YKERVREN Posted January 17, 2011 Share #1 Posted January 17, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Dear all I got few remarks that the 35MM f:1,4 Sumilux pre aspheric is of better quality compared with the very last release aspherical ? Could you please let me know the reason in the back of this statement ? Is Leica going to correct the existing 35 Sumilux to correct the situation ? Thanks and regards Yves:confused: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 17, 2011 Posted January 17, 2011 Hi YKERVREN, Take a look here 35MM SUMILUX. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
k_g_wolf ✝ Posted January 17, 2011 Share #2 Posted January 17, 2011 Are these "remarks" of serious photogs or just people being jealous they didn´t get one ...? There is no reason to correct anything with the new lens, AFIK. Best GEORG Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
matlep Posted January 17, 2011 Share #3 Posted January 17, 2011 Well, first "Better" needs to be defined. According to some on this forum and to some reviews the new Summilux-M 35 ASPH (Version 2) is the best Leica lens around. But if it´s the best for you... Well it depends on what you value and if you are shooting film or digital. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 17, 2011 Share #4 Posted January 17, 2011 Well, if you you define best as MTF curves and specifications, the current lens is without doubt the best 35 mm Leica ever built. If it is an artistic value judgement, anything goes and I could make a case for an Old Delft Alfinar being the "best" . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted January 17, 2011 Share #5 Posted January 17, 2011 Hi Yves That is like playing football with a Frelon nest for the balloon. The pre asph was a statement lens from '62 designed to put Nikon and Canon in their (2nd) place compared with Leitz, it is small, light, and has an interesting signature, especial wide open. The Aspherical, and then type I and II Asph, perform much better, in the range f/1.4 to /5.6. If you need speed some of my friends use the CV f/1.2, on film and digital, some the CV /1.4 on digital. I use CV f/2.5 and pre asph Leica, I dont like big lenses. But before you buy any of these you need to try the ergonomics of the focus mechanisms and your hands. Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted January 17, 2011 Share #6 Posted January 17, 2011 Dear allI got few remarks that the 35MM f:1,4 Sumilux pre aspheric is of better quality compared with the very last release aspherical ? Could you please let me know the reason in the back of this statement ? Is Leica going to correct the existing 35 Sumilux to correct the situation ? Thanks and regards Yves:confused: The reason could be a bit of confusion of various voices... ... indeed, Leica has JUST made a new Summilux 35 (some months ago - above referred to by Noel as "type II asph") and this is the lens one can buy now; the previous asph was many times criticized for a certain "vagueness" in focusing : it was said to show a significant focus shift (to be honest, the issue sprout out with the advent of digital Leicas and the feast of "100% pixel size") : but is hard to say that the "old" un-asph Summilux was , in general, "better", even if, for myself, I still have and like to use it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bybrett Posted January 17, 2011 Share #7 Posted January 17, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hi Yves There is no doubt in my mind that the results from the latest 35mm Summilux ASPH show a better quality (than all previous versions). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark2 Posted January 17, 2011 Share #8 Posted January 17, 2011 It's not true. The new 35mm f1.4 is better. Are you sure u bought the latest 35mm? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted January 17, 2011 Share #9 Posted January 17, 2011 The problem with the original pre-aspheric lens (1961–1995) was not only large amounts of astigmatism and coma. Ordinary diffuse highlights did also give rise to large swaths of veiling glare that spread across much of the image. You had to stop it down to 4.0 to have decent results, and 8.0 was better. The first version ASPH (1994–2010) had a clear issue with focus shift when the lens was stopped down. It was spot on at 1.4, but then you'd better skip all f-stops wider than 5.6, where an expanding field of view took care of the problems. Luigi is right that this was in fact just a minor issue as long as we used film, not necessarily because of pixel-peeping but because the depth of the film emulsion hid some of it. The current v.2 ASPH, which I own, is a superlens that can be used without hesitation at any f-stop wider than f:11 (where diffraction starts to visibly degrade the image of ANY well-corrected lens), and the fingerprint is just beautiful. But the reason why I do own it at all is probably that I put in a firm order for it even before the old version was even officially discontinued! The old still slightly aspherical old man Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nikkor AIS Posted January 17, 2011 Share #10 Posted January 17, 2011 I agree the term better needs to be qualified. I personally like the look I get from my 35 1.4 Summilux pre ASPH. It's got the glow, or veiling flare which ever you prefer. And stopped down it is really sharp. 