35mm Summicron ASPH vs Summilux FLE

[colonel]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have searched about this but not come up with exactly what I am looking for, so this is a question for folk who have both (or have used both)

 

Essentially, if I am not interested in having below f2, is there much difference between the latest Summicron and Summilux ?

Particuarly interested in contrast, colours and rendering

 

I presume the detail is pretty much the same except at f2 where the summilux might have a slight lead

 

many thanks

[Advertisement]

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

[Tonki-M]

I presume the detail is pretty much the same except at f2 where the summilux might have a slight lead

 

u presumed correctly. at wider aperture, the summilux is going to be slightly better, anything past f/4; there's basically no difference in performance. mind you, the diff in performance at f/2 is there but only if you really look for it. a good reason to get the FLE is if you want the best, or you need that 1.4, or u want the FLE for that close focus performance(0.7-1m) and the focus shift is non-existent.

[colonel]

u presumed correctly. at wider aperture, the summilux is going to be slightly better, anything past f/4; there's basically no difference in performance. mind you, the diff in performance at f/2 is there but only if you really look for it. a good reason to get the FLE is if you want the best, or you need that 1.4, or u want the FLE for that close focus performance(0.7-1m) and the focus shift is non-existent.

 

thanks

 

I did hear there was slight focus shift (back apparently) on the 35mm Summicron between f4 and f5.6, but I understand its only at close range. You are saying its under 1m only ?

 

The reviews of the Summicron (Huff, Overgaard, Putts, Rockwell, etc.) are ecstatic. But, most are historical reviews comparing it to the Summilux ASPH non-FLE.

 

I would be interested in what you mean by "the best" in terms of picture quality

 

Of course I have seen amazing pictures with the Summilux, but also with the Summicron and ones with the Summicron that just have a certain quality to them, combined with critical sharpness even at f2, for example on the Huff review:

The Leica 35 Summicron ASPH Lens Review | STEVE HUFF PHOTOS

 

rgds

[qvsm]

I've had both and preferred the Summilux. I felt the rendering was slightly different, where the Summicron's bokeh was flatter and smoother than the Summilux, if those words can be used to describe it. Quite hard to articulate - its just what I became aware of when looking through my images. Others may disagree.

[IkarusJohn]

I've also had both.

 

It may be that my technique improved with the Summilux, but looking back at the pictures taken with each, the Summilux has a different rendering to the Summicron.

 

I find the Summicron images a bit flat, by comparison. The Summilux give a crisper image, to my eye.

 

The colour is also yellower with the Summicron, where the Summilux seems to have a stronger red and blue cast.

 

All completely unscientific.

[qvsm]

Thinking more on this, the Summicron always produced, to me, over saturated colours on my m8/9. Hardly a big deal, but a few friends noticed it also. The Summilux didn't. In saying that, some of my favourite images were from the Summicron, so in the end it really doesn't make a huge amount of difference. Both have superb ergonomics and are fantastic lenses.

[colonel]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Many thanks for these observations

I would like to tease out the self-justifications for spending so much money, or because one must have f1.4. Saying that all the info above is good and credible.

I do believe people can see differences

The one I am having the most difficulty with is the "3D" point. Simply because I have seen such amazing images with the Summicron, and that 3D can be enhanced by sharpening in the sense it separates the edge of objects.

I guess I need someone to confirm this for the summicron.

Perhaps I will have to try both

[philipus]

Perhaps I will have to try both

 

I think this will be the ultimate test for you. I don't have the Summicron but considered it seriously and was on the verge of ordering one when I found a FLE for a very good price.

 

As a film photographer I find the extra stop very useful but I believe I could have lived with the Summicron too. I am very impressed with the FLE and believe it won't let you down. I am wondering, however, if I would have chosen the same way if I used a digital camera. I'm not so sure.

[IWC Doppel]

It will ultimately be what you are looking for that will make the decision, from my limited experience, owning/owned 35 Summicron ASPH, Summlux ASPH. Summilux ASPHERICAL, plus borrowed 35 MkIV Summicron and 35 Summilux FLE, plus shot with a MK I, II and III (Only briefly)

 

I would say the FLE is very sharp, but can have a strange rendering where the out of focus transition is very abrupt, leading to some images that look like a little strange and 'stick on' to a nice out of focus background, the bokeh can also be unpredictable. a Little too modern for me.

 

The 35 Summicron ASPH was not for me, again too modern, with bokeh that was okay but neither interesting or smooth. Colouring a little 'pink' and whilst very good never magical. Sharp but clinical.

 

The MkIV can be unimpressive and lowish contrast at F2, the bokeh is nice at F4 but a little broken at F2 (Still nicer than the ASPH) but had a great 3D about the images and somehow captures the moment better for me than the ASPH. A very nice lens that grows on you and this lens is sharp with hidden depths.

 

The Summilux ASPH pre FLE is superb IMO, it is sharper stopped down than the Cron's and had a fuller feel to the colour density and a superb bokeh. It renders in a way that combines resolution and sharpness with a classic feel and is much more classy IMO than the two crons above. It is also superb for depth and the colouring is stunning, think 50 pre asph summilux with added edge resolution and sharpness

 

The I,II and III all showed great promise, my gut was the I, followed by III then II very characterful but also pin sharp in the centre. I would like to own one of these, old school in all the right ways.

