35mm summicron vs 35mm summilux

[ALD]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi Folks

 

I am keen to know the differences between these two lenses and wether its worth paying the

$5000 for the new summilux as opposed to the cheaper cron.

[wda]

ALD, welcome to the forum!

Your question might get moved to the Customer Forum. However, do tell us what you will be using the new lens for. Photographic applications govern lens choice which is unique to each photographer. If you work a lot in low light, then the Summilux is right for you. For general photography most users are more than satisfied with the Summicron which is a high class lens.

[ramosa]

You may want to search this online, as there are myriad related posts. (I know because I pondered this same thing over the past year or so.) It really depends on your intended use (which relates to speed and size), what rendering you prefer, and how much you want to spend. If you can address these issues, your decision will be made for you.

[lars_bergquist]

Unless you are deep into low light photography – meaning 'available darkness' – the Summicron should be all you need, It is also smaller and lighter than the 'lux.

 

Which I own and use as my No.1 Lens. But I am not the measure of all things.

 

LB

[pgk]

$5000 is a lot of difference if you don't know that you need it - best stick to the Summicron because the essential difference is 1 stop. Other differences are nuances (distortion, flare, etc.).

[lct]

...Other differences are nuances (distortion, flare, etc.).

And blocking of the viewfinder.

[Fgcm]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

...... Other differences are nuances (distortion, flare, etc.).

 

Summilux is also heavier.

 

Before making a final decision, try also 35 summarit.

If you have the opportunity to borrow one, I bet you will buy it.

It's quite a good lens.

Flare-free also without a hood.

And the helicoid is bomb-proof.

 

Fgcm

[earleygallery]

Hi Folks

 

I am keen to know the differences between these two lenses and wether its worth paying the

$5000 for the new summilux as opposed to the cheaper cron.

 

Crucially the difference is that one has a f1.4 widest aperture and the other is f2.

 

Don't think that just because the Summilux is more expensive that it's 'better'.

[sfage]

I find the 'cron to be a very "artful" lens. By that I mean, the bokeh is so interesting that it forces one to take in to consideration -and manipulate- that texture. That is not to say that one doesn't normally do that. I'm simply saying that it is a (more) powerful determinant in one's imagery.

[fotoism]

The new Lux is definitely bigger and heavier than a Cron, and you pay dearly for the "extras".

 

FWIW, the only way to get a smaller and lighter Lux is to go for the old versions, which may not be what you want.

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!

[rramesh]

The 35mm Summicron is a great lens. Compared to the Summilux, the only thing you will lose is one f-stop. For the money you save, suggest buying a CV 40mm 1.4 used (~400 USD) if you really need that one f-stop.

[algrove]

The new Lux is definitely bigger and heavier than a Cron, and you pay dearly for the "extras".

 

FWIW, the only way to get a smaller and lighter Lux is to go for the old versions, which may not be what you want.

 

This makes sense, if you need 1.4 try an older lens. If in the end you want a newer variety, the resale on older lenses is holding up rather well.

[01af]

If you need the speed (and have deep pockets) then get the Summilux. Otherwise, I'd prefer the Summarit-M 35 mm 1:2.5 over the Summicron—mostly for the incredibly high resistance to flare and ghosting. In terms of sheer image quality, all three lenses are on about the same level.

[IWC Doppel]

There are plenty of reviews I would recommend reading as many as you can. Apart from the one stop they do have a different rendering and look.

 

I have used the Cron MkIV, Cron Asph and Lux asph pref FLE on M8 and found the Cron's similar with differences in contrast, colour and look. The pre FLE Lux is notably nicer with the Bokeh. The FLE is sharper again, on par with the Cron asph.

 

The differences in lens sharpness and corner sharpness would probably place the FLE and Cron ASPH on a par closely followed by the pre FLE then MKIV. BUT they are all sharp enough.

 

The overall 'look' so far puts the Pre FLE lux asph top of the three I have used/owned.

[M9reno]

I have the old 35 Summaron 2.8 (a 1959 vintage, I think). The image is amazing, but I am often caught wishing for something one or two stops faster. My own reasoning (which may be deeply flawed ) is that with a 35 in theory you should be able to shoot handheld in low light at one speed slower than with a 50, which is like making a gain of one stop. Which means that in low light a 35 Summilux is theoretically equivalent to carrying a 50 Nocti (i.e. you can shoot the 35 at 1.4 handheld at one speed slower than the 50 Nocti), and a 35 Summicron is equivalent to a 50 Summilux. In this same sense, the 35 Summaron 2.8 would be as "fast" as a 50 Summicron.