35 1.4 Summilux @ 1.4 on Leica M3 on XP2. 35 1.4 Summilux @1.4 on Leica MP 35 Summilux 1.4 @ F4 on Leica M7 Gregory Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colorflow Posted January 17, 2011 Share #11 Posted January 17, 2011 I just recently decided to forego the newest asph2 and stick with my asph1. Instead I decided to use the money saved from the upgrade to re-re-buy the pre-asph. Yes, my asph 1 focus shifts between f2 and f4 and yes I know how badly the pre-asph flares. I guess my concept of 'better' is to have two different signatures than one perfect asph 2....for now anyway:p Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nikkor AIS Posted January 17, 2011 Share #12 Posted January 17, 2011 I think having a differnt signature look is totally reasonable. From my research, I would love to get the orignial hand ground first version of the 35 1.4 Summilux ASPH . The new one not so much. Gregory Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colorflow Posted January 17, 2011 Share #13 Posted January 17, 2011 I think having a differnt signature look is totally reasonable.From my research, I would love to get the orignial hand ground first version of the 35 1.4 Summilux ASPH . The new one not so much. Gregory How is the 'Aspherical's signature different from asph 1? I have not heard much about it's signature, other than no focus shift. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nikkor AIS Posted January 18, 2011 Share #14 Posted January 18, 2011 Sorry bad writing, I ment the difference in signature between the the ASPH and my lowley non ASPH 35 1.4 Summilux copy:p. I am mostly interested in the first 35 Summilux 1.4 ASPH version because I understand it had hand ground ASPH elements like my Nikkor 28 1.4 AF-D and my Nikkor 58 1.2 AIS. I got my 35 1.4 Summilux because it has what I though of was the classic leica look. And being my first Leica lens I wanted to start there. I am not saying there "better" but I get a kick out of owning/using a lens made by hand and not molded. Not that there is anything wrong with how they make them now. I just think there is somthing special about lenses polished by hand. I saw a telivesion show and even the "best telescopes" made where hand polished. The irregular motion made by the human hand is not easlliy reproduced by a machine. Gregory Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacarape Posted January 18, 2011 Share #15 Posted January 18, 2011 Gregory, I don't think I followed you well. The first hand polished element 35 Lux is commonly called "Aspherical" the later versions were ASPHs. If that is what you're shooting, my hat is off to you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nikkor AIS Posted January 18, 2011 Share #16 Posted January 18, 2011 Okay now I see what the confussion is. I dont have the original 35 1.4 aspherical version , but that is the one I want. I have the older 35 1.4 Summilux, which I will make due with until I get the other one.. Gregory Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted January 18, 2011 Share #17 Posted January 18, 2011 Just to sort it all out properly. There are by now THREE aspherical 35mm Summilux lenses. (1) Summilux Aspherical. This was the first "testing the waters" version, launched in 1990. It had an optical layout, revolutionary at that time, that was very similar to that of the later two versions. It had however two aspherical surfaces, one in the front and one in the rea half. These (quite large) surfaces were ground by a semi-manual process that was very slow and laborious, identical (I'm told) to that used for the first Noctilux 1:1.2 in 1966. The venture was economically suicidal, and Leica announced from the outset that only 2,000 lenses would be produced. This was a clear case of optical territory-pissing. The lens is now a sought-after collectors' item. (2) Summilux ASPH (v.1). 1994–2010. The commercially successful version with one aspherical surface (the first after the iris diaphragm) made by hot die-pressing. This lens was a wonderlens with film, but digital revealed problems with focus shift on stopping down. Can be instantly recognised by its snap-on, rectangular part-plastic lens hood. (3) Summilux ASPH (v.2). 2010 and current. One aspherical surface as above, but re-computed and with the entire rear half of the lens designed as a "floating group". Screw-on all metal hood. And as has already been pointed out, the original 1961–1995 non-aspherical double-Gauss type version, which was flarey, astigmatic and comatose ... A very compact, near-pancake lens with a round metal snap-on hood which took Series VII filters. The anastigmatic old man Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
matlep Posted January 18, 2011 Share #18 Posted January 18, 2011 Good summary Lars, but i am still waiting for the OP to define "better quality" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 18, 2011 Share #19 Posted January 18, 2011 According to Erwin Puts the performance differences between the Summilux 35 aspherical and Summilux 35 asph (I) are minimal. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted January 18, 2011 Share #20 Posted January 18, 2011 According to Erwin Puts the performance differences between the Summilux 35 aspherical and Summilux 35 asph (I) are minimal. Not if you try to buy one ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.