Jump to content

35 Lux vs cron


asr3510

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

You might not agree but Puts does agree :)

Can't find any info from him saying the lux fle is "much better than the cron asph".

 

I did show you his pov saying the difference is mainly fingerprint. thats not to say the lux is bad at all.

 

still, im done with this until you actually prove a point.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited by TRIago
Link to post
Share on other sites

To the original poster, ignore the bickering and rants! Jeez, you guys. Why always the measuring stick??? Gets boring. The bottom line is ALL Leica lenses are great but you can see we don't all agree. That is why I suggest looking at lots of examples of different lenses, I.e. Photos on line taken with different lenses. And best case is to try out before you buy.

 

My own personal taste is to avoid the more modern clinical image almost perfect lenses. The newer lenses are uninteresting to my eyes. Perfection isn't always best. But that comes after owning many Leica lenses over the past twenty plus years, and developing my own tastes in photography. But nothing wrong with the more up to date lenses. I just prefer the older look. Only you can decide what is best for you.

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

To the original poster, ignore the bickering and rants! Jeez, you guys. Why always the measuring stick??? Gets boring. The bottom line is ALL Leica lenses are great but you can see we don't all agree. That is why I suggest looking at lots of examples of different lenses, I.e. Photos on line taken with different lenses. And best case is to try out before you buy.

 

My own personal taste is to avoid the more modern clinical image almost perfect lenses. The newer lenses are uninteresting to my eyes. Perfection isn't always best. But that comes after owning many Leica lenses over the past twenty plus years, and developing my own tastes in photography. But nothing wrong with the more up to date lenses. I just prefer the older look. Only you can decide what is best for you.

 

 

I prefer the more modern lenses but I 100% agree that they are all very good indeed and it just comes down to what you prefer, so try to look at as many photos as you can, it's excellent advice.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably you should stay just with two lenses… Me also, I had 28 Elmarit and 50 Summilux, and somehow I got childish wish I need also 35mm - as universal lens… After some time I bought 35 summicron, latest version. Perfect lens, especially for close range photography, with smooth rendition ( pictures taken with are here (the "biggest one": http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/261738-recently/). As a universal lens, I planed to use it also for landscape etc., when traveling. However, at infinity - that was my impression - the lens was not as sharp as 28 Elmarit. Also, used this lens for one month with mind accustomed for 28mm, the lens was never wide enough. And so, I ask my dealer to take lens back, and because he just got 28 summilux, I also sold my beloved 28 Elmarit and finish with 28 summilux… Just taking Q would be cheaper… For Summilux 28 I could just say that it is on M almost constantly and 50 Summilux just another 10%...

 

Matic 

Link to post
Share on other sites

To the original poster, ignore the bickering and rants! Jeez, you guys. Why always the measuring stick??? Gets boring. The bottom line is ALL Leica lenses are great but you can see we don't all agree. That is why I suggest looking at lots of examples of different lenses, I.e. Photos on line taken with different lenses. And best case is to try out before you buy.

My own personal taste is to avoid the more modern clinical image almost perfect lenses. The newer lenses are uninteresting to my eyes. Perfection isn't always best. But that comes after owning many Leica lenses over the past twenty plus years, and developing my own tastes in photography. But nothing wrong with the more up to date lenses. I just prefer the older look. Only you can decide what is best for you.

Thank You, very good point

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably you should stay just with two lenses… Me also, I had 28 Elmarit and 50 Summilux, and somehow I got childish wish I need also 35mm - as universal lens… After some time I bought 35 summicron, latest version. Perfect lens, especially for close range photography, with smooth rendition ( pictures taken with are here (the "biggest one": http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/261738-recently/). As a universal lens, I planed to use it also for landscape etc., when traveling. However, at infinity - that was my impression - the lens was not as sharp as 28 Elmarit. Also, used this lens for one month with mind accustomed for 28mm, the lens was never wide enough. And so, I ask my dealer to take lens back, and because he just got 28 summilux, I also sold my beloved 28 Elmarit and finish with 28 summilux… Just taking Q would be cheaper… For Summilux 28 I could just say that it is on M almost constantly and 50 Summilux just another 10%...

