Jump to content

35 Summilux FLE or pre-FLE?


philipus

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

In a recent thread I received very helpful assistance in terms of choosing a 35mm Summilux v1 or Summicron v3.

 

Now I am wondering about the 35 Summilux Asph FLE vs the Summilux Asph pre-FLE. I have recently been given an opportunity to buy the FLE for a good price - more or less what a pre-FLE would sell for - but am not sure about it because of the slightly smaller size of the pre-FLE.

 

In case it is relevant, I have a 50 Summilux Asph which I like a lot, more than my 50 Summilux pre-Asph. Still I am uncertain about the 35 Summilux Asph FLE.

 

Has anyone gone through a similar thought process, choosing one over the other?

 

Thanks for any insight

Philip

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't vouch for the pre FLE but I have the FLE and it's one of the best lenses I've ever owned. Incredible thing. Personally, I would only consider a ASPHERICAL as a replacement.

 

If you shoot portraits, people or anything at those kind of closer distances the floating element I think is worth having.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

I went through this thought process a while back and read many articles from users of both

I ultimately decided the latest FLE was the choice for me and have been very happy with the shots taken with this lens

Good luck in your decision

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's my take. First, the reasons I chose the FLE over the pre-FLE:

 

1. I shoot mostly subjects between 2 and 4 meters. The FLE is does better in this range.

 

2. The pre-FLE without a shade is slightly smaller than the FLE. The shade on the FLE is so nice, however, that I never feel the need to remove it (unless I'm using a polarizer). That means reduced flare and more protection for the lens. With shades on, the FLE is much more compact than the pre-FLE.

 

3. I miss focus on enough shots already. The focus shift issues with the pre-FLE would make that miss ratio higher. I don't need that. (The FLE has focus shift too, but its reduced by about half - that improvement will be noticeable.)

 

Now the things in favor of the pre-FLE which I weighed before deciding:

 

4. The pre-FLE does a better job rendering OOF specular highlights. That said, the FLE has fine bokeh in probably 9 out of 10 shots I take, and in the few where it gets a little nervous, it doesn't really detract from the image (in my opinion - this is highly subjective). The pre-FLE, for what its worth, doesn't have perfect bokeh in every shot either.

 

5. The pre-FLE, without a floating element, has a lighter focus feel. I use a thumb and forefinger on the FLE most of the time because it is stiffer. I could use the tab alone on the pre-FLE. In this one area, the ergonomics of the pre-FLE are better.

 

6. For a mere extra $360, the pre-FLE can be used with the Leica 12466 shade. Ergonomically, economically, and probably functionally, this shade sucks compared to the FLE's included shade. It doesn't matter. This is the coolest shade Leica makes today.

 

7. The pre-FLE can be obtained more quickly and inexpensively than the FLE.

 

So I went with the FLE. I also strongly considered the Voigtlander 35/1.2 - its only real downside being its size/weight. I've had and sold a number of larger lenses because I just don't use them. You may not have that aversion, and the CV 35/1.2 is a fantastic lens.

 

John

  • Like 9
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you shoot digital and want to nail focus every time, it is the FLE or CV 35 1.2 II.

 

If you are going to worry about 100grams, it is the FLE.

 

If you want the most beautiful rendering of them all, it is the CV.

 

I have a 24 Lux asph and the CV 35 1.2 II. They are a perfect compliment and regarding the latter, I feel not an ounce of regret at not getting the FLE. My CV is super sharp, built like a tank and has beautiful rendering no matter what. Oh, and I saved $4000.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sums it up perfectly!

 

 

 

Here's my take. First, the reasons I chose the FLE over the pre-FLE:

 

1. I shoot mostly subjects between 2 and 4 meters. The FLE is does better in this range.

 

2. The pre-FLE without a shade is slightly smaller than the FLE. The shade on the FLE is so nice, however, that I never feel the need to remove it (unless I'm using a polarizer). That means reduced flare and more protection for the lens. With shades on, the FLE is much more compact than the pre-FLE.

 

3. I miss focus on enough shots already. The focus shift issues with the pre-FLE would make that miss ratio higher. I don't need that. (The FLE has focus shift too, but its reduced by about half - that improvement will be noticeable.)

 

Now the things in favor of the pre-FLE which I weighed before deciding:

 

4. The pre-FLE does a better job rendering OOF specular highlights. That said, the FLE has fine bokeh in probably 9 out of 10 shots I take, and in the few where it gets a little nervous, it doesn't really detract from the image (in my opinion - this is highly subjective). The pre-FLE, for what its worth, doesn't have perfect bokeh in every shot either.

 

5. The pre-FLE, without a floating element, has a lighter focus feel. I use a thumb and forefinger on the FLE most of the time because it is stiffer. I could use the tab alone on the pre-FLE. In this one area, the ergonomics of the pre-FLE are better.

 

6. For a mere extra $360, the pre-FLE can be used with the Leica 12466 shade. Ergonomically, economically, and probably functionally, this shade sucks compared to the FLE's included shade. It doesn't matter. This is the coolest shade Leica makes today.

