Comparing 35mm Lux ASPH (FLE) to current 50mm Lux ASPH

[dugby]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello all, To those who have a 35LUX/FLE... I seek your experience with this scenario.

 

I have come across a black 35mm LUX/FLE at a dealer, that is showing signs of some minor body paint wear, whilst the glass looks very clean. So it is priced (with 12 months warranty) the same as a new ASPH CRON 35mm.

 

I have tried both, but cannot decide....

 

I've read the many url's reviewing the capability of each, and am very aware of the following

a) f1.4 vs f2 differences

Cron is much lighter and smaller, less viewfinder blockage ( this is very important to me )

c) Cron is very sharp

d) images from LUX and Cron from F5.6 upwards seem to be generally indistinguishable

e) Lux has better bokeh (at wide aperature)

 

 

So my questions are-

 

1) Will the 35 ASPH Lux/FLE be an overkill as I already have a "heavy" chrome ASPH 50 Lux on my M TYP(240) ? Do these two paint similar enough images despite being different FL ?

 

 

2) Do those of you that have both 35 ASPH Lux/FLE and also current model ASPH 50 Lux tend to pick one over the other more often and leave the other home ? Which one stays home and why ?

 

 

3) My thoughts are, if there is similar imagery from the two LUXs (35 & 50) allowing for differing FLs,

Then I should buy the 35 CRON ASPH.....?

 

 

Thanking you kindly for responses

[Karl G]

Rugby, you are basically going to get a variety of opinions and be aware they are just opinions and in the end, you will still be left on your own to make the call.

 

My opinion, as I have the 50 lux and 35lux FLE , go with the lux. It is razor sharp and the extra stop is useful which is why it cost more. The extra weight and size is really not that big a deal on a camera body, they are both small, light lenses. I usually carry a small bag with three to four lenses, but for a single lens go with the 35 mostly. There is a reason this is a classical combination and the focal length most chosen by mfgs selling a non interchangeable , prime lens and body combo, like Leica and the X1.

 

I have also used a single lens system to start and started with the 50 lux Asph as a first lens and the 35 Lux FLE was the next I added. You will be very happy with this addition, I am sure. Enjoy the angst and then enjoy the hell out of your next lens choice and let us know how you chose and show us some results.

 

Good luck.

[hoppyman]

Hi Dugby. I have the 35 and the 50. As far as general rendering I doubt that would be able to notice a difference (in tonality/colour/bokeh) in practical use. It really depends on which focal length you prefer for what kind of photography you like and how you work.Walking around city streets I've found that I use my 35 much more than the 50 since I have had it. If each lens and your camera is adjusted correctly you can disregard any focus shift in use as you vary apertures and that is a real boon in critical scenarios. You can make a case for having a 35 and 75 with you for that kind of shooting.

[01af]

e) Summilux has better bokeh (at wide aperture)

No, it hasn't. So if fast lens speed is not important to you but small size and low viewfinder blockage are then better get the Summicron. I'd prefer the Summilux but then, I feel viewfinder blockage—which sure is slightly worse with the Summilux—is not so much an issue for me. Both 35 mm lenses, Summicron-M Asph and Summilux-M Asph, would make equally good complements to an existing Summilux-M 50 mm Asph.

[philipus]

1) Will the 35 ASPH Lux/FLE be an overkill as I already have a "heavy" chrome ASPH 50 Lux on my M TYP(240) ? Do these two paint similar enough images despite being different FL ?

 

I have both and think they are sufficiently similar. I also have older lenses and there is a pretty clear difference at the wider apertures, for instance to the pre-asp Summilux 50. The 50 Summilux is - imo - a better lens though. Sharper wide open and much more flare resistant. Note that the 35 FLE hood has a cut-out.

 

2) Do those of you that have both 35 ASPH Lux/FLE and also current model ASPH 50 Lux tend to pick one over the other more often and leave the other home ? Which one stays home and why ?

 

Yes, I will pick the 35 when I want to use that focal length (duh) and then the 50 might stay at home unless I also want that lens. My answer to question 1 notwithstanding, I am not such a rendering fanatic that I let that decide what I pick.