 

Matic

 

I can see myself ending up in that position but still need to try a 35 for a bit to get there

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

What we're seeing here is simple: new Leica users coing up with their own grain of expert salt.

 

For older Leica users this is all so funny to witness. Thanks Mr.Internet!!

 

 

Sorry but this comment just makes you seem like a grumpy old man who is afraid that the "new Leica users coming up" will somehow make you irrelevant. How pathetic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see myself ending up in that position but still need to try a 35 for a bit to get there

 

 

I did the same with 50s. I suspected I wouldn't click with it, but I needed to actually experience it long term to know it. If I hadn't it would always nag me.

 

Maybe the Summarit will give you a taste without as much outlay? I also hear it is quite a good lens.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am going to purchase a new 35mm for my kit.

 

I have the 50 lux and 28 elmar on an m240.

 

I consider myself an enthusiasts so IQ for both is perfect for my needs. but in terms of low light situations, practically speaking is there a major difference taking into the slightly higher difficultly of focusing in low light. IS there a major functional improvement from f1.4 to f2. i definitely see it from 2.8 to 1.4. Just trying to decide if its worth the extra dollars.

 

Thank you all for you help 

 

 

Are you using film ? Then yes, it is worth the extra dollars.

Are you using digital cameras (M240, M246, SL), then definitely no. These cameras (and all future cameras) offer high ISO values with good image quality. It is easier to crank up ISO for shots in the dark (takes just 2 seconds) than to pay for the difference. If the money does not matter, buy the Summilux 35 Aspherical (the AA). 

This gives you a lot of extra quality in many situations, because you can typically use your (older) lenses at their optimal aperture - which is never wide open (with few exceptions like the Apo R 4/280 or Apo R 2.8/180).

I typically use the classic Summicron 35 (verison 4) but consider carefully the best aperture. This gives me equal results than the Summilux 35 AA (and I am not afraid that it is stolen).

 

If you say IQ is most important for you, then you should maybe not depart from the 28. I think the Elmarit-M 28 Asph (II) is one of the VERY best lenses in the Leica cabinet. Actually better than the 35mm lenses (but the margin is narrow). Check out the MTFs.

And the price is also quite appealing, but Leica calls this "an entry" into the Leica universe. Well this is quite an understatement for the best lens in its range. (But selling Summiluxes is definitely more interesting.)

So typically a "beginner" is using better glass than most "professionals".

Edited by steppenw0lf
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry but this comment just makes you seem like a grumpy old man who is afraid that the "new Leica users coming up" will somehow make you irrelevant. How pathetic.

 

Michael, that's a little harsh and I hope your judgement does not really reflect your view of us Olde Phartes.  Some of us have simply settled upon what we finally found most appealing and familiar. Articulated opinions from new persons keeps them invigorated with healthy curiosity. Keep on!

 

A wise man, Dan Fromm, once said to those questioning lens characteristics, "Ask the lens." In other words, use it and find out. If only we had the money to do so. Those in places with lens rentals are lucky that way; I hope they share their experiences.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael, that's a little harsh and I hope your judgement does not really reflect your view of us Olde Phartes.  Some of us have simply settled upon what we finally found most appealing and familiar. Articulated opinions from new persons keeps them invigorated with healthy curiosity. Keep on!

 

A wise man, Dan Fromm, once said to those questioning lens characteristics, "Ask the lens." In other words, use it and find out. If only we had the money to do so. Those in places with lens rentals are lucky that way; I hope they share their experiences.

 

 

pico, my judgement was only to the comment, I find NB23's comments typically excellent, thought provoking, and helpful. Except for this comment which only offended, reinforcing some "old mans club", that new members will always be on the outer. Not cool.

 

I've been around here for only a short time, and have found this place to be immensely helpful, in particular the "Olde Fartes" such as yourself :).

 

There are plenty of new Leica users here, but being a "new Leica user" does not mean that they are 1) new to photography or 2) don't have valid opinions. While there might be some truths to Leica lenses such as technical specifications, things like rendering and characteristics are entirely subjective and what was popular yesterday might not be popular tomorrow - fashion is fluid. New input is required, else it is just the same few forum members discussing the same topics for ever, waiting for a new lens to be released so it can be compared to the one it replaced. Yawn.

