Hank Taylor Posted October 13, 2011 Author Share #41 Â Posted October 13, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Alan, your shots are really quite nice, good color and exposure not to mention tack sharpness. I still think this is one hell of a lens. Nicely done. Â Hank Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 13, 2011 Posted October 13, 2011 Hi Hank Taylor, Take a look here The Fantastic Pre 35mm Summilux. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
adan Posted October 13, 2011 Share #42  Posted October 13, 2011 Hi Ben.....If we're talking about the strengths of the lens, though, your image does suffer from being out of focus and the out of focus lights are distorted (I'm not really sufficiently into the technical terms - is it coma?).  Not coma - in this particular case. But vignetting.  The corners of the film are "seeing" the aperture from an angle, and at f/1.4 the lens barrel cuts down the round circle of the aperture to a cat's-eye shape at that angle. Which is then also the shape of OOF blurs.  But most of Leica's 35mm lenses DO also suffer from coma (exception being the 35 f/1.4 ASPH, where it is almost completely eliminated). Coma tends to show up as radial streaking of bright IN-FOCUS points of light.  http://www.thorlabs.com/images/TabImages/ComaAberrationToo.jpg  Combined with Astigmatism, one gets little butterfly shapes to point light sources.  Example - coma + astigmatism + (probably) some spherical aberration: 35 pre-ASPH Summicron @ f/2 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/163724-the-fantastic-pre-35mm-summilux/?do=findComment&comment=1816473'>More sharing options...
lct Posted October 13, 2011 Share #43 Â Posted October 13, 2011 ...So, while I like your image a lot, it would not persuade me of the strengths of this lens. Your skill as a photographer, yes; but in spite of the flaws in this lens... It is not "in spite" but "because" of the flaws of the lens that we like this image IMO. I cannot figure out what kind of modern lens could have done the same. With too much sharpness there is often a part of the portrait (e.g. the teeth above) that is not smooth enough even if we focus on the eyes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick_Yoon Posted November 28, 2011 Share #44 Â Posted November 28, 2011 I have a Titanium version that came with the M6 Titanium, love using it but with the original round hood it gave horrible halos with strong light sources: Â Â The lens was recently cleaned and serviced by Don Goldberg. Â Solution was to use the rectangular hood for the Summicron. Haven't seen any halos since. Only downside is that the tabs on the hood interfere with the aperture ring in some positions. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted November 28, 2011 Share #45 Â Posted November 28, 2011 Perhaps a stupid question at this time in the thread, but what is the Leica Part Number for this lens? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted November 28, 2011 Share #46 Â Posted November 28, 2011 According to the M9's menu for manual lens settings there were several: 11860, 11869, 11870. Presumably those were for the different colors: black, silver, and titanium (not necessarily in that order). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brill64 Posted November 28, 2011 Share #47 Â Posted November 28, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Â what the f... is ooooo0000OOOOO0000oooohh!!!! Â Â but frankly the tools have little to do their skill & their images. Â if there was no (spiritual, physical, emotional, rhetorical) relationship between the two, however bad, surely nothing would be the result....you can't really mean it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted November 28, 2011 Share #48 Â Posted November 28, 2011 ...what is the Leica Part Number for this lens? - 11860, Vers. 2 (1992?) Titanium - 11869, Vers. 1 (1961-1966) Black paint with chrome front rim - 11870, Vers. 1 (1961-1966) Silver with chrome front rim - 11870, Vers. 2 (1966-1995) Black anodized - 11871, Vers. 1 (1961-1966) Silver "RF" with goggles & chrome front rim - 11871, Vers. 2 (1966-1995) Black anodized with goggles - 11872, Vers. 1 (1961-1966) Black paint "RF" with goggles & chrome front rim ... IINW Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hannes Lummes Posted November 28, 2011 Share #49  Posted November 28, 2011 I think I pretty much know what to expect from this lens, because I have used it a lot in extremely varied situations. It is a fine lens from f/2.8 and like *any lens* it can work even wide open if the subject is suitable. Here is a test pic for coma, wide open: 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/163724-the-fantastic-pre-35mm-summilux/?do=findComment&comment=1856121'>More sharing options...
Hannes Lummes Posted November 28, 2011 Share #50  Posted November 28, 2011 Here you can see how much snappier the lens gets from 1.4 to 2.8 among other things.  This scene works wide open too, but the overall impression is very flat.  Saying that the super low wide open contrast some how helps with film is BS IMHO. You only loose all information in the deep shadows because all the random light veiling the whole scene.  Any how, at the moment this is my only 35mm lens, and I can live with it. My style of picturetaking doesn't require extreme sharpness very often.  My sample is quite late, Made in Germany, and in superb condition. It does not like to be focused to infinity on M9 without some machining, but so what, I only have M6. 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/163724-the-fantastic-pre-35mm-summilux/?do=findComment&comment=1856140'>More sharing options...
