Review of new 35mm at ReidReviews

[wparsonsgisnet]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I just completed Sean's review of 5 different 35mm lenses on the M9, including the new 35mm 'lux-a (new version, if that's not too redundant). The review was published on 7/17; I hadn't had time to complete reading it, yet.

 

Sean really likes the new 35. The images are clear and explanatory. But, don't throw away the older version.

 

It's good reading, as usual.

[tdtaylor]

I also found it informative. What I am confused about is what is it called, since there is already a Summilux-M 35mm ASPH. Every reviewer seems to becoming up with their own moniker for the lens.

 

Please correct me if I am wrong, but the new name appears to be the same as the old one (which I have), or it is just too subtle for me to discern-it is Friday here after a long week of travel.

 

Leica Camera AG - Photography - LEICA SUMMILUX-M 35 mm f/1.4 ASPH.

[lct]

The new lens is the third version of the Summilux-M 35/1.4 with aspherical elements.

 

1rst version (1991-1994) : Summilux-M 35/1.4 aspherical # 11873

2nd version (1994-2010) : Summilux-M 35/1.4 asph # 11874 (black anodized), 11883 (silver), 11859 (titanium)

3rd version (current) : Summilux-M 35/1.4 asph # 11663 (black anodized)

[tdtaylor]

That's what I thought, same name, just different number. Sure makes it confusing, but we have dealt with that with numerous lenses, like the 50 Crons.

 

Thanks for the clarification.

[lct]

Leica lens names refer to speed. A Summilux is a f/1.4 lens so a 35/1.4 Leica lens is a Summilux 35. This has always been since 1959 (Lux 50) and 1961 (Lux 35).

[lars_bergquist]

The new lens is the third version of the Summilux-M 35/1.4 with aspherical elements.

 

1rst version (1991-1994) : Summilux-M 35/1.4 aspherical # 11873

2nd version (1994-2010) : Summilux-M 35/1.4 asph # 11874 (black anodized), 11883 (silver), 11859 (titanium)

3rd version (current) : Summilux-M 35/1.4 asph # 11663 (black anodized)

In the literature, the 1991-94 Aspherical is always reckoned as a different lens from the 1994-2010 ASPH. And then there is the late non-lamented original 35mm Summilux. So it is:

 

(a) Summilux 1:1.4/35mm (1961--95). The 'M' was not there before the launching of the Leicflex and its R-lenses in 1964.

 

( Summilux-M 1:1.4/35mm Aspherical (1991--94)

 

© Summilux-M 1:1.4/35mm ASPH v.1 (1994--2010)

 

(d) Summilux-M 1:1.4/35mm ASPH v.2 (2010-- )

 

This to give their official names at the introduction. Version numbers are not always logical. Was the v.3 35mm Summicron really a new version, or just a recomputation and a mount re-design? Versions are largely conventional. But let us respect existing ones.

 

The old man from the Age Before Summiluxes -- or even Summicrons

[scsambrook]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Lars has written:

 

". . . And then there is the late non-lamented original 35mm Summilux . . ."

 

Why "non-lamented" ? It was small, quite light in weight and by no means a poor lens - even by today's standards. And, of great importance to some of us, it was also relatively affordable. No matter how much better the newer models are wide open, I have a liking for the "original" black 35/1.4 which I used to have. Selling it in the late 80s was one of many foolish things I've done, and I frequently regret it.

[JMacD]

I too lament selling the original 1.4 for it's very small size was very nice.

[erlingmm]

Erwin Puts adds FLE for "Floating Element" to its name, at least this is a unique name for the new version:

SX35FLE, part1

[imported_ulf]

Lars has written:

 

". . . And then there is the late non-lamented original 35mm Summilux . . ."

 

Why "non-lamented" ? It was small, quite light in weight and by no means a poor lens - even by today's standards. And, of great importance to some of us, it was also relatively affordable. No matter how much better the newer models are wide open, I have a liking for the "original" black 35/1.4 which I used to have. Selling it in the late 80s was one of many foolish things I've done, and I frequently regret it.

 

The constant bashing of the pre-asph 35/1.4 is a good thing beause it keeps its price down (relatively speaking) but in reality, late examples (after the 1966 redesign) with later type coatings lose out to the older (non-ELF) Asph only in the field at large apertures (more vignetting and a lot more coma). I've seen non-Asph versions that had slightly better contrast in the center than Asph versions (at 1.4!), due to sample variation, and less noticeable focus shift (this being another fashionable topic):

 

The pre-asph, being less well corrected, appears to have more depth of field at any given aperture,

i.e. at 1.4 it shows bokeh similar to the Asph version at 2.0. Somebody on the Rangefinder Forum showed the same effect for the corresponding Summicron 35 versions. As a result, focus shift

is somewhat less visible on the pre-Asph Summilux (albeit for the wrong reason).

