Jump to content

Is the Leica 35mm Summilux-M the quintessential Leica Lens?


thestatesman

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Of all the lenses I have ever owned I've come to find the 35mm Summilux ASPH FLE quite possibly the best ever. Looking at Leica's M Magazine, it seems to be one of the most popular and widely used lens too. It seems 35 is the new standard lens.

 

It's performance is truly exceptional and its size and angle of view makes it the most usable and versatile lens I have - It goes with me everywhere. It is a engineering marvel with truly modern performance that somehow manages to stay true to it's traditional roots with truck loads of character too.

 

It's the way it renders the light, the way it captures it with such brilliance, which sometimes seems to shape an image with light that I didn't remember being there. Its colour is so perfect and clarity so wonderful, it renders the delicate hues and tones in between tones so well and so naturally. I mostly like to shoot with full depth, but when wide open, it's magic shines as well. It is still so very sharp and I find the Bokeh magical. I particularly like the way it renders out of focus foliage. I quite often find myself gasping at my screen when I am reviewing the pictures which seem to sparkle more than other lenses I have from my other gear and brands.

 

The reason why I even hold it over my apo 50 is because of the focal length. I love the perspective of the 35mm focal length, it feels right to me. It gives extra compositional space but it's not too far removed from the more natural 50, not too stretched.

 

Your thoughts? I certainly think it would have to be one of the very best lenses of all time and one I would certainly consider as my only lens.

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

The pre - FLE has a nicer look to it IMHO.

 

Not quite as razer sharp but a smoother transition of OOF image.

 

Just Sayin.....super sharpness may be a design objective, but at what cost.

Is image quality compromised to get higher resolution?

 

It has been well documented that like most designs, the 50 AA is not perfect........although it is super sharp.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Maybe. But it's so widely accepted that the new Zeiss 35 is better Then the FLE, even by the FLE owners.

 

There is size, brand loyalty that makes people stay with the FLE.

My idea as well; I was very impressed by test shots I took. Should I get a fast 35 I would opt for the Zeiss. The size difference is not as decisive as internet lore makes out.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Zeiss is too bulky for me. I like the FLE at full aperture but OOF is too harsh at medium apertures for me. Besides focus shift, i see no significant difference with the latest asph non FLE. So great lens at f/1.4, otherwise could be better. YMMV.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe. But it's so widely accepted that the new Zeiss 35 is better Then the FLE, even by the FLE owners.

 

There is size, brand loyalty that makes people stay with the FLE.

Perhaps in some regards some might be of the opinion that the Zeiss is "better", it is certainly a spectacular lens. Though, better, is not really an opinion I share. The only wide spread consensus I have heard is that the Zeiss's size is a deal breaker.

 

It's difficult to technically fault the Zeiss but I am not enamoured by it's rendering and don't find the technical differences in real world shooting and viewing exceptionally noticeable, not in any way that the extra size and weight of the Zeiss justifies it. I find the Zeiss rendering somewhat sterile and a bit off in comparison, it's Bokeh can look quite gloopy sometimes. I find its size and finder blockage counter productive for the M, and for what a 35mm lens is about, and it's even worse when you put the lens hood on; which is something I want on a wide angle. With the hood on it's a behemoth, even without it's like a 90. I don't want a 35 that is like a 90. Finally, its build quality is relatively wanting. I found it quite clunky in operation. I don't like the 1/3 stops for 1/2 stop Leica M bodies.

 

I can understand why some people might prefer the Zeiss, some of these things are subjective. Less subjective is size, where the FLE is perfect. I carry my M and 35mm Summilux almost everywhere I go, that's not something I would do with the Zeiss.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sort of quote "Of all the lenses I have ever owned I've come to find the 35mm Summilux quite possibly the best ever. It seems to be one of the most popular and widely used lenses too. It seems 35 is the 'new' standard lens.

 

It's performance is truly exceptional and its size and angle of view makes it the most usable and versatile lens I have - It goes with me everywhere. It is a engineering marvel with truly modern performance that somehow manages to stay true to it's traditional roots with truck loads of character too.

It's the way it renders the light, the way it captures it with such brilliance, which sometimes seems to shape an image with light that I didn't remember being there. Its colour is so perfect and clarity so wonderful, it renders the delicate hues and tones in between tones so well and so naturally. I mostly like to shoot with full depth, but when wide open, it's magic shines as well."

