Jump to content

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


thestatesman

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Can't attach a photo. Seems like a mystery to do so.

If you take Advanced Options, and scroll down the window a bit you will

find an Attach Files option.

 

Take Browse to find it and select it,

then press Attach This File.

And Add to Post.

 

I hope this helps.

Best,

Pico

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, Pico.

 

Zeiss 35 Biogon 2.8 image:

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!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

In 2011, I sold all my surplus Nikon gear (got a staff job and Canon gear was supplied). I wanted to sink the cash into Leica gear. Was astonished to find that the 35mm Summicron eight element I had owned since 1998 had quadrupled in value. I put it on eBay, sold it, and bought the 35mm Summilux FLE.

 

The FLE is a great lens. Mine, like a lot of them, rattles like a set of maracas. The aperture ring spins merrily back and forth at the lightest of inadvertent touches. But I doubt I would ever sell it. It's kind of a lens for life. It's extremely versatile. On a film M it's sensational. I never seem to get the "busy" backgrounds people complain of.

 

But, boy do I wish I'd kept the eight element Summicron. I look at some of the shots I took with that lens and they have a gorgeous atmosphere to them. The lens was like a piece of art - solid brass, tiny, buttery smooth in use and built so beautifully. And I have an M Monochrom these days. I keep hearing that the M Monochrom and eight element Summicron are a match made in heaven, due to the superb sharpness combined with lower contrast.

 

It's been said many a time - you always regret selling a Leica lens!

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

For those that have switched from the 35 Cron to the 35 Lux, do you ultimately feel that the upgrade was worth it?

I wouldn't call it an upgrade, more like a sidegrade. Each lens has its use and excellent results.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I really have no reason to get the Summilux as the Summicron ASPH is such a tremendous lens, but being able to shoot at 1.4 is the dream. As far as size is concerned, I wouldn't mind the extra heft. I have larger hands so it might make it easier to naturally find the focus/aperture rings if they were spread out a little more.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The current Summilux 1.4/50 is also the fourth version...

 

There are only three versions of 50/1.4 pre-asph and one version of 50/1.4 asph so far so the only 50 v4 in existence is Summicron in my book. Clear enough for me but YMMV.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are only three versions of 50/1.4 pre-asph and one version of 50/1.4 asph so far so the only 50 v4 in existence is Summicron in my book. Clear enough for me but YMMV.

 

:) 

I'm just being pedantic I know, but if someone is going to abbreviate summilux or summicron to summi, they probably can't afford the energy to also write 'asph'. And while the current version is commonly called the asph, it is also the fourth version of the 50mm summilux. 

 

This is a bit different to the 50mm summicron where we have both v5 and the APO-ASPH being concurrently produced and sold, whereas v3 of the 50mm summilux was replaced by v4 (which happens to also be apsh). But like I said, I'm being pedantic.

 

Also, don't forget not everyone has the knowledge that you do, and would not always make the "obvious" connection that 'Summi v4' refers to the summicron v4 in a thread about summilux's.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have never heard of the 50/1.4 asph being a "fourth version" but always heard the same about the 50/2 non-apo. Same about other lenses like Elmarit 28mm for instance. The 28/2.8 asph is not the "fifth version" of 28/2.8 pre-asph. Or the 35/1.4 aspherical was not the "third version" of the 35/1.4 pre-asph. And the 35/2 asph has never been called a "fifth version" of the 35/2 pre-asph AFAIK. Asph and Apo are just different lenses, not new versions of the same lens in my book. Another example? There were 90/2 v1, v2 & v3 but the 90/2 apo has never been called a "fourth version" hasn't it. I am not being pedantic either hopefully...

Edited by lct
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...