01af Posted May 7, 2010 Share #21 Posted May 7, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) The doubled lines is also what I see as the difference between the versions I and IV in the samples, and I think the new Leica standard is the softer look. Though I like the "edgy" sparkling higlights in a background. [...] it adds life to an image without stealing the attention or disturb the main message of the image ... Yes ... 'sparkling' in this context is a kind of tendency towards double lines without actually doubling them. I agree it can add life to a picture ... but in my opinion this is exactly what bokeh is not supposed to do. That's why I generally prefer a softer, non-sparkling bokeh. The Summicron-M 35 mm (IV) lens is known as the 'Bokeh King' among 35 mm lenses for 35-mm format ... but it has earned this reputation while it was current, and when this title was awarded to it the most recent contenders—namely Summilux-M 35 Asph, Summicron-M 35 Asph, and Summarit-M 35—had not yet arrived on the scene. In my humble opinion, today's Bokeh Kings, in the 35 mm focal length class, are the Summilux-M 35 Asph and the (excellent and often underrated) Summarit-M 35, with the Summicron-M 35 (IV) and Summicron-M 35 Asph being close seconds. But that's just me, of course. And I wouldn't be surprised if the upcoming new Summilux-M 35 Asph (with floating elements) is going to better them all ... but that remains to be seen. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted May 7, 2010 Posted May 7, 2010 Hi 01af, Take a look here 35mm Summicrons: I vs. IV. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
gonzaloro Posted May 19, 2010 Share #22 Posted May 19, 2010 One question to all, I have the version III Summicron (Canada), is the ASPH Summicron noticeably better re. image quality? is it worth the the change? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted May 19, 2010 Share #23 Posted May 19, 2010 Yes it is noticeably better. Is it worth the change? That depends on the image you want to take with it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted May 19, 2010 Share #24 Posted May 19, 2010 One question to all, I have the version III Summicron (Canada), is the ASPH Summicron noticeably better re. image quality? is it worth the the change? Hi Gonzaloro If you want to spend money maybe but if you don't need f/2 the Summarit-M 35 f/2.5 has similar MTF graphs, If you are a cheapsgate a CV f/2.5 in one of its guises, - three or more form factors. But before you buy try the focus ring, and aperture ring cause if you cannot use it easily, if may cost you shots as you fumble, or nudge the aperture inadvertently... I'd not if I were you.. But this seems to be a boke thread, gotta kep quiet. Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gonzaloro Posted May 20, 2010 Share #25 Posted May 20, 2010 Thanks. Since I am visiting New York I will try one summicron ASPH in a store and compare with the images of my v. III. As I understand form Jaap, it is not a matter of being just better, but depends on what I want. Usually I prefer sharpness and a lot of detail. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted May 20, 2010 Share #26 Posted May 20, 2010 As I understand form Jaap, it is not a matter of being just better, but depends on what I want. Usually I prefer sharpness and a lot of detail. If so, the Summicron ASPH will win hands down. No contest. There are several decades of technological progress -- including one breakthrough or two -- between the old v.3 and the current lens. My impression is that people often find it difficult to make the distinction between (measurable) technical performance, and (subjective) personal preference or taste. Some do not even seem to understand that these are two different things! I have no problem there, simply because my subjective preference is for the technically best tools available. Technical perfection in itself does not make an indifferent picture into a memorable picture (I have been heard stating that "sharpness is the fetish of boring photographers") but if one of my pictures is to be worth looking at as anything else but a mere technical specimen, then by Gum I want to put it in myself. If a technically good picture is boring, then it won't be more 'artistic' by the use of some 'art filter' or equivalent thereof. The old man from the Age of Anastigmats Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shade Posted October 7, 2011 Share #27 Posted October 7, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Reliving an old thread. Is there any significant differences on the version 1 summicron with 0.65 close focus and the 0.7? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted October 7, 2011 Share #28 Posted October 7, 2011 Not optically. The difference is in the mounting only. I checked, and confusion reigns. Erwin Puts says that closest focus was 1 meter for the 'goggled' M3 version, and 0.7m for lenses without goggles, while Dennis Laney says that the M3 version focuses to 0.65m. Both may be right, because the M3 rangefinder itself focuses only down to 1 meter! But optically, these variants are all the same. The old man Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted October 7, 2011 Share #29 Posted October 7, 2011 0.65's were Summicrons 35/2 for M3 with goggles # 11108 (silver) & 11104 (black paint). I have no experience with them sorry. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shade Posted October 7, 2011 Share #30 Posted October 7, 2011 I held the summaron and summicron (both with goggles and both were for the m3), and they both focused down to 0.65. Wierd. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shade Posted October 10, 2011 Share #31 Posted October 10, 2011 A few samples of the V.1 Summicron with goggles. Colours are edited to my liking. BW is OOC from M9. The colours are wide open, the BW is stopped down to F4. http://i971.photobucket.com/albums/ae198/Pandaemas/Cron3.jpg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Geschlecht Posted October 11, 2011 Share #32 Posted October 11, 2011 Hello Everybody, It is the 11008 screwmount 35mm Summicron that focusses to 1 meter. Not the 11108 goggled version for the M3. The M3 version focusses to .65 meters. The same as the 11006 screwmount 35mm 2.8 Summaron & the 11106 35mm 2.8 Summaron for the M3. .7 meters for the M2 version of both the 11308 35mm Summicron & the 11306 35mm 2.8 Summaron. The 35mm Summicron & the 35mm 2.8 Summaron pretty much share the same focussing mount. For the 35mm 3.5 Summarons: The SOONC screwmount, the 11305 M2 version, the 11105 separable finder M3 version & 11107 goggled M3 version: All focus to 1 meter. The 35mm 3.5 Elmar: EKURZ screwmount focusses to 1 meter. There is no bayonet version of the 35mm 3.5 Elmar. Best Regards, Michael Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.