Reviews and samples for new (2010) 35 Summilux ASPH?

[animefx]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Anyone know of any recent reviews of the new (2010) 35 Summilux ASPH? I've already seen Steve Huff's review. I was wondering if there are some other good reviews out there you know of. I'm especially curious to find Leica bloggers who post photos with this lens on a fairly regular basis.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[MarkP]

Reid Reviews has also covered the new 35 f1.4 Lux in some detail, but you need to subscribe to the site.

 

I'm new to Leica and the current model 35 Lux, and this forum.

 

Below is an image taken the first day I used the camera and lens (shot at f1.4, my daughter's back to camera for anonymity), You may also want to see my album 'Trees' as all three images were shot with the 35 Lux on M9.

 

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!

 

Regards,

Mark

[hoppyman]

This one in a sequence with 8 or 10 others in this gallery together.

 

Dawn light advancing to Wilpena Pound photo - Geoff Hopkinson photos at pbase.com

Also a pano there cropped from a number of images stitched together.

(Larger file)

LARGE FILE photo - Geoff Hopkinson photos at pbase.com

[alexmann]

It looks like being a lovely lens to own. Good luck finding one though - I've been waiting 5 months for mine already! Very few have found owners so far and demand is very high. Get your name on a waiting list asap if you want one and then be prepared to wait a while. While you wait you could try out slower or older designs second hand.

Regards

Alex

[thompsonkirk]

Yikes, Mark – more of that confusing/muddled bokeh. I'm having trouble falling in love with this lens, despite favorable reviews & user reports that I've read.

 

Kirk

 

PS, where's the album that you mentioned?

[rkayser]

animefx,

 

There is another review at this link: The Visual Science Lab / Kirk Tuck: An irreverent, emotional and nostalgic review of the Leica M9 and the latest 35mm Summilux.

[MarkP]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yikes, Mark – more of that confusing/muddled bokeh. I'm having trouble falling in love with this lens, despite favorable reviews & user reports that I've read.

 

Kirk

 

PS, where's the album that you mentioned?

 

Hi Kirk,

I thought that a background of bare branches and twigs is particularly challenging and that the lens does well in this situation. Maybe I'm wrong...

 

The other images images can be found under Albums: Tree:

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/members/markp.html

or the Photo forum: Nature & wildlife

 

Mark

[hoppyman]

Kirk, Mark's photo sample there includes a lot of high frequency detail (foliage) in the out of focus area of course. I am an advocate for the view that bokeh will vary widely based on content (detail especially) as just one of the factors.

 

Can anyone point to examples from the earlier Summiluxes at f/1.4 or nearly so with comparable conditions perhaps? I think it is a subject of interest to many to discuss (to put it mildly )

[Rick]

Yikes, Mark – more of that confusing/muddled bokeh. I'm having trouble falling in love with this lens, despite favorable reviews & user reports that I've read.

 

Kirk, your observation is right on. This lens does so much well but, the specular highlights in the background OOF areas are edgy. No two ways about it. This is not a cream machine by any stretch of the imagination. I think I've been saying this almost as long as Puts. I don't think I want to own it.

[hoppyman]

This is where the discussion gets muddled, Rick. Discussing the 'look' of out of focus 'specular' highlights (actually I think you mean point highlights not perfect reflections or clipped point highlights) is not the same as how the foliage detail (for example) is rendered. But lines and frequency are all intertwined there too.

I know that there is a whole fetish thing beyond the science of just what those circles or truncated circles look like (definition, ringed edges, diffusion, size, shape, Nisen bokeh juju et al) Should be right up your alley to rebel against

One man's gentle bokeh or glow is another's under-corrected mush

This link has got some digestible discussion

Bokeh

 

Here's an example with a low frequency background. Please forgive subject's rude head. That's what you get when someone else picks up your camera over dinner.

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!

[MarkP]

I agree with Greg re background the characteristics.

 

Two more with very different OOF areas: excuse the iron (fascinating subject matter is it not? First thing I pointed the camera at...no-one have a go at me over this).

 

 

 

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!

