dennersten Posted January 18, 2007 Share #1 Posted January 18, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) I am sitting here waiting for my M8 to come back tomorrow from Solms. As i am living in the dark Scandinavian Countries i do want a 35/1.4, but i want also a 21 mm and the 90 macro... So in order to save some money i can't afford everything new. What is your experience with The pre Asph Summilux 35, are there any samples which you please can point me to? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 18, 2007 Posted January 18, 2007 Hi dennersten, Take a look here How good is 35/1.4 Summilux pre ASPH. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Bavaricus Posted January 18, 2007 Share #2 Posted January 18, 2007 Hello Hakan, have a look here: Testreports Guess it's right what you need. Erwins comment on the Summilux: "This is no contest. The older version of the 1.4/35 wide open has low contrast, low resolution and a lot of flare. Stopped down the performance is much better. Now you know why you need the ASPH version." Regards Reiner Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted January 18, 2007 Share #3 Posted January 18, 2007 It's better than some people will have you believe. Wide open it flares quite a bit, but has a look all of it's own - bit like a 35mm Nocti :-). Stopped down it's a good performer. I had one and sold it after I bought a 35mm ASPH Summicron. I wish I'd kept it! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 18, 2007 Share #4 Posted January 18, 2007 Despite Steve's opionion you could still consider the Summicron asph. It is better at 2.0 than the Summilux-pre at 4.0. The M8 is well handholdable at 1/8 of a second with such a light lens. 1/8th at 2.0 on ISO 640 (=800) That is pretty dark weather. For further cost-saving: Im also very happy about the Biogon 21 mm. Excellent lens 'There is a small frameline/coding problem, but that easily worked around. Mine cost 900 Euro as a demo. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Olof Posted January 18, 2007 Share #5 Posted January 18, 2007 If you dont need 1,4 than the 2,0 has the better over all performance Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
j. borger Posted January 18, 2007 Share #6 Posted January 18, 2007 I agree with Steve ..... i can't part with my pre-asph lux, although i own a 35 summicron asph. There are days i prefer the lux, and on other days i prefer the cron asph. I would have a hard time to choose if i could only keep one! Like Steve said ... the 35 lux pre-asph is a lot better than testreports suggest! I never use the hood and never saw it flare ..... (i have one of the later versions which most likely had improved coating)! I would not choose the 35 lux pre-asph for the 1.4 .... but for it's unique look, lower contrast and beautifull tonality in B&W ..... it has the old Leica look ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 18, 2007 Share #7 Posted January 18, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) But that is something else, Han, that is a fingerprint thing, which I can wholly agree with. I keep the Summaron for that (slow, but lovely...) But my argument was, if one needs a fast lens on the M8 in the 35 mm range, there is not much reason to prefer any Summilux over any Summicron on the speed argument alone. On film it was more interesting to own a 1.4 lens, as one ususally had too slow a film in the camera at the critical point of time. Now - it comes down to taste. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
j. borger Posted January 18, 2007 Share #8 Posted January 18, 2007 Jaap ............i do not disagree with you There are many dimensions to consider choosing a lens...... BTW .. the asph cron is far more to my taste on the M8 than it ever was on the R-D1 .... because the M8 handles high contrast far better and files are so open in the shadow areas ........ I still think about selling both lenses and get the 35 lux asph instead ...... not for the extra stop but for fingerprint Han Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 18, 2007 Share #9 Posted January 18, 2007 Han, I don't know, from what I have seen, the Summicron asph is a somewhat more smooth lens. For an asph, that is. Somehow for wide-open I prefer the "classic" look. I tend to go for the other end of the focal lenghth spectrum and reach for my Summilux 75 for low-light shots Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted January 18, 2007 Share #10 Posted January 18, 2007 The ASPH Summicron is far better than the old Summilux technically, no doubt about that, but sometimes there's a creamy look to the shots that I miss. If you were buying a 'new' 35mm I'd say buy the Summicron, but if you have that already and want a different look consider the Summilux. It was the only leica lens I owned for about 18 months and I never thought it was anything other than excellent. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wparsonsgisnet Posted January 18, 2007 Share #11 Posted January 18, 2007 Hakan, In my opinion, the 35mm is the lens where asph is the most important. I used a 35mm f1.4 non-asph for several years, for stage photography of dance. The pictures with this lens, compared to a 50mm f1.4 non-asph were very mediocre. The 35 has *way* too much flare in cases where there is oncoming light. I switched to the asph version and the pictures were immensely better! An example of how apparent the difference is: my wife wanted some pictures from some previous shoots of a show I shoot every year. When she saw the ones with the 35 non-asph, her immediate reaction was, "what's wrong with these pictures?" She looked at them for seconds, only. When the 50mm f1.4 asph was announced I ordered one immediately, even tho I had no complaints about the 50, simply because of the improvement I experienced with the 35mm lenses. So, I would tell you to get which ever 50mm lens you wanted, but s-t-a-y a-w-a-y from the 35mm non-asph. You're going to use this lens for decades. Consider the number of pictures you're going to take and the silly difference in cost. Regards, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giulio Zanni Posted January 18, 2007 Share #12 Posted January 18, 2007 I had at least three of those in the past, and it really depended from unit to unit. I had one of the firsts made in Canada that at 1.4 was really not a good lens. On the contrary, I had one of the latest made in Germany which at 1.4 was difficult to distinguish from the aspherical. The good thing of the summilux pre-asph is that is compact and when you need it you have the extra stop. Together with the 90 tele-elmarit was my favorite travel combo at my film time. If you decide to buy one, I would advise that you test it before at full aperture. Giulio Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted January 18, 2007 Share #13 Posted January 18, 2007 A shot from my website - old Canadian 35mm Summilux wide open. Rodin museum in Paris - if you've not been there go! 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/13785-how-good-is-3514-summilux-pre-asph/?do=findComment&comment=145856'>More sharing options...
