28mm cron vs 35mm cron

[sblitz]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

no, this is not a thread regarding the value of one focal length vs another. i have the 35mm cron to use on my m9 and it works just fine but the rendering is a bit clinical, for the lack of a better word, and nowhere near what the 50mm lux delivers. now i just had the opportunity to use a 28mm cron for the day and the shots look, to me at least, a lot more like the 50mm lux. my question is how can it be that two cron lenses render so differently? after all, i am presuming that all summicron lenses have the same design just different focal lengths -- or am i missing something here?

[Advertisement]

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

[jaapv]

Hmmm.. I use Summicrons and Summiluxes;) The name Summicron or Summilux has nothing to do with design. It denotes the lens speed, at least nowadays. Originally the name Summicron was introduced to describe a lens that used Kron glass, but that association was soon dropped.

[adan]

You're missing something - "Summicron" is simply a designation for a maximum aperture of f/2.

 

The designs are very different (See attached, 35 on left, 28 on right)

 

Once upon a time, it happened that all Summicrons were vaguely similar double-gauss 6-7-element designs. But not since the intro of the "compact" 90 Summicron in 1980. The only remaining 'cron based on such a design is the 50.

 

None of the current Summicrons (28, 35, 50, 75, 90) share much of anything in optical layout.

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!

[bbbonthemoon]

Yes many people find 35 cron rendering boring comparing to 28, here was at least one thread discussing this matter in details.

[lct]

...my question is how can it be that two cron lenses render so differently?...

Could you show some samples of such different renderings? Just curious as i have not much experience with the 35/2 asph that i bought recently. I find the latter a bit more contrasty with a slightly harsher bokeh from time to time, but not always though. In fact using 'smooth' 35s like 35/2 IV and 35/2.5 as well, i expected more difference as far as 'clinicalness' is concerned. Now i have no experience with those lenses on the M9 (R-D1, M8.2).

[sblitz]

hey andy -- thanks so much for the explanation. i knew that the designation meant the same aperture, i just presumed the design was similar as well. obviously my presumption was wrong and the different design obviously lends to a different rendering, how is a matter of opinion but clearly it will be different.

 

lct -- since the lens was borrowed i do not have any side-by-side shots to post for comparison and contrasting. the answers above do, however, answer the question as to why they would be different.

 

you should learn something new everyday, and i am now done for today.

 

thanks again,

steve

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

...the answers above do, however, answer the question as to why they would be different...

Really?

[sblitz]

it answers why they would render different now how or how you would view the difference. But a different design, by definition, is going to give you a different picture. Had I the same scene side by side I would be more than happy to post but I don't perhaps someone else reading this thread does. Or there is another thread referenced above that does. My question was really about the lens design thinking all summicrons were the same beyond the aperture. I learned today that I was wrong. 'nuff said

 

Steve

[lct]

Not sure to follow you here. With different optical formulas, Leica lenses from the same period give very close renderings on the contrary.

[sblitz]

lct - I will let others weigh in on that observation. Mine was simply that the 35 cron and the 28 cron are different. The 35, in my opinion, has no real character, whereas the 28 reminds me of the 50 lux in that the results appear "film like" (dare i say) right out of the box -- that is without any pp is captureone 6. i did try a pre asph 28mm elmarit in the store the other day and it rendered deeper colors but was not nearly as sharp as the 28mm cron asph. i can remember reading an interview with a magnum photographer who said he preferred the softer look of the pre asph lenses on his m9, pretty much picking up the point you made in your post regarding the bokeh, etc. now there is a science to building a lens, but can it be the case that when a new lens design is put together that leica is never 100% sure of how it's going to turn out? kind of like acoustic design for a concert hall? don't know, perhaps there is a bit of a random mystery to how it turns out. makes lens making a bit more of a poetic endeavor than a scientific one, don't you think? so i do believe a different design will offer a different result without qualifying better or worse, that is personal taste -- people love light leaking holgas, after all.

