Xmas Posted January 18, 2011 Share #21 Posted January 18, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hi I'll try and help, the pre asph is still a usable lens, at f/5.6, it is comparable with a f2.8 summaron or any of the asphs... With a proviso, it needs the hood from the type IV cron 35mm/asph Elmarit 28mm, instead of the normal hood. The normal hood is circular, and not very efficient evem if you dont use a filter, useless if you use a filter. You need to blue tack any filter you need as Leitz cant have used it before shipping it without threads. Wider then f/5.6 contra jour out doors or with Frenels and profiles in studio, it will misbehave, but on a M8 or M9 you can reshoot, it will produce nice high key shots you will need move arond buckets of solid CO2 and hot water to equal, with later lenses. The Aspherical MTF's looks to split the type I and type II asph MTF's, so you can use any of the three wide open, There may be signature differences as Gregory alludes to but they would be pretty discrete, I'd recommend borrowing one from a collector, buying one might be painful, selling a kidney not recommended. People complained about the asph type I, flare with sun in picture, when they first appeared, think they were being 'picky'. Only some of them focus shifted noticably, with the dcams, greater majority will be ok on film cameras, and they may be a lot cheaper for a while. There is considerable choice in fast and medium speed 35mm lenses, Cosina are reported to be reworkig their f/1.2's as well. Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 18, 2011 Posted January 18, 2011 Hi Xmas, Take a look here 35MM SUMILUX. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
lars_bergquist Posted January 18, 2011 Share #22 Posted January 18, 2011 Good summary Lars, but i am still waiting for the OP to define "better quality" Better quality to me means higher fidelity. That is, more true to the subject. Or, if you prefer it that way, higher definition. I am aware that to some people, "better quality" means "what I like better". To each his own; but in a technical discussion, there should be some limit to one's subjectivity. So somebody likes his pictures better if they are taken through the bottom of a Coke bottle. That's ok by me, but don't include me. The unreconstructed old man Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wizard Posted January 18, 2011 Share #23 Posted January 18, 2011 ... the 35MM f:1,4 Sumilux pre aspheric is of better quality compared with the very last release aspherical ? This is pure nonsense, really. That said, the old (first) Summilux 35mm is still a nice lens and will perform remarkably well even today, as many pictures taken with this lens prove. Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted January 18, 2011 Share #24 Posted January 18, 2011 ... This was a clear case of optical territory-pissing.... Lars, you've coined a wonderfully descriptive new phrase! :) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted January 19, 2011 Share #25 Posted January 19, 2011 While waiting to hear what is meant by "better", an aside: There is some imaging difference between the rare, 2-ASPH surface "Aspherical" 35 f/1.4 and the more common successor with one ASPH surface. The first (at f/1.4 -f/2) has slightly cleaner performance in the center, and fuzzier corners, than the replacement, which had more even performance across the image @ f/1.4, but not quite as crisp in the center. Also, the first version was yellower in color rendition while the 1993-2010 version is more in line with the color rendition of Leica's other ASPH lenses of the last 15 years - pinker. I did a test that is buried somewhere in the nether regions of Photo.net - c. 2002. As to the pre-ASPH, I would have kept mine except for the 1-meter close-focus limit. The softness at f/1.4 had its uses and attractions, and it was as good as any of the other M 35s @ f/4 or more. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nikkor AIS Posted January 19, 2011 Share #26 Posted January 19, 2011 Thanks for all the great info. The knowlege base here is wide and deep. I would really love to see some images from the first vesion 35 1.4 Summilux Asperical. I don't really need/ want any comparison photo. Just any images would be great. Gregory Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
YKERVREN Posted January 19, 2011 Author Share #27 Posted January 19, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) (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 So in order to summerize my way, Since I will never have enough money to aford the item(1), and item (2) is under question mark, I will go for item (3) except if you confirm that after f:2 Summicron new release is similar ...??? Did I understand well ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
D&A Posted January 19, 2011 Share #28 Posted January 19, 2011 That sort of sums it up, in a technical sense, but the "look" of an image taken by a given lens, is of course subjective. On a number of occasions (as did others) I tested the 35mm f1.4 asph (Ver I) against the 35mm cron asph. At f2 it was close but it appeared the Cron had the edge in sharpness in the outer zones and corners and therefore was more evenly sharp across the entire frame. There appeared still to be some residual field curvature with the Lux asph Ver I. By f2.8 and beyond, they were very close and of course the Lux asph (Ver I) had the advantage of opening up to f1.4. Dave (D&A) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted January 19, 2011 Share #29 Posted January 19, 2011 So in order to summerize my way, Since I will never have enough money to aford the item(1), and item (2) is under question mark, I will go for item (3) except if you confirm that after f:2 Summicron new release is similar ...??? Did I understand well ? The "signature" or "fingerprint" of v.3 is extremely similar to that of v.2. The main difference is that the focus shift problem is absent. Personally I can't imagine that you would be disappointed with the current Summilux ASPH – it's a superb lens. The anastigmatic (but presbyopic) old man Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaxFoto Posted January 19, 2011 Share #30 Posted January 19, 2011 here some recent shots (m9 & new 35mm lux)... Hanoi @ night :) 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/141884-35mm-sumilux/?do=findComment&comment=1563140'>More sharing options...
Xmas Posted January 19, 2011 Share #31 Posted January 19, 2011 (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 So in order to summerize my way, Since I will never have enough money to aford the item(1), and item (2) is under question mark, I will go for item (3) except if you confirm that after f:2 Summicron new release is similar ...??? Did I understand well ? Hi Yes but did you mean to say summicron? If you dont need f/1.4 a lot there are four (type I to IV) pre asph summicrons and one asph, smaller, lighter and cheaper. If you dont need f/2 a lot there is the f/2.8 summaron which it is difficult to find in mint condition optically but will(would) still perform really well. You still can get type I asph lux which are within focus tolerances, if you have a digital M you take a ruler or newspaper into the camera shop... the availability of a type II (new or 2nd hand) asph Lux may be more difficult. I make do with a CV f/2.5 and a preasph lux, they both are ok for my style of shooting, the CV was similar in cost to a replacement hood for the pre asph lux. Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jc_braconi Posted January 19, 2011 Share #32 Posted January 19, 2011 An example with a M8 classic and SUMMILUX-M 35mm Pre Asph.1983 issued. Thanks for this interesting posts. 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/141884-35mm-sumilux/?do=findComment&comment=1563260'>More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted January 20, 2011 Share #33 Posted January 20, 2011 An example with a M8 classic and SUMMILUX-M 35mm Pre Asph.1983 issued.Thanks for this interesting posts. Nice old bikes, nice old men, nice shot. But what f-stop? That lens was quite good, though low contrast, at 5.6. The non-spherical old man Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted January 20, 2011 Share #34 Posted January 20, 2011 Yes but did you mean to say summicron?If you dont need f/1.4 a lot there are four (type I to IV) pre asph summicrons and one asph, smaller, lighter and cheaper. If you dont need f/2 a lot there is the f/2.8 summaron which it is difficult to find in mint condition optically but will(would) still perform really well. You still can get type I asph lux which are within focus tolerances, if you have a digital M you take a ruler or newspaper into the camera shop... the availability of a type II (new or 2nd hand) asph Lux may be more difficult. I make do with a CV f/2.5 and a preasph lux, they both are ok for my style of shooting, the CV was similar in cost to a replacement hood for the pre asph lux. Noel Don't forget the current 35mm Summarit. By all reports that's a very good lens indeed. My own "strolling 35" is a v.4 Summicron. I tried it on the M8 with results that were so good that I sent it back to Solms for a CLA and coding. My experiences with the CV 2.5 were bad – severe decentering made the lens close to useless. QC at Cosina (when Zeiss are not watching) is such that buying one of their lenses is a gamble. Lemons abound. The old man from the Age of the 3.5cm Elmar Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted January 20, 2011 Share #35 Posted January 20, 2011 Hi Lars Thanks I forgot about the Summarit(s) I've not had any problems with any of my CV, apart from one that has beem mistreated and needs repair, it still works ok damaged, I have sixteen CV but only three are f/2.5 35mm, note they are LTM for my LTM cameras. My two ZM have the slack focus ring syndrome but that only annoys some people. My new Leica has a tolerance problem, not QA merely lax attidude I'd say, same problem with a CV LTM/M adapter, i.e. same fault... I'd imagine Cosina do good statistical control, cause it saves them money, impressed you got a bad one. Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddp Posted January 20, 2011 Share #36 Posted January 20, 2011 Just throwing this out there - if there's anyone in the NYC / Philadelphia metro area that has an M9 and the newest 35mm Summilux asph and wants to throw on the original 35 Summilux Aspherical to do some comparisons, let me know. I specify M9 simply due to the fact that it will likely give a closer rendition to what the lenses are capable of on full frame as opposed to the M8. My experience as an M8 owner was that some of the characteristics were lost compared to what I was getting on film. Part of the reason I sold the M8, but that's a different debate. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nikkor AIS Posted January 21, 2011 Share #37 Posted January 21, 2011 ddp can you post a couple shots taken with the original 35 1.4 Summilux asperical. Thanks in adavance.. Gregory Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jc_braconi Posted January 21, 2011 Share #38 Posted January 21, 2011 Nice old bikes, nice old men, nice shot. But what f-stop? That lens was quite good, though low contrast, at 5.6. The non-spherical old man Thanks Lars, the f-stop was 5.6 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
coup de foudre Posted January 21, 2011 Share #39 Posted January 21, 2011 ddp can you post a couple shots taken with the original 35 1.4 Summilux asperical. Thanks in adavance.. i think he has a set up on his flickr page. (i've been lusting after this lens for a long time, but it's near impossible to find a "user" at a price i can afford... imo, it combines some of the magic of the pre-asph with the close focus of the Asph -- plus, no discernible focus shift.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
christakis Posted January 21, 2011 Share #40 Posted January 21, 2011 Interesting thread. I've been eyeing the 35mm Summilux Pre-asph for a while now. My dealer has one and for the listed price, the balance would be very low if I give my 35mm Summicron asph in. The extra stop would be nice for night shots as would the slightly shallower DoF. But it's a tough decision to make. PS: "Made in Canada". Any comments on that? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.