 

3) My thoughts are, if there is similar imagery from the two LUXs (35 & 50) allowing for differing FLs, Then I should buy the 35 CRON ASPH.....?

 

You lost me here but it seems you would prefer not having similar rendering in both focal lengths. If so, yes you could go for the Summicron.

 

It bears repeting, on a digital body the only thing you really gain by getting the Summilux is a heavier lens and even thinner DOF. You won't need the speed. Use a DOF calculator and check - at closer distances the difference in DOF is very small.

 

Just my 2ct and opinions.

 

philip

[mustafasoleiman]

I have both.

The 50 is more intimate both in its fov and bokeh, so I tend to use it when I go to a well known place and when I want to take more tight portraits.

The 35 is more clinical and its fov more dynamic, so I tend to use it when I don't know what to expect and in looser portraits.

Then I occasionally throw in a change in humour and some extra glass, and end up wishing I just had a Kodak Instamatic.

[Guest borge]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi

 

I had both for a while. I bought both brand new, and both was black.

This is my experience:

 

1. In most cases I always prefered the rendering of the 50 Lux.

2. The bokeh of the 50 Lux is much more pleasing and smooth compared to the 35 FLE.

3. The bokeh of the 35 FLE is a bit of a hit-and-miss. Sometimes it is lovely, but sometimes it can be a bit messy and harsh as well. It depends on the background and lighting.

 

Other than that, the lenses seemed equally well built. I prefer the built-in hood of the 50 Lux compared to the external hood of the 35 FLE for convenience.

 

The fact that they had the same filter size was a big plus for me since I used them on a M Monochrom and I used several different B&W color filters.

 

Other than that, the 35 FLE is easier to focus simply because it is a 35. I did prefer the focusing action of the 50 though, and the reason for this is because you can use both the focusing ring (grooved) and tab. On the 35 FLE you only have the tab and the ring is smooth. I prefer focusing by using a grooved ring rather than only the tab.

 

I prefer the 50mm focal length over the 35mm focal length, so that's the biggest reason to why I prefer the 50 Lux. I also discovered that the focal lengths were so similar that it really didn't matter too much which lens I had on. But I always prefered the output and aspect that the 50 Lux gave me, so in most cases where I had the 35 FLE on I wished I had the 50 Lux mounted instead.

 

If I were to consider using a two lens setup again I would rather get the 28/2 Summicron ASPH to compliment the 50 Lux rather than the 35 FLE, since the focal lengths are similar. A 28/50 setup would offer much more flexibility and difference in photographic techniques and results than a 35/50 setup.

[lct]

I have both lenses as well but i'm not good at comparing lenses of different focal lengths sorry. All i can say is that both 35/1.4 asph and 50/1.4 asph have a modern rendering with sharpest results at f/1.4 and that the bokeh of the 35 is more busy at full aperture than that of the 50. Now if you're after a fast 35 matching best your 50/1.4 asph the only names which spring to my mind are Summilux 35 asph FLE or pre-FLE.

[Jeff S]

Best bet is to compare for yourself if you can rent or borrow. I happen to own a 50 Summilux Asph and a 35 Summicron Asph, and have not felt limited in my photo needs in any way when these focal lengths are required.

 

Jeff

[pfhrased]

I have both - I use the 35 in low light indoor situations because it's much easier to hand-hold (possibly because my 50 lux is the heavy chrome model, but also the focal length has less movement I suspect). I use the 35 for landscape stuff as well.

 

For a regular portrait the 50 is better hands-down. Better control of aberration, less distortion and considerably more pleasant bokeh than the FLE.

The FLE has a much higher tendency towards purple fringing on high contrast areas than the 50.

Both have very pleasant sunstar effects at smaller apertures.

The 50 is slightly easier to focus than the FLE which feels a little stiff at times.

 

Both are good - I kind of wish I had a second M9-P for the 35 so I'd never need to change lenses... I tend to leave one on and shoot everything with it, until the need for the other focal length can't be ignored.