 

[Rick]

Geoff, first of all I don't really understand all of what you are trying to say. The point of the picture is that the edges of the small highlights coming through the trees is perceived as edgy. It is not smooth from one transition to the next as a 75mm lux would have rendered this image.

 

Your image and Mark's second one's do not show highlight areas in the background and are only serving to confuse the issue. These are not examples of the poor background highlight OOF transitional zones that are seen in the light through the trees.

 

I know you own this lens and I know that you defend the things you own and find of value. But, I am not trying to "rebel" against this lens. I just don't think this is a lens to own if you want creamy bokeh. I think there are enough images from this lens posted on the forum to demonstrate this. Kirk called it right.

 

I know that some people perceive me as a Leica FanBoy. I realize now that when I was trying to come up with a forum name, I should have tried to be more creative when "Rick" was rejected. But, I have my own views and I am not sold on everything Leica. This lens is a fantastic optical specimen but, it does not have smooth highlight transitions in background highlights in the OOF zone. I don't like this particular aspect of the lens and I wouldn't want to own it for this reason.

[MarkP]

Rick,

 

I have no issue with your comments re how the bright point highlights through the foliage in my B&W picture are rendered...it's obvious to the eye. The lens was bought because I wanted a fast 35, so there are always compromises, and I'd rather learn it's limitations than defend them.

 

For my own education are you able to put up something to demonstrate how a 'cream machine' would handle such a contrasty OOF background with multiple small bright points.

 

Regards,

Mark

[Rick]

Mark, you don't have to defend anything. The SX 35 is a fantastic lens and I agree that it is important to also learn its limitation. I'll try to post a comparison of what is posted here with an older Lux to demonstrate the differences. Give me the weekend to try and show you this.

[hoppyman]

Hi Rick. I'm not trying to defend or promote anything here. Everyone's views on this are equally valid for themselves of course. Maybe my humour confused the discussion since we have chatted on various aspects, I was being light hearted.

I was trying to establish what you were referring to and now you have provided more detail. That's very good for the discussion. Examples are the best things to add to illustrate your points now, I think.

So to be clearer on my personal preferences and using your example, I regard the APO 75 Summicron ASPH as superior to the Summilux for my personal taste and the new 35 to be superior to the old, and the Summilux 50 ASPH much superior to the (older) Nocitilux, all again for my taste. There is no one correct answer.

 

I am describing in terms that try to be objective and perhaps quantifiable rather than "good ' or bad' subjective descriptions. Each valid. Each very different. Engineer vs. artiste perhaps?

 

Now you have established what you are describing. Don't assume that everyone interprets bokeh as the same thing of course, nor has the same priorities regarding what is more important nor pleasing nor 'correct'

So may I suggest, take a look at stuff you have shot and show a crop of what works or does not work FOR YOU. I think that is the most useful aspect of the discussion, largely.

Better yet, show something from a comparable alternate that you consider works better, and why?

 

BTW, personally I loathe the the expression Fanboy the way that it is often used as a negative in this forum. Nothing against you personally there, but directed at others.

Again , absolutely nothing wrong with your opinion on this lens nor Kirk's. The whole idea is to share viewpoints, I thought?

I ordered this lens somewhat on impulse, intending to just get on a list. The price is horrendous and I am still paying. Now that I have it I find that it suits my taste extremely well, better than the Summicron 35 ASPH I had before and I guess that I will not part with it (like my other favourite M glass) but I am certainly not tying to convince anyone else that they NEED one nor that it is superior.

For more perspective the "king of bokeh' earlier 35 Summicron does not appeal to me at all. Heresy perhaps.

[thompsonkirk]

Thank you, Mark, for helping me to locate your 'Trees' album. I thought that #1 was especially lovely & hope you make a large print of it. I wondered as I looked at the album if these were shot at a large aperture, or maybe f2.8 or so?

 

I'll add that I'm not for or against the lens, just in the middle of a hard decision. I usually use a 35 (or 40) & am concerned about spending $5K on a lens that might make me wonder why I did that.

