plasticman Posted February 11, 2010 Share #1 Posted February 11, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) A while before buying the M8 I sold a nice example of this lens because I never used it. Now I'm wishing I had a 35 again, and I'm torn between this classic lens again, and the Voightländer Nokton 35 SC. I've read about all the numerous problems of the Summilux on the M8 (difficulty with filters, focussing to infinity, and so on), but I'm always drawn to the older lenses and the 'history' they bring with them. What do people who've used either or both of these lenses really think? I've been offered a late-model Summilux pre-asph for about twice the cost of a new VC Nokton, and I'm wondering whether the characteristic coma and unsharpness of the earlier lens are going to be even more troubling on digital than they were on film? Finally, how are skin-tones and other color-rendering without the UV/IR cut filter? I may have to use the lens this way until I work something out with the hood. I've found my Elmarit 21 works fine without a filter, while the Summilux 50 pre-asph was a disaster until the filter arrived - how does the 35 fit in this picture? Thanks for any help! Mani Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 11, 2010 Posted February 11, 2010 Hi plasticman, Take a look here Summilux 35 pre-asph (late model) on M8?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
lct Posted February 11, 2010 Share #2 Posted February 11, 2010 Hi Mani, couple of pics with the R-D1 here: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/106088-leica-m8-voigtlander-35mm-f1-4-a-2.html Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmldds Posted February 12, 2010 Share #3 Posted February 12, 2010 I am a newbie with Leica, M8.2, and my first lens is the 35 Lux preasph. I love it dearly. BTW, if you are reading this, Rich, thanks for sharing your marvelous and inspiring shots. Tri. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Epimetheus Posted February 12, 2010 Share #4 Posted February 12, 2010 I have had both and much prefer the Nokton. Old Summilux is very soft wide open and I didn't like it. Nokton has plenty of character and is a lot sharper wide open although not nearly as sharp as Summilux asph of course. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted February 12, 2010 Share #5 Posted February 12, 2010 You will need the filter. If you have the camera comes with a lens hood you can sandwich a 49mm filter between the two halves. Wide open it's very soft with a number of optical problems - I hesitate to use the word unusable, but it's the closest any M lens I've used has come to that. Stopped down a bit it's fine and I don't think you'll be disapointed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ldhrads Posted February 12, 2010 Share #6 Posted February 12, 2010 When I bought my M8.2 I had an M6 Titanium with matching 35 lux. I had 2 problems. Wouldn't focus to infinity on the M8, something inside was hitting. Very soft around the edges and low low low contrast. I went to a 35 Cron ASPH and haven't taken it off much !!! LDH Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted February 12, 2010 Author Share #7 Posted February 12, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) Thanks everyone for the detailed replies. I had a chance to go past the dealers with my camera and took a few test shots of my daughter and the grey, grey townscape (even colorful buildings can be grey in Stockholm at this time of year), and I think I'm erring against getting the lens again. I will probably swing back and forth a few times before deciding, mind you - so I'll keep you updated! Just like Rich, I do like the 'imperfections' of older lenses - to me they add character and 'humanity' to the images - but in this case I feel that the low contrast and coma somehow suck some of the energy from the picture. Even with the Jupiter-3 (where there is almost no contrast whatsoever), there is nevertheless something about the overall softness and 'glow' that is charming. With my quick test-shots using the Summilux35, this seemed to me to be absent, somehow. I have a feeling that Steve is right, and I imagine there would be a vast improvement with the IR-cut filter. I'm just not sure right now that I'm willing to pay over a thousand dollars to find out. So there remains a hole in my range of lenses at this focal length... Maybe the Summicron is the way to go, after all? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nigel_Meaby Posted February 12, 2010 Share #8 Posted February 12, 2010 I think you'd be more than happy with the Nokton. Why not look for a used one and if you don't like it you could get back what you paid for it when selling it. If you do like it, no need paying double for a summilux or a heck of a lot more for a summicron. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted February 12, 2010 Share #9 Posted February 12, 2010 The Nokton is quite a bit bigger and heavier than the Summicron, personally if you can afford it I'd go for the Summicron. I've had the ASPH version for 8-9 years and it's a superb lens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted February 12, 2010 Author Share #10 Posted February 12, 2010 Good advice - and incidentally I meant no disrespect to those of you who are obviously creating great work with the Summilux - Rich's clock image in particular is a wonderful example of what can be achieved. Which just goes to show that the photographer's eye is far more important than the strengths or weaknesses of any particular piece of equipment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted February 12, 2010 Share #11 Posted February 12, 2010 For me, the only real drawback to the 35 'lux pre was the 1-meter close-focus limit. I enjoyed the "look" at f/1.4 on occasion, I found out the really gross lens flares in street lighting went away at f/2 - but I just kept hitting that wall at 1 meter when .7 meters is already "barely close enough." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
roanjohn Posted February 12, 2010 Share #12 Posted February 12, 2010 I'm surprised nobody's recommended the Zeiss 35 f2 Bigon. It's a sharp lens (though a bit larger than the 35 cron). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted February 12, 2010 Author Share #13 Posted February 12, 2010 Actually, there is a lens I like better than the 35mm Summilux pre-aspherical - the 50mm Summilux pre-aspherical. That lens is just about perfect - flare-proof even at f1.4, and sharp with bags of tonality at all apertures. And its last incarnation focuses down to 0.7m, and has a convenient built-in hood. Personally, I think it's better than the aspherical lens, which is a tad sharper with more contrast but has no soul... The only bad point is that it has too narrow a field of view on my Leica M8... Rich - this is my favorite lens at the moment. Bought a beautiful example from Schouten a few months ago. It needed a realignment, but once this was done I have what I consider a perfect 50mm lens (and I have a few now!) The color rendition is amazing - especially skintones - and in spite of its age, the sharpness is enough to keep any woman above 30 well away from it. But I agree about the fov - it's still my favorite, but sometimes I want something between the 21 and the 50. As for the Summicron 35 - in spite of it being known as the 'King of Bokeh' I'm struggling to find impressive examples with the lens. What about the M-Hexanon 35? Ah - so many 35s out there! So little time to use them! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.