[Paul J]

I don't own the 50, but own the 35 which is a marvel of engineering. It's an incredible lens that has few down sides, IMO, and I absolutely love it. I would say the difference in bokeh of the two is the biggest difference. The 50 being far smoother. I'm actually one of the people who like the characteristic bokeh of the 35 FLE. It was one of the reasons I was drawn to the lens. I like the abrupt focus fall off too, I like that 3D effect it creates. It's so damn sharp and it's diminutive size makes it a doddle to use. It's is not as sharp at 1.4 as it is at 2 but not by much and at 1.4 is sharper than my Canons at 5.6. I know it very well now and am happy to leave the house with this lens only. I can see in my mind what the frame is going to be before I have it to my eye and zone focusing makes that more or less like a point and shoot. The only downsides I can think of, is I don't use it at f16 because the diffraction is too great I've foud this more noticible than most lenses I've used, and there is a bit more CA in high contrast scenes than some of my other lenses. Sometimes the wavy field is obvious and the double line bokeh is not appropriate for the image or interferes, even if you stop down you can see some remnants of it but it's mitigated by f5.6 - 8. It's very rarely a problem though and only really shows up on subjects which are very close and take up the whole frame and also have some depth. The majority of people don't even recognise these flaws, just us who obsess over quality. The lenses strengths completely outweigh it's flaws. I'd give it 9/10

[tom0511]

AT the moment I own both 35 and 50 both as Summilux and Summicron.

The 35 FLE Lux is - IMO - better at all f-stops than the 35 Summicron. I prefer the rendering being slightly more "powerful" IMO. The 35 Lux is also a very usefull lens for inside low light due to focal length. The 35 Cron is good as well and smaller and I like that its chrome.

Regarding 50mm I find the difference smaller, and I rarely need faster than 2.0 for the 50mm.

The color from the 50 Lux is somewhat warmer than from my 50 Chron. Here I often bring the chron.

I think 35FLE is one of the most useful and good lenses in the M-system.

If it is worth the higher price over a Cron? IMO it is nice to have it but I could be happy with 35 Cron or 35 summarit as well.

The good thing if you can buy the lenses for good price used you will not loose money and can see which lens you like best and allways sell lenses again without loss.

[Stealth3kpl]

I took the 35/1.4 FLE to a hotel last weekend and took a few shots just for fun. Perhaps they'll give you an idea of the rendering. Some show quite smooth rendering whereas others, the mushrooms in particular, demonstrate the occasional busy background.

Pete

 

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!

 

 

 

 

[Stealth3kpl]

Just one for the chaps seen on the way home

Pete

 

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!

[wattsy]

I took the 35/1.4 FLE to a hotel last weekend and took a few shots just for fun.

 

What was the food like? I seem to recall this was one of the places visited in the Michael Winterbottom comedy The Trip.

[Stealth3kpl]

What was the food like? I seem to recall this was one of the places visited in the Michael Winterbottom comedy The Trip.

 

The food was really very nice. I had Sea Trout. The portion was a little on the small side but very delicious. I enviously eyed a plate of venison passing by which was a much more acceptable portion . My wife's vegetarian and she was overjoyed with her choice. The deserts were very nice, and we took the option of the recommended desert wines to accompany them. Overall, I felt the experience was very good and we'll return again in winter. I think I drank too much though

Pete

[Stealth3kpl]

I bought a 28 summicron asph towards the end of last year. It was an ebay purchase and not a very good one, although the seller did agree to a partial refund when I complained about the state of the thing. I sent it to Malcolm Taylor aug/sept last year and got it back last week (£200). He fettled the focusing mechanism which was somehow in poor condition, and stuck the front housing back on . Consequently, I don't have much experience with this lens but, judging by the lovely smooth transition from the focused to oof areas, a lovely rounded smooth transition, it will be a perfect accompaniment to the 50 Lux Asph. I'd certainly recommend checking it out, if my pictures of my washing-up and hall's light switch are anything to go by :D. (I've only taken about 10 shots with it).

Pete