 

Anyway, while a gain of 1 stop does not sound like much, in low light it makes a world of difference. Two stops (2.8 to 1.4) is two worlds' difference! Which is to say that, even with my existing 2.8, I lust after the 1.4. The only disadvantage of the 1.4 vs the 2.8 is in terms of finder blockage (none with the 2.8, some with the 1.4). My 2.8 is also screw mount, so I can use it on my IIIg as well as my Ms.

 

So many hard choices...

[Double Negative]

Hi Folks

 

I am keen to know the differences between these two lenses and wether its worth paying the

$5000 for the new summilux as opposed to the cheaper cron.

 

Simply? One's f/2 and the other is f/1.4. Speed costs (in more ways than one). The latest Summilux is a bit more dramatic in price difference since the addition of FLE (over say, the 50 Summicron and Summilux).

[IWC Doppel]

I have the old 35 Summaron 2.8 (a 1959 vintage, I think). The image is amazing, but I am often caught wishing for something one or two stops faster. My own reasoning (which may be deeply flawed ) is that with a 35 in theory you should be able to shoot handheld in low light at one speed slower than with a 50, which is like making a gain of one stop. Which means that in low light a 35 Summilux is theoretically equivalent to carrying a 50 Nocti (i.e. you can shoot the 35 at 1.4 handheld at one speed slower than the 50 Nocti), and a 35 Summicron is equivalent to a 50 Summilux. In this same sense, the 35 Summaron 2.8 would be as "fast" as a 50 Summicron.

 

 

Sorry to say your a little flawed, the amount of light picked up from the wide angle needs a smaller hole, the f stop equals the playing field as an f2 35mm hole is 17.5mm diameter an a f2 50mm is 25mm. Do the maths and it will equal out to neatly allow you to have the same low light performance with a larger hole for a longer lens and narrower view with less light coming in and visa versa

[LVSBB6]

I have sold my 35mm cron after picking up the FLE lux, it is only slightly bigger and the weight difference is negligable. At F2 it is just as sharp, if not sharper than cron. Plus you get that extra stop and for better seperation. There is no point for me to keep the cron.

[M9reno]

IWC Doppel: Many thanks. Maybe I'm not understanding you, but does this change the argument that, if the inverse of the focal length in use gives the minimum shutter speed advisable for a given lens, then any 35mm has the equivalent of approx. 1 stop advantage to any 50mm?

 

I.e. the minimum recommended speed for a 35mm is approx. 1/30 sec, while for a 50mm it is approx. 1/50 -1/60 sec on your average shutter speed dial. No?

 

Thanks again for your input.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[IWC Doppel]

I have the old 35 Summaron 2.8 (a 1959 vintage, I think). The image is amazing, but I am often caught wishing for something one or two stops faster. My own reasoning (which may be deeply flawed ) is that with a 35 in theory you should be able to shoot handheld in low light at one speed slower than with a 50, which is like making a gain of one stop. Which means that in low light a 35 Summilux is theoretically equivalent to carrying a 50 Nocti (i.e. you can shoot the 35 at 1.4 handheld at one speed slower than the 50 Nocti), and a 35 Summicron is equivalent to a 50 Summilux. In this same sense, the 35 Summaron 2.8 would be as "fast" as a 50 Summicron.

 

Anyway, while a gain of 1 stop does not sound like much, in low light it makes a world of difference. Two stops (2.8 to 1.4) is two worlds' difference! Which is to say that, even with my existing 2.8, I lust after the 1.4. The only disadvantage of the 1.4 vs the 2.8 is in terms of finder blockage (none with the 2.8, some with the 1.4). My 2.8 is also screw mount, so I can use it on my IIIg as well as my Ms.

 

So many hard choices...

 

IWC Doppel: Many thanks. Maybe I'm not understanding you, but does this change the argument that, if the inverse of the focal length in use gives the minimum shutter speed advisable for a given lens, then any 35mm has the equivalent of approx. 1 stop advantage to any 50mm?

 

I.e. the minimum recommended speed for a 35mm is approx. 1/30 sec, while for a 50mm it is approx. 1/50 -1/60 sec on your average shutter speed dial. No?

 

Thanks again for your input.

 

 

Oh, sorry I misunderstood the ability to handhold regarding shutter speed for wider angles was the point.