dennersten Posted January 19, 2007 Author Share #14 Posted January 19, 2007 Thankyou everybody for you advices ! Great, seems like i want to buy the pre-asph. The background is that after 10 years with the Noctilux and 3 weeks with M8 (before sending to Solms) i am all confused. In my part of Sweden is the sun just up for 5 hours during Christmas. Winter is often, grey,grey, grey. So i am using the Noctilux almost entirely 3 months as the "walkabout" lens. But now with 1.33 crop it feels awkward and strange in a lot of situations which i am used to. I am pretty happy with my pre-asph 35/2.0 but it seems like 35mm is going to be the prime lens in the future, so maybe i should go 35 ASPH. But then i want 21 ASPH, and the 90 Macro.. and .. and.. One other parameter is that i am going to do a book this year, touristbook, very much based on pictures. Very much indoors in churches etc. So i guess the right approach is to give it another month and see what my needs are. And how my shooting style will be. Thankyou everybody. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giulio Zanni Posted January 20, 2007 Share #15 Posted January 20, 2007 err....how are you going to put an IR/UV filter on the 35 summilux pre-asph? It accepts only series VII filters mounted in the hood. Giulio Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeicaFuchs Posted January 20, 2007 Share #16 Posted January 20, 2007 err....how are you going to put an IR/UV filter on the 35 summilux pre-asph? It accepts only series VII filters mounted in the hood. Giulio Right! I own a 1.4/35 pre asph. and the Series 7 Filter (BW) mounted in the lens hood works perfect. No cyan vignetting with the filter. Best Regards Werner Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gravastar Posted January 20, 2007 Share #17 Posted January 20, 2007 First a word of caution about the 35mm pre ASPH Summilux on the M8. I have one that the rear lens shroud prevents it focusing to infinity on the M8. Another person has also had this problem, see this thread: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30827 So far I haven't found a solution, I machined off some of the shroud on mine but it wasn't sufficient. If I remove any more then the rear of the lens will not be protected. Two Summilux lenses my dealer had were OK on the M8. I'm wondering if there was a change in the optical design that put the rear lens group nearer the film/sensor plane. The shrouds on the two lenses were about 1/2mm shorter than mine. So try before you buy or ask for a return policy. The 486 filter is listed by Willkommen bei Foto Huppert as being available in series 7 size, so with the 12504 hood you have an IR solution. Bob. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
eronald Posted January 21, 2007 Share #18 Posted January 21, 2007 I went shopping fro a compact light lens. I had previously looked at an old pre-asph lux but it was very soft at infinity. Then I compared the old 35 1.4 "aspherical" (collector's lens with 2 aspherics), the summicron 2.0 asph and a titanium 35 1.4. The titanium lens was so spectacularly superior to the others that I purchased it. I took several people shots with this lens to confirm- I've never seen anything with that sparkle. Sent it back to Solms for coding. I cannot call this titanium lux a compact light lens, but it's certainly the best lens I've ever seen in that focal range, for imaging people. Edmund Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ampguy Posted May 5, 2010 Share #19 Posted May 5, 2010 BW 486 49mm UV/IR filter works great in my 12504 hood. Recent image from an '83 lux (3,28x,xxx) on the M8 at ISO 2500: "Howland Island" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguewave Posted May 5, 2010 Share #20 Posted May 5, 2010 One of the all time greatest lenses ever made. It's computed to use wide open & that's it's real strength. It's plenty sharp, but the bokeh & draw is to die for. 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/13785-how-good-is-3514-summilux-pre-asph/?do=findComment&comment=1315635'>More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.