloumiles Posted July 25, 2015 Author Share #15 Posted July 25, 2015 This. Was it the fact that I made a mistake that upset you or Erwin Putts opinion on the 40mm Elmarit? 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 25, 2015 Share #16 Posted July 25, 2015 John's remark is correct for the Elmarit-C 40 mm. Actually Erwin says that it was a good thing that it never went into production. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted July 25, 2015 Share #17 Posted July 25, 2015 John's remark is correct for the Elmarit-C 40 mm. Actually Erwin says that it was a good thing that it never went into production. But that's not the subject of this thread. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hey You Posted July 25, 2015 Share #18 Posted July 25, 2015 Given the high regard for the 40 mm focal length, it is odd that Leica last produced such a lens about 40 years ago. The lack of frame lines is a minor inconvenience. Perhaps Leica will introduce electronic frame lines in a future M camera, capable of accommodating any focal length . . . . 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted July 25, 2015 Share #19 Posted July 25, 2015 Given the high regard for the 40 mm focal length, it is odd that Leica last produced such a lens about 40 years ago. The lack of frame lines is a minor inconvenience. Perhaps Leica will introduce electronic frame lines in a future M camera, capable of accommodating any focal length . . . . I had mine 6 bit coded and as such I get good frame lines, but not 40. Instead 35 if I recall since not at home and able to verify which lens it is coded for now. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted July 26, 2015 Share #20 Posted July 26, 2015 I had mine 6 bit coded and as such I get good frame lines, but not 40. Instead 35 if I recall since not at home and able to verify which lens it is coded for now. What does coding have to do with frame lines? 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.