 

The above could have been written 50 years ago about the original 35mm Summilux which was then a truly exceptional lens (and extraordinarily diminutive). It is still very usable indeed and despite looking rather aged against its modern counterparts, is still very small and supplies excellent images and can even be used wide open to good effect at times. My only augment with the above statement is 'new' because I'd say that 35mm has long been the 'standard' Leica lens although 50mm (and perhaps even 28mm) aficiandos will no doubt disagree.

Edited by pgk
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps in some regards some might be of the opinion that the Zeiss is "better", it is certainly a spectacular lens. Though, better, is not really an opinion I share. The only wide spread consensus I have heard is that the Zeiss's size is a deal breaker.

 

It's difficult to technically fault the Zeiss but I am not enamoured by it's rendering and don't find the technical differences in real world shooting and viewing exceptionally noticeable, not in any way that the extra size and weight of the Zeiss justifies it. I find the Zeiss rendering somewhat sterile and a bit off in comparison, it's Bokeh can look quite gloopy sometimes. I find its size and finder blockage counter productive for the M, and for what a 35mm lens is about, and it's even worse when you put the lens hood on; which is something I want on a wide angle. With the hood on it's a behemoth, even without it's like a 90. I don't want a 35 that is like a 90. Finally, its build quality is relatively wanting. I found it quite clunky in operation. I don't like the 1/3 stops for 1/2 stop Leica M bodies.

 

I can understand why some people might prefer the Zeiss, some of these things are subjective. Less subjective is size, where the FLE is perfect. I carry my M and 35mm Summilux almost everywhere I go, that's not something I would do with the Zeiss.

I disagree about the size, but not in the way one would expect.

One of the reasons I never was interested in any aspherical Summilux was the relative bulk compared to  the Summicron 35 asph, coupled with the fact that I like the way that the Summicron renders low light subjects better. 

 

So if one is to buy a larger, heftier lens for the aperture, it makes not much difference any more whether is is a bit larger or a a bit more large. The weight difference at about 60 grams is neither here nor there. Finder blockage is hardly more than the Summilux due to its barrel-shaped design. It is very comparable in size to the Voigtlander 35/1.2.

The optical quality, however is way better than the Nokton. Zeiss designers have really made use of the extra wiggle room the larger size gave them.

 

The interesting thing about the Distagon is the transparent rendering of the subject whilst being as sharp or even sharper than the Summilux.

Combined with the fact that one could buy a Distagon plus Summicron  for a really interesting combo and still have some spare cash  left makes it a very attractive proposition.

 

As for quintessential Leica lens, only a lens called Elmar can be that.

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sort of quote "Of all the lenses I have ever owned I've come to find the 35mm Summilux quite possibly the best ever. It seems to be one of the most popular and widely used lenses too. It seems 35 is the 'new' standard lens.

 

It's performance is truly exceptional and its size and angle of view makes it the most usable and versatile lens I have - It goes with me everywhere. It is a engineering marvel with truly modern performance that somehow manages to stay true to it's traditional roots with truck loads of character too.

 

It's the way it renders the light, the way it captures it with such brilliance, which sometimes seems to shape an image with light that I didn't remember being there. Its colour is so perfect and clarity so wonderful, it renders the delicate hues and tones in between tones so well and so naturally. I mostly like to shoot with full depth, but when wide open, it's magic shines as well."

 

The above could have been written 50 years ago about the original 35mm Summilux which was then a truly exceptional lens (and extraordinarily diminutive). It is still very usable indeed and despite looking rather aged against its modern counterparts, is still very small and supplies excellent images and can even be used wide open to good effect at times. My only augment with the above statement is 'new' because I'd say that 35mm has long been the 'standard' Leica lens although 50mm (and perhaps even 28mm) aficiandos will no doubt disagree.

 

Hello PGK.

 

Yes, I understand your point and for this reason I was quite careful to make the title of this thread "35mm Summilux-M" and not discriminate any such model. The size of the original is quite incredible and the AA variety of this lens is really quite exceptional in its rendering, though of corse it's exceptional in its price too. In my use the FLE is a wonderful balance of all these things, tiny size and ultra performance, and also interestingly, a wonderful balance of modern and more traditional rendering; something I find fascinating and very usable.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

........ I quite often find myself gasping at my screen when I am reviewing the pictures which seem to sparkle more than other lenses I have .........

I couldn't make my mind up about which part of your post was worth quoting, so I picked this bit out at random.

 

Why don't you post some images to illustrate your point? I don't own a 35mm fle and I have to say I've never seen any images that are clearly obvious they were made with a 35mm fle.

 

To be clear I'm not trying to set you up here, 35mm is my personal favourite focal length on film and fx digital. I (and possibly others) am curious to understand why you make your comments about this lens.