 

It's great that Leica have introduced the new floating element version as the best ever

solution to the 35mm specific problem of "enough wideangle to make correction difficult

but not enough to let depth of field hide focus shift", but - justified as this is - it does come at a cost

in terms of $, size and weight.

[lct]

...focus shift is somewhat less visible on the pre-Asph Summilux...

As far as my late copy of the pre-asph 35/1.4 is concerned, focus shift is visible at f/1.4 and f/2 but it is more or less hidden by the softness and the glow.

At f/2.8 and on i don't see it in day to day use but the only tests i've done are those comparos with the CV 35/1.4 SC: Leica M8 and Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 Nokton S.C.? - Seite 2 - Leica User Forum

[farnz]

... Was the v.3 35mm Summicron really a new version, or just a recomputation ...

Lars,

 

Just what does a "recomputation" mean in this context? Was this the lens designers pouring again over the original ray tracings - or creating new ones - and tweaking the distances between elements for example to produce improved performance?

 

Or was it a more complex process that included applying different coatings or even differently shaped elements?

 

Pete.

[lars_bergquist]

A lens design is quite often recomputed for purely practical reasons. Maybe it would ease assembly. Maybe a glass is no longer available and has to be exhanged for another. We are as a rule not told about it. If it does not markedly change the performance, why bother? Such a recomputation is usually not deemed to start a new "version" -- simply because we do not know about it.

 

Changes in the lens mount do not count as new versions, either. A noticeable change in optical performance is regarded as necessary. Doubtful cases are not unknown. Take the 35mm Summicron, for instance. There is no performance difference between what are generally called versions 2 and 3. Both have identical classical six element Gauss layouts. There is a mount change. We are also told by some sources that the diameters of a couple of the internal elements were increased slightly. One or two versions? Custom has it that they are two different versions.

 

Lots of factoids and urban legends circulate. A visible change of layout is a clear case. So what about the new floating element Summilux? The layout is identical. Leica say that there has been a complete recomputation -- that would have been a necessity -- but performance at infinity is practically identical. (Focus shift does not show up in the MTF curves of the previous version, because the displacement of the plane of best focus is ignored when MTF values are computed, and the lens is re-focused when they are measured!) Still, the change is so great that we must call it a new version. Thus:

 

Summilux-M 1:1.4/35mm ASPH v.2

 

And as I wrote before, the 1990--94 "Aspherical" is NOT version 1 because there is a whole technology breakthrough between it and the 1994--2010 "ASPH".

 

The old man again

[farnz]

Thank you, Lars

 

(Incidentally I 'love' that all-too-common, contrived word "factoid", which to me holds about as much appeal as a hemorrhoid.)

 

Pete.

[lars_bergquist]

I do not lament the original Summilux "pre-ASPH". I owned it. Wide open, there were hideous amounts of coma, and veiling glare spread out from even moderate highlights. From f:4 or so, performance was much like the v.4 Summicron -- lens layouts were practically identical -- though with a bit more flare. But let's face it: Large apertures were for emergency use only. Finally, I could not stand the thing anymore -- I had and have a v.4 Summicron that was better both at 2.8 and 2.0 -- so I sold it and broke my piggybank and bought an early ASPH instead. That was in 1997, I think.

 

What you expect from and like in a lens is a subjective matter of course. Some people use pinhole cameras. But from a technical point of view, it was a dog, and the speed alone was the only reason why it was offered, and stayed on all those years. Those were the days when Tri-X was rated at ASA 200 ...

 

Ye olde manne

[lars_bergquist]

Thank you, Lars

 

(Incidentally I 'love' that all-too-common, contrived word "factoid", which to me holds about as much appeal as a hemorrhoid.)

 

Pete.

Being a retired encyclopedist (a harmless drudge to whom facts are even more important than godliness) factoids are as repugnant to me as hemorrhoids. They abound however in a walk of life where photographers are often unable to spell the names of their own cameras even when these are sitting on the table in front of them.

 

T.O.M.

[lars_bergquist]

And by the way, the rumoured redesign of the original Summilux in 1966 does also seem to be a factoid. Leitz denied it. An improvement in coatings may well be the only foundation of the rumour. A dog, with any other coat, is still a dog.

 

T.O.M.

[imported_ulf]

And by the way, the rumoured redesign of the original Summilux in 1966 does also seem to be a factoid. Leitz denied it. An improvement in coatings may well be the only foundation of the rumour. A dog, with any other coat, is still a dog.

 

T.O.M.

 

"The design uses special Leitz glass and was recomputed in 1966 (from ser. nr. 2166702) with a marked improvement in image quality".

 

Leica M Compendium, Jonathan Eastland, Hove Books 1994, 1st edition, p.51

 

What's your source for Leitz denying it?

[lars_bergquist]

There was a recomputation, effective from no. 2,166,702. Not a redesign.

 

Tthe old man

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear