bbbonthemoon Posted July 10, 2011 Share #1 Posted July 10, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Very excited that I found the new 35 lux in stock at local dealer, very rare and hard to find lens now days. But I already own a 35 cron, and I'm pretty happy with it. Need your advice if it is worthy upgrade, should the money not be a matter to consider I'm under impression of KR review of this lens Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 10, 2011 Posted July 10, 2011 Hi bbbonthemoon, Take a look here 35 cron asph -> 35 new lux asph worthy upgrade?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
MarkP Posted July 10, 2011 Share #2 Posted July 10, 2011 I would STRONGLY recommend reading the Irwin Puts and Reid Reviews (well worth subscribing to) far more sophisticated and objective assessment of this lens, rather than the 'ever popular' KR's superficial dross. If you don't need the extra stop don't spend the money which will fund at least one other lens of an alternate focal length. Will you keep or sell the Summicron? However I have the new 35 Summilux ASPH which I bought as my first lens for the M9 as often photograph in low light and it is an excellent all-rounder. Especially so if I only want to take one lens. Many argue that it's rendering is too clinical but each to their own. Hope this helps. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbbonthemoon Posted July 10, 2011 Author Share #3 Posted July 10, 2011 Well, I will probably let to the cron go, if I buy lux, and I will definitively enjoy extra stop, because I shot in lower light most of the time. But in practice I noticed that the difference between 1.4 and 2 is not that much in digital, if you do not employ it for object separation(and that is not the case with 35). If you need 800 ISO on aperture 2, you will most probably end up using the same 800 iso on 1.4 lens. I also own new 50 1.4 asph, and if the "clinical" rendering you mention is something similar to new 50 lux drawings, than probably it worths the upgrade, because I really enjoy the excess of details in can produce when properly focused Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted July 10, 2011 Share #4 Posted July 10, 2011 I have both of these lenses and agree with you, but I do like to shoot at a lower ISO where possible even in low light with these fast lenses open. Having said that I recently acquired a C Sonnar 50/1.5 which renders very differently and I find myself using it more and more (but I will not part with the Sumilux). Exactly as others have described it has an old lens feeling to it when wide open and very sharp when shut down. However there is an obvious focus shift when close up and wide open. I understand this is due to the lens' FFD is set for film cameras and can be adjusted for the Digital M by Zeiss Germany and have just sent the lens back for this FFD adjustment. The Sonnar is a fraction of the cost of the any new Leica lens. Mark Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted July 11, 2011 Share #5 Posted July 11, 2011 I would recommend also looking at our comments on this active thread. The problem described seems to be uncommon but certainly present in these two lenses in certain circumstances. Will wait to see what Leica have to say but if confirmed I will insist an exchange for a new lens. http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/134091-looking-m9-new-leica-35mm-f1.html Mark Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted July 11, 2011 Share #6 Posted July 11, 2011 Very excited that I found the new 35 lux in stock at local dealer, very rare and hard to find lens now days. But I already own a 35 cron, and I'm pretty happy with it. Need your advice if it is worthy upgrade, should the money not be a matter to consider I'm under impression of KR review of this lens Hi It is not an flight ticket upgrade, you dont get more leg room, or more food, you pay more and get different flare, if you dont need 1.4 for majority of shots you dont need 1.4 lens. Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ecaton Posted July 11, 2011 Share #7 Posted July 11, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Buy it and try it. In case you decide to sell it, you will even pocket a considerable profit. So no risk of buying it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted July 11, 2011 Share #8 Posted July 11, 2011 I do seldom need that extra f-stop, but when I need it, I do need it! That said, one of my favourite lenses is my 1983 v.2 35mm Summicron, jubilee engraving and all ... Also, the drawing of the 'cron ASPH is practically identical with that of the 'lux ASPH at the same f-stops. The 50mm Summilux ASPH is subtly different. Even so, the amount of crisp detail you can get out of the 'lux ASPH at mid-apertures is remarkable. The limiting factor is really your own ability to focus correctly and to hold the camera steadily. The old man from the Age of the 1962 Summilux Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alun Posted July 11, 2011 Share #9 Posted July 11, 2011 Will you take better and more memorable photographs? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mustafasoleiman Posted July 11, 2011 Share #10 Posted July 11, 2011 Will you take better and more memorable photographs? I would imagine that is the point of this exercise... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Fluff Posted July 12, 2011 Share #11 Posted July 12, 2011 But in practice I noticed that the difference between 1.4 and 2 is not that much in digital, if you do not employ it for object separation(and that is not the case with 35). If you need 800 ISO on aperture 2, you will most probably end up using the same 800 iso on 1.4 lens. That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. A stop is a stop, film or digits - so you can either use a lower iso or a higher shutter speed - in no sense will the difference be 'not that much' - it will still be double the amount of light. Back to the matter at hand - similarly I just picked up an early Lux ASPH 35, simply because the price was irresistible, and I too have the Cron ASPH. The jury is still out but after limited testing I think it's a keeper - though the Cron is beautifully small, I love the look of the Lux. YMMV, so buy it and find out for yourself - and if you don't quickly then someone else will. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
artspraken Posted July 12, 2011 Share #12 Posted July 12, 2011 You are basically paying for the extra stop. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted July 12, 2011 Share #13 Posted July 12, 2011 Very excited that I found the new 35 lux in stock at local dealer, very rare and hard to find lens now days. But I already own a 35 cron, and I'm pretty happy with it. Need your advice if it is worthy upgrade, should the money not be a matter to consider I'm under impression of KR review of this lens 1) Upgrade is incorrect. You have an f2 lens and could buy an f1.4 lens. It's not an upgrade it's just a faster lens - worth the extra if you really need it. 2) You say you are 'pretty happy' with your f2 lens - see point 1. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Fluff Posted July 13, 2011 Share #14 Posted July 13, 2011 1) Upgrade is incorrect. We could get into semantics here, but I'd call it an upgrade. A car that is capable of 120mph is an upgrade over the same model which is limited to 80mph - even if you think you'll never go more than 70mph. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted July 13, 2011 Share #15 Posted July 13, 2011 We could get into semantics here, but I'd call it an upgrade. A car that is capable of 120mph is an upgrade over the same model which is limited to 80mph - even if you think you'll never go more than 70mph. OK, but the faster car will most likely be faster because it has a larger more powerful engine, which will drink more fuel, cost more to insure and run. If your need is mostly for an enconomical runabout, then it's not an upgrade really is it? Just as if you need a roomy estate car, a Ferrari isn't an upgrade. It may be nicer to own, but it's not an upgrade. The common misconception between Leica lens choices is that a faster lens is a better lens. So no, a Summilux isn't an upgrade, it's just faster. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted July 13, 2011 Share #16 Posted July 13, 2011 it's just faster. Well it may have aslo better correction but will have a greater tendancy to flare and lose microcontrast contra jour. So you pay a lot for the extra stop. It is very different from an Auto you get interview with smokie the bear in the fast car and/or a close encounter with hedge row if you open it up, Lots of us only use slow lenses... Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Fluff Posted July 13, 2011 Share #17 Posted July 13, 2011 You'll notice I chose my analogy rather more carefully than that - "The same model limited to 80mph", not a different car altogether. Your analogy falls apart in that Summiluxes do not cost more to run (unless you count a smidge of extra insurance, but c'mon). Also your roomy car / Ferrari analogy is again wrong - who would have a faster lens and find it can't do things that a slower one can? Have you ever wished you had a slower lens to hand? The Lux IS a better lens if we talk about what any given lens can do. If it were soft as mush it would be another thing, but Puts claims it out-performs the Cron at f2 anyway. It's an upgrade. It may not be an appropriate one, but it's an upgrade, in the way that Business Class is from Economy. You may not feel it's *worth* the extra price, fair enough, but you're hard pushed to sell me that the extra legroom is any kind of disadvantage. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted July 13, 2011 Share #18 Posted July 13, 2011 You'll notice I chose my analogy rather more carefully than that - "The same model limited to 80mph", not a different car altogether. Your analogy falls apart in that Summiluxes do not cost more to run (unless you count a smidge of extra insurance, but c'mon). Also your roomy car / Ferrari analogy is again wrong - who would have a faster lens and find it can't do things that a slower one can? Have you ever wished you had a slower lens to hand? The Lux IS a better lens if we talk about what any given lens can do. If it were soft as mush it would be another thing, but Puts claims it out-performs the Cron at f2 anyway. It's an upgrade. It may not be an appropriate one, but it's an upgrade, in the way that Business Class is from Economy. You may not feel it's *worth* the extra price, fair enough, but you're hard pushed to sell me that the extra legroom is any kind of disadvantage. OK I'll keep playing this game. What would be the point of having a Summilux lens but restricted to f2 It might not cost more to run but it's more expensive to buy, and heavier/larger. I so sometimes prefer a slower lens. I prefer a 3.5 5cm Elmar on my lllf because it's so compact. It's also why I like my 35 Skopar on the M2. If I was regularly shooting in low light then I'd choose something faster like a Summilux for sure. It's a choice based on use, not an upgrade or a downgrade! Business class is an upgrade, you get more legroom as you say, but even if you were a short-arse, you also get many other benefits such as better/free food, booze, a newspaper, more service pre/during/post flight etc. etc., If you just want to impress your mates down at the camera club then yes, the Summilux will be seen as an upgrade. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Fluff Posted July 13, 2011 Share #19 Posted July 13, 2011 I'm sensing we'll go round in circles here, so it's best to move on. I will grant that if you *NEVER* use f1.4 and will *NEVER* have a use for that aperture, and you're conscious of price and size, then no, it's not an upgrade, however - I will definitively enjoy extra stop, because I shot in lower light most of the time. - the OP's use seems to indicate otherwise, which before we got into bickering is where the thread started Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted July 13, 2011 Share #20 Posted July 13, 2011 Agree As an aside, I think Leica should redesign the Noctilux - instead of aperture blades it should have built in ND filters. I don't see the point in spending all that dosh and not using it wide open. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.