disappointed by Summilux 35 FLE

[IWC Doppel]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have access to a 35 Cron IV, soon to have access to a 35 Lux FLE, I have a 35 Lux AA and lux ASPH and did own a 35 Cron ASPH.

 

I will test focus shift again on my ASPH and AA. But at 1.4 they are right. I tend to use wide open for most shots. Outside or in bright light conditions I have insufficient experience to really have a strong opinion. I do know the IV Cron renders very nicely at f4. I often take my 28 Cron in bright conditions, I love how it paints stopped down in the sun.

 

I am interested to properly try the FLE without buying. My initial impression was increased sharpness and faster transition to out of focus with for me a slightly more modern feel. I also found some pictures can look ( sorry if I offend anyone ) a little unnatural with a super sharp zone 'placed' on a smooth background

 

You could just squeeze a IV Cron and lux ASPH for a new FLE, might be intereting ?

Edited July 1, 2012 by IWC Doppel

[farnz]

... I would like to have a more dreamy look (little bit of glowing and so) ...

I was playing with a diffusion filter yesterday on my CZJ 50/2 Sonnar and it produced glow that looked to me to be similar to the pre-asph 35 Summilux that I used to own. A diffusion filter might 'scratch your itch' for glow using another smaller 35 but without the well-documented flare problems that are associated with the pre-asph 35 Summilux when shooting into the light.

 

Pete.

[vincecharus]

Warning: I'm a amateur and I am talking to professionals! Please don't spank me (metaphorically).

 

From the photos I have seen taken with the Lux 35 FLE and from my own user experience of it, it may not be the best for the shooting purposes of Mr. Frogfish. Lux 35 FLE is an "extreme" lens: at large aperture the isolated subject is super-sharp, whereas the background is super-smooth. The signature of it is "ultra-modern", if this is the right term for it. I see it as a general-purpose lens which can be used to produce a special-purpose "ultra-modern" look. From the few samples shown by Mr. Frogfish here, I suspect this is not what he is after.

 

The Noct f/0.95 and the preceding Noct f/1 may be able produce the sort of dreamy (?) look sought after by Mr. Frogfish, but evidently he would object to their weight and handling.

 

I have quite a few friends using the pre-ASPH Lux 35mm 11860/11870. It has great handling (small) but flares quite a lot against the light. Experienced users of it can readily produce a foggy/dreamy/hazy look against the light on the adjacent shadow areas. But I'm not quite sure whether it would work directly against the sun...

 

So, what about the Cron 8-element? Have you tried it? If so, do you like it? Also, if money matters (as it sometimes does), the Summarit has enjoyed a good review by Erwin Puts...

Edited July 2, 2012 by vincecharus

[Mauribix]

What the OP shows us is a sensor issue. Not a lens problem IMHO.

Some M9 show more purple fringing than others, it was my issue with one of my cameras, I'm not a technician, but I guess it was something related to power consumption.

 

Same lens, same settings, two M9 bodies, totally different results.

The first had always purple fringing, not the ladder.

 

I sent it to Solms for repair.

[SJP]

ND filter and some Vaseline (adjust as required)?

 

Yes I am being serious, surely if you want to that would be an option? You then have the best of both worlds - modern when you want, 'the old glow' when you want. But do not buy a current lens for an improved 'old look' (which I dearly like), they are very difficult, clinical, razor sharp, unforgiving - basically pain in the posterior. But fun as a intellectual challenge.

 

The posting by MJH about the range of EV that you wished to cover will also explain quite a bit.

[frogfish]

hm, sensor issue? defect? sounds not god.

 

On the other hand I start to like the lens. In everyday shooting I had no bigger issues so far, but I have had the lens just a couple of days.

 

Little of tread ... wide open and moving objects. OK not all are fast moving, and not all in 100% focus either, but good enough for me ...

 

 

Heiko

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!

[SJP]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

nice results so far!

[lovinglife]

Heiko -

 

Firstly, your sample photos are very good.

 

Secondly, don't be discouraged by some of the more 'stern' responses. However, they are correct.

I also had a similar feeling as you when I got my 35 FLE. What I found (and what others have said) is that its a heck of a sharp lens but the bokeh is not what you would call creamy. Subject isolation is pretty amazing though, even wide open. The lens excels in all the technical areas - except 'creaminess'. I have not had too much of a problem with CA though. You may want to use Lightroom 4, which has Leica profiles built in. Most of the high end Leica lenses have some sort of CA - especially the wide angle summiluxes, but it should be easy to fix.

 

I actually didn't particularly like the rendering initially, and it took me quite a while to get used to it- as I was used to the pre-FLE 35 summilux ASPH and other Leica lenses, which have a very nice/slightly softer rendering of background, bokeh and all, The FLE rendering is just not the same - It's not bad, but it's not a 'creamy' type of lens, its just very very sharp & 'modern', including the bokeh.

 

For a 'dreamy' look I would look elsewhere - or figure out a way to achieve the look with post processing. I have heard that the Zeiss 50 f/1.5 has a very nice, dreamy rendering - maybe explore that - I'm considering trying out that lens for portraits. I have also owned the .95 Noct which is an amazing lens but heavy.