 

7. The pre-FLE can be obtained more quickly and inexpensively than the FLE.

 

So I went with the FLE. I also strongly considered the Voigtlander 35/1.2 - its only real downside being its size/weight. I've had and sold a number of larger lenses because I just don't use them. You may not have that aversion, and the CV 35/1.2 is a fantastic lens.

 

John

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If you shoot digital and want to nail focus every time, it is the FLE or CV 35 1.2 II.

 

If you are going to worry about 100grams, it is the FLE.

 

If you want the most beautiful rendering of them all, it is the CV.

 

I have a 24 Lux asph and the CV 35 1.2 II. They are a perfect compliment and regarding the latter, I feel not an ounce of regret at not getting the FLE. My CV is super sharp, built like a tank and has beautiful rendering no matter what. Oh, and I saved $4000.

 

Agreed also, the CV has the best rendering, but at the price of size and weight, with slightly less sharpness wide open and slightly more field curvature. The FLE has a very flat field for a 1.4 lens.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have owned the 1962 Summilux. I have owned the Summilux-M ASPH v.1. I own the Summilux ASPH v.2 ("FLE").

 

The v.1 worked without problems with film, for about ten years, because the depth of the emulsion took care of much of the focus shift. The focus shift of the v.1 with a digital camera however meant that I could not use the thing at apertures from f:2 to f:5.6, because I could not nab the focus. If sharpness was satisfactory, then d.o..d. acted up, with none on the hither side of the subject and all of it on the far side. All this was unacceptable to me. I suspect that I am a technically somewhat fastidious photographer, but I am certainly not a pedant. Some of you will remember my saying that "sharpness is the fetish of boring photographers". And that is true; sharpness can not make a boring picture interesting. On the other hand, I do want an interesting picture to be tolerably sharp.

 

The picture here was shot at f:2 on a dark terrace in the Tuscan countryside, a true snapshot. And at a distance where a focus shift of the magnitude exhibited by the v.1 would have made it impossible. Case closed.

 

The old man from the Age of Scale Focusing

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!

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

These threads are worth a read

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/customer-forum/245636-35mm-summilux-asph-vd-35mm-summilux.html

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/customer-forum/251483-bokeh-summicron-35-asph-compared-summilux.html

 

Do check the second thread for more links. Regarding focus shift and shooting at close distances, I shoot mostly people and mostly quite close and my ASPH. is only bettered by my 11873 35 Aspherical, and 28 Summicron and a lot better than other 35's I have had the summicron ASPH and mk IV. I have zero issues with sharpness at close distance (might be me and my preference for a look over sharpness) with the ASPH, indeed I would, say it is superb.

 

I have yet to have a lens with sufficient issues to sell on that basis, but again that might be me.

 

Having done the anorak testing of focus shift, a lot of lenses exhibit this, my Summilux 50 pre asph being the worst. My ASPH has about 10-15mm as it stops down, but the DOF means all I see on a chart the sharpness patch growing and moving. With the lens set up for f1.4 I have zero real life problems.

 

All in all I think the ASPH has been 'Huffed' for shift, my model is a late 6-bit, perhaps Leica managed to reduce the shift on this lens a little before the FLE was introduced. I checked Lightroom and I have shot over 2,000 shots with my 35mm Summilux ASPH and it was my favourite lens before my ASPHERICAL came along.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Many thanks to all of you for replying. I really appreciate it.

 

I use only film so on that basis, perhaps, I would see less of the focus shift. Still many of my subjects are within a few metres' distance so I may benefit from having the FLE anyway. I really don't like not being able to trust my equipment; missing shots when I know I focused properly is something I would find annoying.

 

Lars, you made this point very clearly in the nice example provided, thanks. Incidentally, the corner falloff (top left corner in particular), is it due to the lens or the lighting conditions?

 

In terms of rendering, in particular OOF rendering, the FLE seems similar to the 50 Summilux Asph. So perhaps it isn't a bad one for me to get (incidentally we have a Japanese friend visiting who tells me boke may also be used in Japanese to refer to a fuzzy-minded person).

 

Is the FLE's flare resistance without hood similar to the 50 Asph without hood? I find it very difficult to force the latter to flare.

 

Btw, Ken Rockwell wrote that the lens comes with a ring to protect the threads for the hood. Is that right?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Lars, you made this point very clearly in the nice example provided, thanks. Incidentally, the corner falloff (top left corner in particular), is it due to the lens or the lighting conditions?

 

The lighting was from two bare energy-saving lamps hanging from the ceiling. It was all but even! So yes, it was the lighting conditions.

 

Vignetting at full aperture is 2.5 stops, same as for my old v.4 Summicron, but the M9 computes most of that away. It is scarcely noticeable in practice. I might add that I did consciously underexpose the shot a bit to keep the 'night feeling'. I did white balance though (with an ExpoDisc).