01af Posted November 28, 2011 Share #51  Posted November 28, 2011 Here you can see how much snappier the lens gets from 1.4 to 2.8, among other things. These 'other things' include one interesting and often overlooked phenomenon—vignetting. And I don't mean the light fall-off towards the frame's corners but the unevenness of depth-of-field.  Please note how apparent depth-of-field is mostly the same, more or less, in both pictures even though it should be significantly narrower in the f/1.4 shot ... but isn't. For example, look at the birch trunk near the frame's left border in the near background. It should sharpen up considerably in the f/2.8 shot but doesn't. It's just somewhat brighter due to less vignetting but no sharper. Why is that? It's also due to vignetting. The aperture really is f/1.4 only at the frame's center. Towards the corners, it gradually becomes smaller effectively which affects both illumination and depth-of-field.. Also see the trees in the far background along the frame's upper border. In the f/1.4 shot, they are only subtly more blurred than in the f/2.8 shot.  A significant difference in out-of-focus blur which actually matches the difference of the apertures can only be seen in the blades and tufts of grass that appear in the foreground before the doghouse near the frame's center. There, the aperture really and effectively is f/1.4 and so the out-of-focus objects are significantly more blurred accordingly.  In most image compositions, the main subject mostly is somewhere near the frame's center, and the frame's off-center areas show foreground or background. In these cases, a particularly fast lens does not (or hardly) help to blur the out-of-focus areas more than a slower lens when the fast lens has significant vignetting wide open. Often, the background blur will remain virtually the same when stopping down a bit; only the illumination will become more even. A similar effect can sometimes be observed in Noctilux-M 50 mm 1:1 shots taken at full aperture. Unless the out-of-focus background is near the frame's center, it will hardly look more blurred than in a Summilux or Summicron shot. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 28, 2011 Share #52 Â Posted November 28, 2011 And now for the explanation of the phenomen... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
philipus Posted November 28, 2011 Share #53 Â Posted November 28, 2011 Are there big differences in rendering between versions I and II of the 35mm pre-asph Summilux? Â cheerio philip Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted November 28, 2011 Share #54 Â Posted November 28, 2011 Less flare but v2 has still a lot of it. At least my late German v2. Less so than the CV 50/1.4 SC though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mustafasoleiman Posted November 28, 2011 Share #55  Posted November 28, 2011 I thought I would try this. Your Right Ben, the Pre 35 Summilux dose a superb job in handling shadow in black and white  Hank  Nice pic... Did you by any chance take it in Prague? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted November 28, 2011 Share #56 Â Posted November 28, 2011 Less flare but v2 has still a lot of it. At least my late German v2. Less so than the CV 50/1.4 SC though. I means less so than the CV 35/1.4 SC sorry. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double Negative Posted November 28, 2011 Share #57 Â Posted November 28, 2011 I think it's becoming way too easy to say, "it's gotta be ASPH sharp or it's crap!" Let's be real here - most modern lenses are ALL good, especially at f/4 and beyond. Â Okay, so the pre-ASPH has some "character." What's wrong with that? At least the images are unique compared to more modern images, shot with modern lenses (which, dare I say, are starting to look more and more alike). Â I appreciate sharpness as much as the next guy, but let's give some credit to the ol' pre-ASPH. Back "in the day" it was as good as it got and you were glad to have it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted November 28, 2011 Share #58 Â Posted November 28, 2011 I think it's becoming way too easy to say, "it's gotta be ASPH sharp or it's crap!" [...] Okay, so the pre-ASPH has some "character." What's wrong with that? [...] let's give some credit to the ol' pre-ASPH. What are you talking about!? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double Negative Posted November 28, 2011 Share #59 Â Posted November 28, 2011 What are you talking about!? Â I'm just responding to statements like this. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted November 28, 2011 Share #60 Â Posted November 28, 2011 I'm just responding to statements like this. Â I've also written that the version 2, pre-asph summilux 35mm is the lens I like the least but use the most, even wide-open. Â In my First Album are: throwing ashes bar scene w/blonde evening on fire escape (woman) Â All with the pre-asph, and all but the color image were shot at 1.4 I've better examples wide open on film but not scanned yet. Â Perhaps there are some sample variations. I've little hope of getting another to know. The very clean ~1949 Summitar 50mm I have has similar qualities wide-open. Â -- Ambivalently yours, Pico Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.