maccaco Posted November 4, 2012 Share #1 Â Posted November 4, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) I have the 35 Summicron v3 but lot of people talk of version 4 as the best pre-asph... Did I sell my v3 and I'll buy the v4 or I'm doing something foolish? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 4, 2012 Posted November 4, 2012 Hi maccaco, Take a look here I sell Cron 35v3 and then buy Cron 35v4... or not?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
luigi bertolotti Posted November 4, 2012 Share #2 Â Posted November 4, 2012 Imho, a switch to be considered only if the net expense is low : look at the asph if youreally feel the desire of a step-up. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
maccaco Posted November 4, 2012 Author Share #3 Â Posted November 4, 2012 Thanks for your opinion. I'm looking for a compact lens with the best possible performance. The cron ASPH is not my wish, for now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted November 4, 2012 Share #4  Posted November 4, 2012 I have the Summicron 35 mm v3 but lot of people talk of version 4 as the best pre-asph ... People talk a lot about things they don't fully understand. So you better don't make decisions based on other people's talk. If you want to know whether the Summicron-M 35 mm v4 is better for you and your way of shooting then you must try it for yourself on your own camera. But whatever you do—DO NOT SELL your Summicron 35 mm v3 before you absolutely positively know that you actually like the v4 better. You need to have both in your bag at the same time in order to make meaningful comparisons. Make several comparisons, not just one or two. Shoot both lenses in low light and bright light, wide open and stopped down, at close distance and near infinity, outdoors and indoors, low-contrast and high-contrast subjects. Then start over. Then decide.  If you cannot afford to own both (even if it was just for a couple of weeks) then better just keep what you have. If I wanted the best-possible small (and affordable) 35 mm M lens then I'd get the Summarit-M 35 mm 1:2.5. In fact, that's what I have, and I recommend it highly. I prefer it over any 35 mm Summicron, including the Asph. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
maccaco Posted November 4, 2012 Author Share #5 Â Posted November 4, 2012 Thank you. I'm even thinking of changing it (v3) for a Cron-C 40... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jean-Michel Posted November 4, 2012 Share #6  Posted November 4, 2012 People talk a lot about things they don't fully understand. So you better don't make decisions based on other people's talk. If you want to know whether the Summicron-M 35 mm v4 is better for you and your way of shooting then you must try it for yourself on your own camera. But whatever you do—DO NOT SELL your Summicron 35 mm v3 before you absolutely positively know that you actually like the v4 better. You need to have both in your bag at the same time in order to make meaningful comparisons. Make several comparisons, not just one or two. Shoot both lenses in low light and bright light, wide open and stopped down, at close distance and near infinity, outdoors and indoors, low-contrast and high-contrast subjects. Then start over. Then decide. If you cannot afford to own both (even if it was just for a couple of weeks) then better just keep what you have. If I wanted the best-possible small (and affordable) 35 mm M lens then I'd get the Summarit-M 35 mm 1:2.5. In fact, that's what I have, and I recommend it highly. I prefer it over any 35 mm Summicron, including the Asph.   Hi, I agree with the above comment. The only way to truly compare and decide on a piece of equipment is to try it. Reviews and such are very useful but in the end you need to figure things out by yourself. I personally hesitated a long time before purchasing an M9 as I was not sure if my lenses purchased decades ago would beOK for the M9. One of the lenses is a 35 Summicron from 1960 -- with goggles for use on an M3 -- I definitely would not get rid of it, I might purchase a the newest version, that or the newest Summilux but I would not want to lose that a little smug smile of being able to use a 52 year old lens on an new digital camera! Jean-Michel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted November 4, 2012 Share #7 Â Posted November 4, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) I have no experience with the 35/2 v3. According to J.M. Sepulchre, it is a bit softer in the angles at fast apertures but is also sharper in the center and has less focus shift than the v4. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnfell Posted November 4, 2012 Share #8 Â Posted November 4, 2012 I own the cron asph, and my friend have the v4 (formerly known as "king of bokeh"). I have done some side-by-side testing and found them both to be very good in the center, but the ASPH absolutely kills the v4 in the corners at all apertures, and also in terms of distortion. However the v4 has a quite pleasing "round" look to it (mandler look?) and is quite warmer than the asph. It is also smaller. Â The 35 cron has what they call a "clinical" look, meaning hardly any distortion, vignetting, and sharp from corner to corner. There are other lenses that are sharper (35 FLE at wider apertures), but the asph does it with in a very even fashion, making it exellent for "geometrical" pictures. Â As others have said, upgrading will be a costly affair and there is enough difference between the lenses to warrant a thorough side-by-side evaluation for YOUR use. Â Unless you are able to identify specifically what your current version is lacking, I would not jump on the upgrade wagon. Leica lenses only get marginally better with each version, but the cost difference can be dramatic. Â For example, my 35 cron is not as sharp as my 28 cron, but in turn that one has loads of vignetting and more distortion. They are different, not only in focal length, and it is very useful (for me) to have both available. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IWC Doppel Posted November 5, 2012 Share #9 Â Posted November 5, 2012 I had a asph 35 Cron, have used extensively a mkIV and currently have a 35 2.8 Summaron and 35 Summilux aspherical, I have also recently sold a 35 Summilux ASPH. Â I have shot with the MK I, II and III as well, but not lived with. You need to buy the mkIV and see. I love the mkIV for its rendering at f4 and am much more impressed with other lenses at f2. I would try and see how you get on. I think the IV will be a little better than the III but only you can tell if it's worth the change. Â If you love the III then you may really love the IV, I personally don't like the ASPH as much as the IV, the IV has more 3D, nicer colouring and a look stopped down the bokeh is superb. The ASPH is 'pinker' in colouring and less broken bokeh wide open, plus better contrast, but a little flatter and. I just didnt love it. Â If you can afford to wait to find a IV at a pre you can sell on and not lose, then keep both for at least a month. Shoot exclusively with the IV before comparing and make the decision that's right for you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Messsucherkamera Posted November 5, 2012 Share #10  Posted November 5, 2012 People talk a lot about things they don't fully understand. So you better don't make decisions based on other people's talk. If you want to know whether the Summicron-M 35 mm v4 is better for you and your way of shooting then you must try it for yourself on your own camera.But whatever you do—DO NOT SELL your Summicron 35 mm v3 before you absolutely positively know that you actually like the v4 better. You need to have both in your bag at the same time in order to make meaningful comparisons. Make several comparisons, not just one or two. Shoot both lenses in low light and bright light, wide open and stopped down, at close distance and near infinity, outdoors and indoors, low-contrast and high-contrast subjects. Then start over. Then decide. If you cannot afford to own both (even if it was just for a couple of weeks) then better just keep what you have. If I wanted the best-possible small (and affordable) 35 mm M lens then I'd get the Summarit-M 35 mm 1:2.5. In fact, that's what I have, and I recommend it highly. I prefer it over any 35 mm Summicron, including the Asph.  I'm in 100% agreement with the above.  I was talking by email with Ken Hansen (Leica dealer) in New York City about this very issue last week. Ken said that from all that he has seen, the v.4 35/2 'cron is not clearly better than the 35/2 v.4, in spite of the v.4's reputation as the bokeh king. The reputation of the v.4 has caused prices for it to increase, though.  A friend of mine has the v.3 35/2 and I find its rendering to be outstanding. Based on Ken's comments and firsthand experience of seeing the results of the 35/2 v.3 that my friend has - both in silverprint form and in book form - I would not dump a perfectly good v.3 to get a v.4 unless I had substantial firsthand proof that there was a quantifiable and significant difference favoring the image quality of the v.4 over the v.3.  It seems that sometimes all the stewing we Leica users do over issues like this doesn't add up to much more than a tempest in a teapot.  JMHO but to me, paying hundreds to upgrade to a different version of a lens that amounts to nothing more than splitting hairs is an exercise in pointlessness.  Or you could keep your v.3 and get the v.4 - you would have two choices, depending on the result you were trying to produce as IWC Doppel observes in post #9 (above). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
philipus Posted November 5, 2012 Share #11 Â Posted November 5, 2012 If you want, as you say, the "best possible performance" then my guess it would be (like it or not) the Asph. But if we exclude that one from the equation, then it depends on the look you are after, predominantly wide open. Â Do you prefer more or less contrast? Â Puts reports in his Chronicle that v.4, as compared to v.3, delivers "much improved quality at full aperture, especially in the outer zones of the capture area". Â Relevant to your question is of course which camera you use. Do you use the M8 as your profile says? That is likely very relevant. Â I guess you've seen Rockwell's comparison. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stealth3kpl Posted November 5, 2012 Share #12 Â Posted November 5, 2012 I compared the 35/2 mk4 and 35/2 asph here and there really wasn't much difference there never mind between the mk4 and mk3. My test is pretty rough though and at full aperture and in one lighting condition. Pete Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
