disappointed by Summilux 35 FLE

[Messsucherkamera]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello,

 

looking for a wide open 35mm lens for my M9 I settled for the FLE.

Just bought it last week after 6 months waiting.

 

For me the lens must perform well at two things:

- nice bokeh wide open

- be able to shoot against the sun wide open

 

sharpness etc doesn´t matter that much for me.

 

 

But this lens is not a good perfomer shooting wide open against the sun I am afraid. With the ghost (red and green) I could live, but the chromatic aberration is horrible.

1.4-2.8 is unusable, gets better at 4.0

 

My Nikon 35/2.0 D for 300 bucks is much (!) better, usable at 2.0.

 

 

The Leica costs more than ten times as much.

 

 

Any suggestions? What do you think?

 

Heiko

 

@ Heiko,

 

After looking at this image - as well as your others posted in this thread - and reading this thread (all four pages of it), here is my take on your issue.

 

I don't think there can be any serious contention that the 35/1.4 ASPH/FLE is anything less than a superb lens or that the design is somehow flawed. The thought that keeps coming to mind is that you are expecting the combination of this lens and the M9 sensor to produce a result that they are not able to produce. I think if you were to make that same photograph with a film M body and a couple of different emulsions, you would see a different result - whether it is the result you desire remains to be seen.

 

Based on my experience, I have arrived at the opinion that no lens (or camera, or film, or sensor, or format) can do everything perfectly all the time, regardless of its price. Some may come close in many regards but to produce a 100% perfect result in every photographic situation and/or application is most likely not within the realm of possibility.

 

Just something to consider...

[Advertisement]

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

[IWC Doppel]

Your "ASPHERICAL" is my dream lens. I just tried it a couple of times during the years. Just curious to see some samples if you can.

I can't remember well right now, but you should see quite a difference in the corners, and when shooting against the sun.

The glass used for the ASPHERICAL should be just... awesome!

 

I will do a side by side of the ASPH. vs the ASPHERICAL, I was over a friends this evening and here is one example, straight out of the camera,f1.4 unprocessed. You will see a little of the Bokeh. But almost every shot has a wonderful look about it. More depth, denser and nicer colours and to my eyes fabulous bokeh.

 

Ofcourse 5 minutes and lightroom would improve enormously but wide open unprocessed RAW it's already luvley IMO

 

35mm Summilux ASPHERICAL 11873 F1.4

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!

Edited July 4, 2012 by IWC Doppel

[Paul J]

Lovely example of the characteristics of the lens and in my opinion no lightroom work needed. It's wonderful and natural.

[01af]

In a thread discussing lenses' merits (or lack thereof), it would be really, really helpful if people would mark their sample pictures in an unambiguous way which lens and which aperture they were taken with

 

Just put a line underneath each picture stating camera, lens, and aperture. Would you? Please!

[IWC Doppel]

Another just using a B&W preset and no more.35mm Summilux 11873 ASPHERICAL F1.4 as above

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!

Edited July 4, 2012 by IWC Doppel

[Paul J]

Wow factor right here. Wonderful portrait, lens is awesome.

Edited July 4, 2012 by Paul J

[algrove]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Of course it's awesome. Some use it better than others.

[IWC Doppel]

Sorry to distract from the OP's question and thoughts.

 

I will pop my 35 summilux ASPH. and 35 summilux ASPHERICAL (AA) on a tripod and take a few shots.

 

I have a friend who is awaiting a 35 Summilux FLE and I can borrow a 35 Summicron MkIV too. So will make these comparisons as some point.

 

What I can say is the first shots out of the Camera with the ASPHERICAL surprised me with just how 'interesting' and 3D it painted. I really, really like the 35 APSH. I think it's a wonderful lens and before trying the AA it was certainly my favourite lens. Unfortunately given the rarity and market price the AA its a shame this is so nice. There is no doubt the AA is the nicest lens I have and now and my favourite, judged on the way it paints.

 

I bought it with a view to trying, with the expectation of selling on given the value. Not sure I will part with it

[lct]

Side by side comparos will be interesting indeed. I would be surprised if there is a significant difference bokeh wise between the aspherical and the asph v1 at full aperture and i expect that the somewhat inferior performance of the aspherical in the corners will be more visible there. But i have no experience with either lens so i may be wrong.

[Mauribix]

Side by side comparos will be interesting indeed. I would be surprised if there is a significant difference bokeh wise between the aspherical and the asph v1 at full aperture and i expect that the somewhat inferior performance of the aspherical in the corners will be more visible there. But i have no experience with either lens so i may be wrong.

 

Can't remember right now, and I can't google it... but I think the corner performance of the aspherical should be somehow better than the ASPH v1.

 

Interesting though...!|

[lct]

It is not so on Sepulchre's charts at least.

[jaapv]

Side by side comparos will be interesting indeed. I would be surprised if there is a significant difference bokeh wise between the aspherical and the asph v1 at full aperture and i expect that the somewhat inferior performance of the aspherical in the corners will be more visible there. But i have no experience with either lens so i may be wrong.