Link to post
Share on other sites

pico, my judgement was only to the comment, I find NB23's comments typically excellent, thought provoking, and helpful. Except for this comment which only offended, reinforcing some "old mans club", that new members will always be on the outer. Not cool.

 

I've been around here for only a short time, and have found this place to be immensely helpful, in particular the "Olde Fartes" such as yourself :) [...]

 

 

Understood and appreciated. Your short term here is irrelevant, being an old-timer has no particular merit. Welcome!

Link to post
Share on other sites

[...] Are you using digital cameras (M240, M246, SL), then definitely no. These cameras (and all future cameras) offer high ISO values with good image quality. It is easier to crank up ISO for shots in the dark (takes just 2 seconds) than to pay for the difference [...]

 

Definitely yes here sorry. Been using 35/2 and 35/1.4 lenses for many years and the main difference is f/1.4 obviously. It is less a matter of isos than DoF imho. With WA lenses the only way to isolate subjects from backgrounds and foregrounds, besides doing closeups, is using fast apertures. I mostly use my 35/1.4 FLE and pre-asph at f/1.4 personally. At slower apertures they are less interesting to me. The pre-asph has no glow any more there and the FLE looks somewhat harsher due to higher contrast and/or more nervous bokeh. YMMV.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It depends what you use the 35mm for.

If I need small DoF I go for the 75, the 2/90 or even the 135. This gives me a lot more separation of FG to BG.

If I use a 35mm I am not too keen on separating foreground and background - same with the 28mm, so there I am even happy with an Elmarit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, fle vs asph. The fle is almost the perfect lens. The asph has a very wavy field curvature. If you read the reviews at diglloyd, reidreviews, it's not ideal for landscapes and focus, recompose at close range.

The summicron-M  1:2,0/35mm ASPH type  # 11879 is a great lens: Small , sharp, and it's ideal for landscape photography. I have recently seen an exhibition in the Pont in Tilburg which points out, that this lens is incredible! 

 

http://www.depont.nl/en/exhibitions/program/release/pers/hindenburgline-project/

 

http://www.janvanhoofgalerie.nl/98_339_l_j_a_d__creyghton.aspx

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I was really accusing Mr. Internet, actually.

 

I still remember how the 50 lux asph was despised for its clinical look, during the M8 and early M9 days. Then came all the Canikon HCB wannabes with their pixel-peeping sharpness-a-tout-prix values.

Somehow along the way the 35 cron asph switched from sterile to characteristic.

 

IMO, this is vital for the Leica fora: each lens has to have something special, a unique virtue. This said virtue is far from the truth as it varies over time depending on what some shady internet expert decides to say about it.

Kai, ming thein, lensrentals, steve huff, overgard and all that gang? Puh-lease c.o.m.e-o.n!

IMHO it's best to try them all out and sort it out for yourselves. They are easy to sell if you really don't like them. Experiment en experience is a nice thing. Reading about everithing is cheaper of course and sometimes helps you in the right direction, but the last step is yours.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry but this comment just makes you seem like a grumpy old man who is afraid that the "new Leica users coming up" will somehow make you irrelevant. How pathetic.

You are right. I am afraid. Afraid of the newbie experts and their superlative terms that mean absolutely nothing. Terms such as microcontrast, macro-contrast, a lens' footprint, a lens' fingerprint, bokeh, dry bokeh and so on.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The summicron-M  1:2,0/35mm ASPH type  # 11879 is a great lens: Small , sharp, and it's ideal for landscape photography. I have recently seen an exhibition in the Pont in Tilburg which points out, that this lens is incredible! 

 

 

Sorry but I'd like to be a bit mean.

You say the photographers are simply irrelevant and the lens is really great/incredible and made this phantastic exhibition possible.

Isn't this extremely naiv ? Imagine looking back to what you wrote after several years (in the future) ....  

You will probably also agree:  "how foolish", must have been reading mainly marketing stuff. Time for a walk and get some fresh oxigen to the cells.

Do not get angry, just forget it. It is not important. But understand that time and experience changes many opinions. So for "old farts" INCREDIBLE lenses are just cold coffee. (while remarkable photographers are not)

Edited by steppenw0lf
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...