!Nomad64 Posted November 5, 2012 Share #13  Posted November 5, 2012 People talk a lot about things they don't fully understand. So you better don't make decisions based on other people's talk. If you want to know whether the Summicron-M 35 mm v4 is better for you and your way of shooting then you must try it for yourself on your own camera. But whatever you do—DO NOT SELL your Summicron 35 mm v3 before you absolutely positively know that you actually like the v4 better. You need to have both in your bag at the same time in order to make meaningful comparisons. Make several comparisons, not just one or two. Shoot both lenses in low light and bright light, wide open and stopped down, at close distance and near infinity, outdoors and indoors, low-contrast and high-contrast subjects. Then start over. Then decide. If you cannot afford to own both (even if it was just for a couple of weeks) then better just keep what you have. If I wanted the best-possible small (and affordable) 35 mm M lens then I'd get the Summarit-M 35 mm 1:2.5. In fact, that's what I have, and I recommend it highly. I prefer it over any 35 mm Summicron, including the Asph.  +1! I don't have any of the two but as I was quite interested in them I did some homework myself. Pls bear in mind that earlier versions of the v4 had mechanical breaks due to the fact that they used internal plastic parts instead of metal which became fragile as it aged. Based on the infos available on the net, safe samples should be those with serial number above 3390000 if made in Germany and above 3410000 if made in Canada. v3 should be better built than v4 but also a bit larger. Performance wise there shouldn't be a great difference between the two, with v4 slightly better than v3. v4's bokeh is more of an urban legend. Pls check on this very recent thread for first hand reports: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m-lenses/259832-king-bokeh-killed-its-father.html  Hope this helps, Bruno Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted November 5, 2012 Share #14 Â Posted November 5, 2012 Thank you. I'm even thinking of changing it (v3) for a Cron-C 40... Â This can have a sense in terms of compactness (the Cron C 40 is deliciously small and very well built) : among the M8 users there is a certain school of thoughts which tends to consider the Cron 40 the best "price-performer" as a standard lens (even if carries with it a bit of issue about arranging the UVIR filter for it...) Â And... in terms of GAS... ... having a 40 leaves room to think of ANOTHER "real" 35 for the next round... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted November 5, 2012 Share #15 Â Posted November 5, 2012 The 35mm frame lines are deliciously accurate at medium to long distance with the 40/2 as well, on the M8 at least (not the M8.2). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
maccaco Posted November 5, 2012 Author Share #16 Â Posted November 5, 2012 If you want, as you say, the "best possible performance" then my guess it would be (like it or not) the Asph. But if we exclude that one from the equation, then it depends on the look you are after, predominantly wide open. [/url]. Â Thanks Philipus,.. I wanted to say, "best performance" in a compact size, without being ASPH. My question surrounds the v3 (I have) and v4, but from what I have been able to study with different photos in the real world (Internet photos, flickr mostly, but I do not know that reliability exist), I do not I see a clear difference between the two versions, or that's my impression. I so I have doubts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
!Nomad64 Posted November 5, 2012 Share #17 Â Posted November 5, 2012 Thanks Philipus,..I wanted to say, "best performance" in a compact size, without being ASPH. My question surrounds the v3 (I have) and v4, but from what I have been able to study with different photos in the real world (Internet photos, flickr mostly, but I do not know that reliability exist), I do not I see a clear difference between the two versions, or that's my impression. I so I have doubts. Â That's exactly the point. The v4 sells at an overinflated price because of this "King of Bokeh" mythical status which proved to be actually unsubstantiated. From what I could see from your very same sources the bokeh of all versions of the Summicron 35 is often harsh. The performance difference is there but is very subtle and IMHO not worth the extra monies you would go to pay for it. Let's say that based on samples on evilbay the v3 sells between 900 and 1,200 Euro, the v4 starts at 1,200 and goes up to 1,600 and over 2,000 if it's in chromed version. To keep the sense of proportions a new Asph sells at abt 2,400 Euro. Â Are those negligible differences worth 300/400 Euro extra? If - and that's a big if - I were you, I'd keep my v3. IMHO the only worthy upgrade if you do not want aspherical lenses might be a PreAsph Summilux which has for sure more pleasant a bokeh and at f2 gives a better image than the v4. At f1.4 is loaded with coma, halo, etc. but it was conceived to help photojournalists to bring home a photo in impossible conditions and for almost 36 years it served well its purpose. It's been one of the longest lived lenses in the Leitz catalogue. Â Hope this helps Bruno Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
maccaco Posted November 5, 2012 Author Share #18 Â Posted November 5, 2012 Thanks for your advice Bruno, I have a 40 1.4 Nokton that "I ride it out" from time to time when winter comes. Great lens too but in the end I feel more comfortable Cron-35 to carry in my tiny bag. Â I have in mind to have one day a M9 (I hope soon) and my Cron 35, 50 and Elmar-90 will be attached to it, while the CV (28, 40 and 75) will be attached to my current M8. So I doubt changing 35v3 to 35v4 but every day I think I will not change it. Â Regards! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
billo101 Posted November 5, 2012 Share #19 Â Posted November 5, 2012 Yes! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tobey bilek Posted November 6, 2012 Share #20 Â Posted November 6, 2012 The differences are negligible and the V3 is much better mechanically. Â Buy an ASPH if you want. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.