 

And just for your information - Both the Summilux 24mm and 21mm have a very similar rendering to the 35 1.4 FLE. Hope this is of some help.

 

Thx!!

LL

 

P.S. Shooting into the Sun wide open is probably not in the best interest of your sensor

P.P.S. I like how you said 'I finally settled for a 35 FLE' ;-)

Edited July 3, 2012 by lovinglife

[Frank Sellitto]

Heiko,

 

I really don't have much of an opinion for you except to compliment you on the first set of b&w images taken with the nikor. Thank you for sharing.

 

Frank

[wattsy]

Why does anyone need a lens that performs well shooting directly into the sun?

 

Why not?

 

I have this lens and use it a lot shooting towards the main light source. It works great used like this (although I don't like too much subject isolation so try to avoid using the lens wide open when light levels allow me to avoid doing so). It is the M9 in this situation (shooting towards the light) that I'm less impressed with and prefer to use the 35 FLE on a film body for those kind of shots.

[Mauribix]

I like shooting against the sun, makes the pictures dreamy and interesting. Playing with extreme light.

When overexposing you get the peoples faces visible.

 

I shoot Leica not because of the lenses but because I like rangefinders.

 

Heiko

 

Heiko, is this the 35Lux ASPH FLE??

 

The OOF area is horrible IMHO. And this is exactly what I think of the 35lux ASPH FLE... (and the CV 35 1.4 too, which shares almost the same confusing OOF rendering).

 

I know that this is subjective, but the shot and the girl expression is really nice... too bad the rendering of the OOF area is way too disturbing to me.

[lct]

...the CV 35 1.4 too, which shares almost the same confusing OOF rendering...

Not the CV 35/1.4 "SC" Maurizio. It has same kind of bokeh as the Summilux 35 pre-asph. But the SC (at least mine) suffers from focus shift at f/2.8 and on and it flares even more than the last 'Lux pre-asph.

[frogfish]

Again my friends...

 

all images, exept the one with my wife in a white dress are taken with the Summilux 35 FLE

 

 

Have a nice day,

 

Heiko

[frogfish]

Hi Maurizio,

 

thank you for the flowers

 

No, this shot is the only one of my posted images which was done with a Nikon (50/1.4 G) and I agree that the OOF is terrible.

 

Cheers,

 

Heiko

[01af]

... done with a Nikon (50/1.4 G) and I agree that the OOF is terrible.

Try stopping it down by one f-stop ... or a half.

[Mauribix]

No, this shot is the only one of my posted images which was done with a Nikon (50/1.4 G) and I agree that the OOF is terrible.

 

Well, thank you Heiko.

That reflects my experience with the Nikon 50 1.4G lens too.

I'm sure there's a relationship between those kind of "busy" OOF rendering, and some lens design using floating elements.

 

The clear sample, is the difference between the "old" Summilux 35 ASPH, and the latest with the FLE.

The optical design is the same.. apart from the floating elements, and the OOF rendering is totally different.

 

I had two 35lux FLE in the past, never regretted selling them.

YMMV

[Jamie Roberts]

{snipped}

 

The clear sample, is the difference between the "old" Summilux 35 ASPH, and the latest with the FLE.

The optical design is the same.. apart from the floating elements, and the OOF rendering is totally different.{snipped}

 

Thanks for this; I hadn't realized there was any difference in the lenses actually, but I've never shot with the FLE (I just knew they were optically identical except for the FLE).

 

I will hang on to my (slightly but not importantly) back-focusing chrome 35 ASPH then

[01af]

I'm sure there's a relationship between those kind of "busy" OOF rendering, and some lens design using floating elements.

There's no direct relationship between floating elements and out-of-focus rendition ... just an indirect one, as the out-of-focus rendition depends, among other factors, on the characteristics of the residual spheric aberrations. Floating elements affect the latter (unless focused at infinity), but this does not generally and necessarily lead to a worse out-of-focus rendition. It just as well may lead to a nicer out-of-focus rendition, or no different out-of-focus rendition at all. Depends on a bazillion of factors.

 

It's like saying there was a relationship between the size of a car's fuel tank and the car's maximum speed.

 

 

... (I just knew they were optically identical except for the FLE).

That's a common misconception.

[Mauribix]

There's no direct relationship between floating elements and out-of-focus rendition...

 

Why are you sure this is not the case?

The introduction of the floating element is the main factor that issued the OOF rendering difference between the old and the new 35Lux ASPH lens.

Nevertheless, it's the biggest difference between the two lens designs.

How come this is not affecting the OOF rendition?

 

...just an indirect one, as the out-of-focus rendition depends, among other factors, on the characteristics of the residual spheric aberrations.

 

So is there any difference in the residual spheric aberrations between the two designs?

I'd like to go deeper into this, but I didn't find any clear statements on this regards from Leica, or any optical engineer (referring to the 35Lux asph).

I'd like to know something more about this.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jaapv]

I may be simple -minded, but seeing that both focus shift and OOF rendering are related to spherical aberration, it stands to reason that correcting the one will influence the other.