what's the difference between these lenses?

[joeq]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

there's a dramatic difference in price and i'm curious about the real world, appreciable differences in quality... thanks.

 

@EX+@ Leitz Leica Summilux M 35mm F/1.4 Pre-Asph 35/1.4 - eBay (item 130474854697 end time Feb-12-11 01:06:31 PST)

 

Leica Summilux-M 35mm F/1.4 E46 ASPH 6 bit Coded 35/1.4 - eBay (item 250752522985 end time Feb-03-11 23:17:08 PST)

 

Black LEICA M 35mm f1.4 SUMMILUX lens w/HOOD -SUPERB! - eBay (item 290522601332 end time Feb-11-11 23:34:09 PST)

 

Leica Summilux-M 35mm f1.4 ASPH #390xxxx Mint Condition - eBay (item 290521815098 end time Jan-17-11 18:04:28 PST)

[Advertisement]

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

[farnz]

Joeq,

 

The 2 less expensive lenses are earlier models that don't have aspherical lens elements and the 2 more expensive lenses are later models that do have aspherical lens elements.

 

Pete.

[joeq]

Joeq,

 

The 2 less expensive lenses are earlier models that don't have aspherical lens elements and the 2 more expensive lenses are later models that do have aspherical lens elements.

 

Pete.

 

thanks - indulge me... why should i care about aspherical lens elements?

[stunsworth]

thanks - indulge me... why should i care about aspherical lens elements?

 

Because they will give you sharper photographs at wider apertures, and have fewer optical arrogated.

[joeq]

Because they will give you sharper photographs at wider apertures, and have fewer optical arrogated.

 

noticably sharper or just textbook sharper? i mean, people did make sharp photographs before these lenses came out, no?

[farnz]

thanks - indulge me... why should i care about aspherical lens elements?

Okay, it's not 'just' the aspherical lens elements that make the difference although they do make a particular difference.

 

These are two different lens designs and therefore they produce quite different performance. Aspherical lenses tend to produce sharper images, especially with the lens wide open, because they correct for natural lens aberrations more efficiently.

 

The older lens design has a reputation for being vulnerable to flare and suffers from spherical aberration, which sounds bad but many photographers prefer that 'look' to their photos because it's softer and produces the so-called Leica Glow.

 

Aspherical elements are expensive to produce, which is one reason why the later models are more expensive.

 

Pete.

[joeq]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Okay, it's not 'just' the aspherical lens elements that make the difference although they do make a particular difference.

 

These are two different lens designs and therefore they produce quite different performance. Aspherical lenses tend to produce sharper images, especially with the lens wide open, because they correct for natural lens aberrations more efficiently.

 

The older lens design has a reputation for being vulnerable to flare and suffers from spherical aberration, which sounds bad but many photographers prefer that 'look' to their photos because it's softer and produces the so-called Leica Glow.

 

Aspherical elements are expensive to produce, which is one reason why the later models are more expensive.

 

Pete.

 

interesting - so it sounds like you're saying that some prefer the older, less expensive lenses?

[farnz]

noticably sharper or just textbook sharper? i mean, people did make sharp photographs before these lenses came out, no?

Arguably not *as sharp* with the aperture wide open - and that's the point: wide open. If you buy a lens with a wide aperture, say, f/1.4 then you're likely to pay more money for it and you want to use it wide open and you probably want it to be sharp wide open.

 

Pete.

[stunsworth]

noticably sharper or just textbook sharper? i mean, people did make sharp photographs before these lenses came out, no?

 

Very easily noticeable. Yes people did take sharp photographs before the asphericals came out, but not at f1.4.

 

Also artefacts - that should have been the last word in my previous post - are much reduced.

[farnz]

interesting - so it sounds like you're saying that some prefer the older, less expensive lenses?

Yes, it's a matter of taste - and of the 'look' the lens gives to the photos.

 

Pete.

[farnz]

V...Also artefacts - that should have been the last word in my previous post ...

Yes, I was a little horn-swoggled with "optical arrogated", Steve.

 

Pete.

[joeq]

Arguably not *as sharp* with the aperture wide open - and that's the point: wide open. If you buy a lens with a wide aperture, say, f/1.4 then you're likely to pay more money for it and you want to use it wide open and you probably want it to be sharp wide open.

 

Pete.

 

thanks - in your travels, have you come across any sites that show a side by side comparison at 1.4?

[farnz]

This thread has some good examples of modern and earlier f/1.4 lenses wide open.

 

Pete

[adan]

To expand a bit: the older, less expensive lenses in the OPs links are a 1961 optical design (although built and sold new through 1997). It was a landmark design for its day, but it produced "dreamy" images @ f/1.4. See the first image on this page (groom with wine glass) for a classic example from this lens @ f/1.4.

 

andypiper - PORTFOLIOS - WEDDINGS

 

Stopped down even a little, it becomes quite sharp, although still a little less contrasty than the ASPH version - see third picture, bride and mountainside, at about f/2.8.

 

The ASPH version, as a close approximation, will deliver contrast and clarity like the bride picture even @ f/1.4 (less DoF, of course). It is a 1994 design so incorporates 33 years of optical progress, including the ASPH element.

 

There are perfectly good creative reasons to like the "dreamy" look, however. I got rid of my early non-ASPH 35 f/1.4 more because it cannot focus as closely as the newer ASPH version (physical differences in the construction, rather than a specific optical limitation per se).

__________________

 

More optical background on ASPH elements

 

The "dreamy" look is caused by optical aberrations. If you look at the last picture on the page (sepia of kiss in tent), in the top left corner you can see fairy lights. These point lights have little wings on them caused by the optical abberations of the non-ASPH lens - some combination of coma and astigmatism. In parts of the picture that don't have obvious points of light, the aberrations just show up as a general glowing softness - an infinite number of little wings overlapping each other.

 

The design of the newer 35 f/1.4 eliminates those aberrations, and thus the soft-focus look.

 

PART of that improvement is due to the ASPH surface on one of the elements (there are other changes as well)

 

The vast majority of lens surfaces are spherical - that is, they are segments of the surface of a sphere, with a constant radius of curvature. They are relatively easy to grind due to the constant radius, and also easier to calculate, an important factor in pre-computer days.

 

Aspherical ("non"-spherical, ASPH in Leica terminology) lens surfaces have a varying curve, which was much harder and thus more expensive to manufacture, up until the past 20 years or so. Nowadays they turn up even in some relatively cheap P&S camera lenses.

[pico]

If you make an image with an early Leica lens that is in-focus, but not sharp then many people will adore it for its "Leica Glow", and others will disparage it because it is not 'sharp'.

 

Neither are really concerned for the merit of the photograph itself.

 

.

[gib_robinson]

Joeq,

 

Since Leica has been producing lenses for M cameras for more than fifty years, there are numerous generations of design with strengths and weaknesses that have been described and explored in considerable detail in books like Erwin Puts Leica Lens Compendium or Ghester Sartorius' Identifying Leica Lenses (which mostly lists the basic characteristics).

 

Digital sensors are, by and large, not as forgiving as film so the earlier lenses can be more noticeably soft on an M8/9. On the other hand, some Leica lens designers like Walter Mandler are revered for producing lenses with very lovely secondary characteristics even though they are not as sharp edge-to-edge.

 

Personally I do favor the high-contrast, high-resolution, flare-resistant current generation of lenses which almost always have the aspherical elements adan mentioned.

 

--Gib