 

In terms of rendering, in particular OOF rendering, the FLE seems similar to the 50 Summilux Asph. So perhaps it isn't a bad one for me to get (incidentally we have a Japanese friend visiting who tells me boke may also be used in Japanese to refer to a fuzzy-minded person).

 

I understand that this is the primary meaning in Japanese, and refers to the slight fuzzy-mindedness of very old persons. The application to photography is secondary or metaphorical.

 

Is the FLE's flare resistance without hood similar to the 50 Asph without hood? I find it very difficult to force the latter to flare.

 

I don't use lenses without hoods, so I can't know. The v.1 had a certain sensitivity to flare, from a very bright sky for instance, but it was never out of control. The v.2 exhibits less flare under similar circumstances. It is still there, but minor, and in fact quite pleasant.

 

Btw, Ken Rockwell wrote that the lens comes with a ring to protect the threads for the hood. Is that right?

 

Correct. Mine rests in the box; I have never used it because the hood never comes off, except when I use a polariser.

 

Best regards from the old man from the Age of Film

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you once again, Lars, for very helpful information.

 

I have decided to go for the FLE and will receive it from Red Dot in a few days, mehopes. I think I am going to be very happy with this lens and really look forward to getting to know this focal length better.

 

Cheers

Philip

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Thanks Paul. Having used the lens this week almost exclusively, I posted a few examples in Lincoln's thread here.

 

I am extremely happy with this lens which performs unbelievably well and is a perfect complement to my 50 Asph. As a film photographer I could not wish for better lenses in these focal lengths.

 

Cheers

Philip

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I can add that this was the lens on the M9 around my neck when I did that accidental dive down some stairs and onto a stone floor, in Italy recently. I am happy to report that the only damage was a scrubbed knee and a mark on the edge of the lens hood, and that everything is working perfectly. Me included.

 

The old man from the Age of Bumps and Knocks

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all: you cannot reason in this question by comparing with the line of 50mm's, in terms of character, bo-keh, and other lens quality parameters; it's a totally different history and fingerprint. IMHO.

 

You refer to size in your deliberations. I work with Leica M now for 22 years and have changed lenses quite a few times. My opinion now is that size matters more for me than 'lux over 'cron. This is also because I cannot/dare not leave the hood off, it gives me a very uneasy feeling. Hoods tend to vary in bulkiness over lenses, cf. for instance the Elmarit 24 vs. the new Elmar 24.

I once owned the pre-FLE 35mm but I couldn't live with the focus-shift in the copy I owned, in spite of all that people that speak of it's unique character. I didn't like the hood either. And went back to the Summicron pre-asph: beautiful bo-keh, small, not that heavy and because of that: very fast working with.

Recently I went on a trip to Asia, left my Summilux 50 at home in favor of the Elmar 50 collapsible for the same reasons: small, decent hood, fast working with. Astoundingly sharp btw.

 

The Summiluxes are a beautiful range of lenses but they are big and heavy, so in practice I use them for quiet, slow work like in stills and portraits, often at home. For these subjects I also learned that I tend to pick other focal lengths than a 35. For street- and traveling photography I prefer a 35mm but in that situations I prefer compact lenses with small hoods.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 years later...

I have owned the 1962 Summilux. I have owned the Summilux-M ASPH v.1. I own the Summilux ASPH v.2 ("FLE").

 

The v.1 worked without problems with film, for about ten years, because the depth of the emulsion took care of much of the focus shift. 

 

Can someone help me understand this a little bit better? How does using film resolve the focus shift issue? I am looking at buying a summilux for my M7 and I primarily take portrait type photos in the 2m range. The focus shift is the primary reason what is making me consider the FLE at the moment. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can someone help me understand this a little bit better? How does using film resolve the focus shift issue? I am looking at buying a summilux for my M7 and I primarily take portrait type photos in the 2m range. The focus shift is the primary reason what is making me consider the FLE at the moment. 

 

There are a number of factors involved.  In no particular order.

Film was never "flat".  This means that it was always a bit of a lottery as to whether, or not, the precise point on which the camera was focused was actually the sharpest point in the image.

Film emulsion is several microns thick and the emulsion scatters the light, so, other than when using specialist micro films, there is no precise point of focus within the emulsion.

Visual Perception plays an important role - a large, complex and frequently controversial topic on this forum.

However it is generally acknowledged that the human visual system concentrates on the sharpest point in the image - even if it is not actually critically sharp.

Since with normal film nothing is critically sharp "near enough" tends to be "good enough".

Taken together these effects can mask the effects of focus shift.

 

In the digital world many of these factors either don't exist or there are parts of the image, not the point of focus, which are critically sharp.

Anything less sharp, even very slightly so, is immediately identified.  Slightly less sharp due to focus shift becomes much easier to detect.

 

The Leica M240 took big steps to tighten up tolerances and improve rangefinder accuracy,

Many Leica lenses have recently been updated often with a major objective of minimising focus shift and field curvature.

The results may be subtle but they are very real.  The 35mm f/1.4 Summilux-M ASPH FLE is a very good example and a superb lens for digital use.      

Edited by Peter Branch
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...