 

in the end, if the lens delivers what you want in order to create the vision you seek then then its a great lens. me, i prefer a softer, film like look out of the camera, perhaps it is because i have spent 50 years shooting film. not sure my sons have the same value. i am sure that there has not yet been the hcb of the digital age to define what makes for a great digital photo in terms of photographic art. people, though, are trying. right now what i see, myself including, and read on this forum is mostly people trying to bend the digital result such that it looks like film. the new definition will likely come out of the new current generation of photographers -- and leica should feed them m9s like crazy so we can see what young, talented, creative minds can produce untethered by the hcb benchmark, if that's possible.

 

and as for what lens will deliver that result, who knows, but you, me, all of us, keep experimenting and learning and when leica changes the m9 sensor to something else we will all have to relearn the lenses yet again.

[lct]

Well i have nothing to sell of course. I happen to use different 35s and i would understand that you might prefer, say, the 35/2 IV or another Mandler lens over the 35/2 asph. What i find surprising is that you see such differences between two 'modern' Leica lenses that i find very close with my admittedly short experience of the 35/2 asph. So my feeling is you did not try the latter long enough but i may be wrong. Just sharing my viewpoint.

[sblitz]

well admittedly it was simply an hour or so of shooting as part of a leica academy day so we can say it was an impression rather than a scientific observation. but first blinks count

[01af]

What I find surprising is that you see such differences between two 'modern' Leica lenses [...]. So my feeling is you did not try the latter long enough ...

This is exactly what I'd suspect, too. It's so easy to delude oneself when trying to assess a lens' image quality or image rendition from just a few shots.

 

 

... first blinks count

No, they don't, not in this context. Actually, the contrary is true—first blinks are meaningless.

[sblitz]

well we can agree to disagree -- you can spend a lifetime trying to assess the technical differences between two lenses, there are numerous threads in this forum dedicated to this. my point was only that i saw a difference and wondered why and then found out the lens design is different and that the summicron name only refers to the aperture and nothing else.

 

are you saying that the 28 cron and the 35 cron give exactly the same rendering? no difference, aside from focal length? none whatsoever?

 

okay with me if you want to open this line of debate but i think you will find a lot of people will disagree with you and a lot will agree. which goes to my point, first blinks do count when it comes to whether you a like the render of one lens versus another.

[01af]

... you can spend a lifetime trying to assess the technical differences between two lenses ...

There's some room between "first blink" and "lifetime", don't you think?

 

 

Are you saying that the Summicron-M 28 mm Asph and the Summicron-M 35 mm Asph give exactly the same rendering? No difference, aside from focal length? None whatsoever?

If you want to know what I'm saying then why don't you just read what I wrote?

 

 

... if you want to open this line of debate ...

Dragging other persons posts into the absurd and insinuating unsaid statements is your line of debate, not mine.

 

 

... first blinks do count ...

If you think they do then in a self-fulfilling way they will indeed. But when you keep your mind open even after a first-blink assessment then you'll find that pretty often they don't. I'm not saying your first-blink assessment of the Summicron-M 35 mm Asph was wrong. I'm just saying it might be wrong; after shooting that lens for only a very limited period of time you should not close the case yet. When shooting it in another situation or two, you might want to change your mind. Or not ... but you cannot know just yet.

[sblitz]

I am not certain you really read or understood my initial point. I saw a difference in the rendering after reviewing the pictures taken and wanted to understand why there was a difference. Not sure why this troubles you quite so much. There are other threads that go through the differences and measure and recommend them if that is a debate you wish to join. It is not a debate I am interested in here. Once again not sure why you find this suggestion so negatively. Do you believe I should have spent months testing the two lenses before asking the question? How long would have been long enough before asking the question? What is your benchmark? This thread was answered by Andy and it was good enough for me to explain why there is a difference. It is what I wanted to know. And yes more than a blink is better to assess the true difference but enough to note there is one