 

Full disclosure: I never bought a 35 Asph because of reported focus shift. My favorite 35/40 lens is a 40 Summicron-C that cost 8% (!) of the new Summilux. I have a love-hate relationship with my 35 pre-aspherical Summilux, which can produce either beautiful 'Leica glow' or image-destroying flare.

 

I'm on a waiting list for the new version & had hoped to replace my four 35/40s with a single use-it-all-the-time 35. But I'm wavering, & have been looking closely at posted examples. I'm not a bokeh-freak, but I can tell when shots don't look too good to me.

 

Kirk

[lct]

....Full disclosure: I never bought a 35 Asph because of reported focus shift. My favorite 35/40 lens is a 40 Summicron-C that cost 8% (!) of the new Summilux. I have a love-hate relationship with my 35 pre-aspherical Summilux, which can produce either beautiful 'Leica glow' or image-destroying flare.

I'm on a waiting list for the new version & had hoped to replace my four 35/40s with a single use-it-all-the-time 35. But I'm wavering, & have been looking closely at posted examples. I'm not a bokeh-freak, but I can tell when shots don't look too good to me...

Same experience and feeling here. I don't see any good reason for bokeh to be sharp in any way. Now is there any sharp 35/1.4 with smooth bokeh available? BTW the cheap CV 35/1.4 SC is sharper than the pre-asph Summilux at f/1.4 with the same smooth bokeh as the latter. Pity that it suffers from flare and focus shift though. Hard to find the perfect 35/1.4 for sure. All in all the last Summilux looks closer to it than any other.

[MarkP]

Thank you, Mark, for helping me to locate your 'Trees' album. I thought that #1 was especially lovely & hope you make a large print of it. I wondered as I looked at the album if these were shot at a large aperture, or maybe f2.8 or so?

 

Spot on, #1 & 2 were shot at f2.8, can't recall for #3. #1 is amazing printed on A3 (the largest my Canon Pro 9500 MkII can do) , but I'm planning to get a larger print.

 

Unfortunately our monitors do not do our images and lenses justice, including interpretation of OOF areas, re above discussion.

.

The print is still the way to go!

 

Regards,

Mark

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[thompsonkirk]

Yes, it's so hard to judge from 72 ppi images on a monitor. I've been looking at Geoff's face (in the photograph), & reacting strangely to it. It seems sharp to the point of becoming Brobdinagian (am I remembering the right 'big people'?). If I were sitting across from him at dinner I would not experience his face as pores, hairs, stubble, & the like, but as a smoother surface such as my 20/30 vision allows me. I'm very uncomfortable with lenses that have this 'clinical' look (my 75mm Summicron can be another example) & seem to go beyond 'normal' vision into a magnifying-glass level of detail. But I don't know if I'd see all this detail in an optimally-processed file & a well-made print. Is it the result of the lens itself? of in-camera sharpening? of post-process-sharpening? or just of reducing a well-defined close-up image to 72 ppi?

 

Or perhaps this is a 'normal' image for a sensor & a good lens to record, & my judgment is skewed by too many years looking at the slightly softer images made with the relatively thick & somewhat diffusing emulsion of film, sent to the paper through an enlarging lens?

 

Kirk

[MarkP]

I've been looking at Geoff's face (in the photograph), & reacting strangely to it. It seems sharp to the point of becoming Brobdinagian (am I remembering the right 'big people'?). If I were sitting across from him at dinner I would not experience his face as pores, hairs, stubble, & the like, but as a smoother surface such as my 20/30 vision allows me.

Kirk

 

Geoff did warn us!

 

I think that in real life, sitting opposite someone, our brain filters out some of this information. After all, whether a photo or in real life we resolve all visual information at the limit of the resolving ability of our eyes. We view these photographs differently, especially when we're over-analysing and critiquing small differences in some of the best lenses available. And as we've both just mentioned, not doing justice to our images on computer screens.

 

Perhaps the analogy may be motion pictures with their limitations at the historically determined 24fps with which we are culturally & visually comfortable, as opposed to the 'harsh accuracy' of video.