 

The 35 Summilux ASPHERICAL is for me magical, the resolution is stunning, but with depth and the ability to draw you in to the picture that is ahead of any other 35. Plus the bokeh has movement and character that is really amazing. It offer the ability to give the impression that the world still has movement but the subject is frozen, keeping the moment and life of the scene. I LOVE this lens. Add to this colour density and weight of few lenses I have tried, it is stellar

 

Plus the Summaron f2.8 is stunning check the MTF's and you will see performance at 2.8 - 5.6 that is still top draw, and it renders in a classic way

[Tonki-M]

I would say the FLE is very sharp, but can have a strange rendering where the out of focus transition is very abrupt.

 

i believe what you described is what contributes to the 3D effect of the lens. i find this to be the strength of the lens as it is the look i prefer, but others may not prefer so. the rendering is modern as it is as modern a lens you can find.

[colonel]

 

The 35 Summicron ASPH was not for me, again too modern, with bokeh that was okay but neither interesting or smooth. Colouring a little 'pink' and whilst very good never magical. Sharp but clinical.

 

The Summilux ASPH pre FLE is superb IMO, it is sharper stopped down than the Cron's and had a fuller feel to the colour density and a superb bokeh. It renders in a way that combines resolution and sharpness with a classic feel and is much more classy IMO than the two crons above. It is also superb for depth and the colouring is stunning, think 50 pre asph summilux with added edge

 

The 35 Summilux ASPHERICAL is for me magical, the resolution is stunning

 

Thanks

Very comprehensive experience

From what you describe the Summicron (and Summilux FLE possibly) are right up my street. I like modern sharp and neutral rendering

 

It's interesting what you say about the Summilux Aspherical (I think that's 11873). apparently only 4000 were made, so difficult to find. Presumably quite reasonable if one does pop up

 

Rgds

[wem]

I am in the same boat as the OP, doubting to get either the 35mm Summilux FLE or the 35mm Summicron ASPH. So thanks for all the insightful answers so far!

 

For me, size matters too and this hasn't come up yet. For those who have owned both, would you say the size difference is very substantial? I keep cutting out carbon models, but that helps little.

 

(Actually, my choice is not just to get the 35 summicron or FLE, but whether to get the package 35mm FLE and a 50mm Summicron (pre-ASPH) or the package 35mm Summicron ASPH and a 50mm Summilux ASPH. As I tend to shoot at 35mm more, I put more emphasis on the 35mm part.)

[qvsm]

Likewise I've also had the IV Cron and Summilux ASPH non-FLE. I'm not a massive fan of either, due to a preference to the cleaner rendering of the Lux FLE. That's on digital - on film they're both quite nice. The ergonomics on the Lux ASPH was always something I disliked, the Cron ASPH and FLE being spot on.

 

Can send you a few images taken with the FLE if it helps.

 

All highly subjective, as demonstrated by the variance of opinions above.

 

EDIT

There isn't that much difference in size between the Cron ASPH and FLE. Unless its a crucial part of your choice, I'd ignore it to be honest.

 

I think the Cron ASPH and FLE pair with the 50 Lux ASPH very well. I took the opinion that the 35 Lux ASPH non-FLE is a better partner to the 50 Lux pre-ASPH. All personal preference of course.

[colonel]

I am in the same boat as the OP......

 

... but whether to get the package ....... the package 35mm Summicron ASPH and a 50mm Summilux ASPH.

 

I think the Cron ASPH and FLE pair with the 50 Lux ASPH very well.

 

bingo!

I am thinking about this

I have the 50mm f1.4 ASPH and it is a stunning lens, but for street photography and general walkabout I find the angle of view a bit claustrophobic. Also 35mm really helps in areas of narrow streets, buildings and market places

 

I used to be a 50mm man, but recently I had a vacation with a Nikon D800E and a 35mm f1.4G. Being forced to shoot with a 35mm showed me that this lens is actually superior for street photography and many other types of photography for my taste.

 

I was thinking that the 50mm Summilux would be used to cover more people/portraits, tight landscapes and low light and the 35mm Summicron for daytime walkabout. In this scenario, the extra for the 35mm Summilux, although a fabulous lens, needs careful evaluation. I am erring slightly on the side of the Summicron for the moment

[Paul J]

The FLE is perfect for me. I would not ever swap nor sell it. Razor sharp at the plane of sharpness and incredibly beautiful everywhere else. People say it's clinical but I would hazard a guess it's those who have not had the pleasure of using it and seeing the RAW files. It can do dreamy it can do razor sharp and it can also do both at the same time. It's as close to perfection, for me, as one can get. IMO of corse. It leaves my jaw on the floor looking at the pics large on my monitor - I wish life actually looked like this!

 

Here is one, wide open at 1.4. It is my sharpest ever wide open lens.

 

[ola.fiske]

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!

 

35mm Summilux ASPH FLE Tri-x @1250 in Diafine

 

I have no experience with this lens on digital, but with film is the one that others have mentioned. Sharp, dreamy and 3D.

[peter_n]

We're all different. I had the original Summilux ASPH for a number of years and for some reason bought a Summicron ASPH. Long story short, I kept the two for a couple of years and then sold the Summilux as I couldn't see any difference and didn't need f1.4 and much preferred the handling of the Summicron. Then I bought a pre-ASPH v.1 Summicron (8-element) and now there's a rendering difference. So I'm happy.