 

Erwin Puts:

 

There are a few very subtle differences: the ‘asph’ version has on axis slightly lower contrast, but a more

even performance in the field at apertures 1.4 and 2. From 1:2.8 both are equal in

image quality.

 

 

I doubt anybody will see these differences in amateur testing.

[IWC Doppel]

I'll post over the weekend, there are distinct differences, surprisingly.

 

From my knowledge of the ASPH. in use for some time and the AA for a very short time, no direct comparisons other than the same subject matter for a quick check on back focus. I feel the following

 

1. AA has more 'pop' in respect of the infocus and distinctly more 3D (The ASPH. is already a great performer here, so IMO the AA is stunning)

2. The AA looks tonally richer with more weight to the colours, which appear a little warmer and yellower, but not in the way a more modern Summicron ASPH. which is redder/pinker

3. The bokeh has more 'swirl' and interest, it is probably on a similar par to the ASPH. in terms of transition from in to out of focus, perhaps a touch more gradual. The images have a 'look' that feels more 'loose' and organic and perhaps like choosing a pair of Jeffrey West's over Churches if you get my drift.

4. I suspect the contrast is a touch better as well, MTF's say this would be the case up to 9-12mm out an then the ASPH. would be better.

5. Vignetting looks much stronger on the AA, this interestingly should not be the case, probably the ASPH. is coded and I don't code the AA (even though there is a code on the M9 menu it defaults to ASPH. in lightroom so too confusing for comparisons without care) I suspect the edge performance and Vignetting masks the increase in contrast here the AA looks more contrasty from a non side by side impression.

6. Slightly less back focussing, yes I can measure a little on both lenses but set to 1.4 the increase in DOF at f2/2.8 IMO means that chart staring is 99% of the issue. I am not that good in practice to 'notice' at f2.8 in practice, plus most of my shots are at 1.4, that's why I bought it

 

The thing that did it for me was opening the fist few shots when down loaded in LR, colours, image depth and look took me by surprise, wow was my first words

[wattsy]

There is an interesting thread developing in the film forum about the new 50 APO and I agree with one of the posters there that Leica lenses are generally of such a standard that people largely see what they want to see in them – especially when the've shelled out a lot of money to buy them. I've owned four 35 Summilux ASPH lenses (two of each version) and I don't believe there is that much difference in 'imaging' characteristics between them. Nor do I see anything especially different about the photographs above shot using the 'ASPHERICAL' version of the lens – they look almost exactly what I'd expect from a 35 Summilux shot wide open (or near wide open).

 

Which version of the Summilux ASPH did I use for this snap?

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!

[jaapv]

Not fair, Ian. If one could see any difference - and I doubt one could,even in a direct 1:1 comparison, it would be in the corners, and there are no corners..

[IWC Doppel]

My guess is 35FLE, why ?

 

It doesn't look a familar foot print and the bokeh to me in this shot looks a little odd, I'd be interested to see the answer !!

 

So I suppose to be fair this could be either ASPHERICAL or FLE rather than ASPH. But my slightly educated 'punt' is FLE.

 

Looking closer, at a smalle jpg, I havent seen anything that has this 'feel' out of my ASPHERICAL yet. I'm getting braver saying its the FLE

Edited July 5, 2012 by IWC Doppel

[horosu]

I had the "honor" of having the ASPHERICAL for over a year. For most of that time it was my only 35 mm lens (the other being the 35/2 Zeiss Biogon). It is a fantastic lens, superb. I loved its ergonomics above all: it had a serrated ring as well as a focusing tab. I've made some quick comparison shots with the FLE and posted the results here ( I will look for the link): in short, the AA was sharper on center and showed NO focus shift at all. The FLE was sharper in the corners and had a smidgen of shift. The color rendition of the FLE was more natural while the AA was more warmer. I loved the lens!

 

In the end I sold it as I couldn't justify keeping such an expensive lens. I decided the FLE was good enough for me!

 

Hope this helps.

 

Horea

[Paul J]

Another just using a B&W preset and no more.35mm Summilux 11873 ASPHERICAL F1.4 as above

 

i'm really quite interested in hunting this lens down. I'm unaware of what to search for though. Is it a version 1, 2, blah blah blah. What do I search for?

 

Thanks,

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Mauribix]

i'm really quite interested in hunting this lens down. I'm unaware of what to search for though. Is it a version 1, 2, blah blah blah. What do I search for?

 

Thanks,

 

Simply look for "Summilux-M 35 ASPHERICAL".

It's actually the first 35mm f1.4 Leica-M lens with the use of (2) Aspherical surfaces.

It was produced in a small number... some say 2000pcs, some even less.

 

By the way, be sure of one thing... prepare your wallet, it's become a collector's lens.

I've seen some of those going for 8.000 t0 12.000 euros.

[farnz]

Paul,

 

There weren't many made and the way to identify the lens is "ASPHERICAL" written in full in capital letters. It could be described as a 'version 1' 1.4/50 Summilux aspherical purely because it followed the last version of the pre-ashperical 35 Summiluxes. It's special because it contains 2 hand-ground aspherical elements and that's another reason, in addition to its rarity, that it commands a high price.

 

Pete.

 

Edit: Oops, Maurizio beat me to it.