 

Can you show why?

Edited by honcho
Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree about the size, but not in the way one would expect.

One of the reasons I never was interested in any aspherical Summilux was the relative bulk compared to  the Summicron 35 asph, coupled with the fact that I like the way that the Summicron renders low light subjects better. 

 

So if one is to buy a larger, heftier lens for the aperture, it makes not much difference any more whether is is a bit larger or a a bit more large. The weight difference at about 60 grams is neither here nor there. Finder blockage is hardly more than the Summilux due to its barrel-shaped design. It is very comparable in size to the Voigtlander 35/1.2.

The optical quality, however is way better than the Nokton. Zeiss designers have really made use of the extra wiggle room the larger size gave them.

 

The interesting thing about the Distagon is the transparent rendering of the subject whilst being as sharp or even sharper than the Summilux.

Combined with the fact that one could buy a Distagon plus Summicron  for a really interesting combo and still have some spare cash  left makes it a very attractive proposition.

 

As for quintessential Leica lens, only a lens called Elmar can be that.

Hello Jaap.

 

Thank you, all valid points. The summicron is truly wonderful, I also love how it renders. Personally I would much rather own a tiny 1.4 that I can take everywhere, rather than the need to carry an extra lens and a very large one at that, or need to make a decision which I often find I've made the wrong one, often wishing I had the other. A small 1.4 is far more versatile in my opinion and with one lens I don't even need to bring a bag, just sling over the shoulder.

 

The Zeiss, on paper, is hard to find fault in, but in use I don't find it particularly noticeable. I find it too big for a 35 and I wouldn't take it out with me in the same way I do my Summilux. However rendering wise I can understand why people prefer the Zeiss; a matter of personal preference. The Zeiss is spectacular but it's form greatly reduces it's usefulness, or at least changes the way I would use the camera and in my opinion, on balance, the Summilux is truly a wonder.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I couldn't make my mind up about which part of your post was worth quoting, so I picked this bit out at random.

 

Why don't you post some images to illustrate your point? I don't own a 35mm fle and I have to say I've never seen any images that are clearly obvious they were made with a 35mm fle.

 

To be clear I'm not trying to set you up here, 35mm is my personal favourite focal length on film and fx digital. I (and possibly others) am curious to understand why you make your comments about this lens.

 

Can you show why?

Hello Honcho.

 

I was waiting for this question and quite rightly. Please understand I am not, at all, suggesting my photography will leave you gasping :) But I find, relative to other equipment I own, that is the affect it leaves me to feel by some measure. My photos are personal to me - my family, friends and memories, I am only so happy to find such memories rendered so brilliantly, and permanently for posterity.

 

I implore you to look at Leica's M Magazine where you will find breathless imagery of the highest standard that does it justice. If you view the iPad app it tells you what lenses were used.

 

However, I understand I can not make such bold claims without some sort of evidence. While the photo may not be anything special other than my own sentiments, here is one I feel sums up what is special to the 35mm Summilux FLE to me. Wonderful rendering of the light in a way I don't remember it looking this way at the time. Colour fidelity and clarity, bitingly sharp wide open and close up with the floating element, Creamy and dreamy OOF that renders everything into balls of light, wonderful contrast and tonality and transition of tones, wonderful handling of delicate colour and tone and all in a tiny form that is truly portable.

 

28854080431_be509bf31b_h.jpg

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Jaap.

 

Thank you, all valid points. The summicron is truly wonderful, I also love how it renders. Personally I would much rather own a tiny 1.4 that I can take everywhere, rather than the need to carry an extra lens and a very large one at that, or need to make a decision which I often find I've made the wrong one, often wishing I had the other. A small 1.4 is far more versatile in my opinion and with one lens I don't even need to bring a bag, just sling over the shoulder.

 

The Zeiss, on paper, is hard to find fault in, but in use I don't find it particularly noticeable. I find it too big for a 35 and I wouldn't take it out with me in the same way I do my Summilux. However rendering wise I can understand why people prefer the Zeiss; a matter of personal preference. The Zeiss is spectacular but it's form greatly reduces it's usefulness, or at least changes the way I would use the camera and in my opinion, on balance, the Summilux is truly a wonder.

You sum it up nicely; the Summicron asph is the size winner and my go-anywhere lens. (Except when I take the Elmar-M 50) Actually the Summilux I prefer, for in my eyes it is truly magic, is the 24. Even heavier and bigger than the 35 ;). Which does not stop me glancing sideways at the Distagon all the time :lol:

  • Like 1
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...