Swapping 35mm Summicron ASPH for 35mm Summilux FLE

[jip]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As I stated in the titel I am thinking of selling my 35mm Summicron-M ASPH, and buy a 35mm Summilux-M ASPH FLE.

 

The reason I want to do this are the following:

 

Shallower depth of field (DOF)

1 stop faster for low light shooting

 

I was wondering if others have any recommendation, I use 35mm and 50mm the most of all my lenses, and I was wondering if buying 1 faster lens and replacing the same focal length with it.

 

the lenses I currently use are:

50mm Summicron-M (latest spherical edition)

35mm Summicron-M ASPH

90mm Elmarit-M (latest)

28mm Elmarit-M ASPH

50mm Elmar (for lightweight traveling)

21mm Elmarit-M for when I need ultrawide.

 

So selling the 35mm Summicron-M ASPH and buying the 35mm Summilux-M ASPH FLE sounds like a good idea to me.

 

Questions are:

weight?

How much more bulky and heavier is the Lux 35?

Shouldn't I keep the 35 cron and buy a 50 lux and sell the 50 cron? (cheaper option, then I also have a lens that is 1 stop faster with shallow DOF)?

 

thanks in advance!

[Advertisement]

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

[01af]

I think that in both the 35 mm and the 50 mm focal lengths, switching from Summicron to Summilux does make sense. Sure, the Summilux versions are bigger and heavier than their respective Summicron counterparts ... but not by much. In my opinion, this is not really an issue. If it was then you should prefer the Summarit lenses over the Summicrons anyway.

 

Regarding the question, 35 mm or 50 mm ... if narrow depth-of-field is most important to you and your shooting style then better get the Summilux-M 50 mm Asph. At 50 mm, f/1.4 will yield a significantly more pronounced effect of selective sharpness (narrower DOF, more blurred background) than at 35 mm. On the other hand, if shooting hand-held in low light is most important to you then better get the Summilux-M 35 mm Asph, as at the shorter focal length you'll be able to hand-hold a half or full stop slower shutter speeds than at 50 mm and still get away with acceptable sharpness (provided you don't crop your 35 mm shots more than your 50 mm shots in post-processing).

 

If you just cannot decide which of those two aspects is more important to you then simply choose the focal length you're using more often. Judging by the caption of this thread, this probably is the 35 mm focal length, so that's what I'd recommend to you ... don't get a lens you don't really want just because it costs a little less. But you wouldn't go wrong with either option.

[Jeff S]

Don't know about your local options, but in your situation I would rent or borrow the 35 and 50 Summiluxes and base my decision on actual experience and real results, which for me would be prints.

 

01af summarizes various considerations well. But if you don't have a clear idea of your needs and preferences going in, and don't want to take time to test for the differences, you'll probably be happy with either of two fine lenses...that is, as long as you don't look back and question the choice.

 

I do note, however, that you keep a 50 Elmar for "lightweight traveling." For me that would just add confusion, as I want my best options with me, home or travel. But that's why only you can decide what works for you.

 

Jeff

[lct]

...

How much more bulky and heavier is the Lux 35?

Shouldn't I keep the 35 cron and buy a 50 lux and sell the 50 cron?

...

320g vs 225g in black. Matter of tastes. I prefer small lenses personally so i use the 35/1.4 asph v2 in low light only.

The 50/1.4 asph is bulkier than the 50/2 as well. Matter of tastes again.

Both Summiluxes are FLE lenses. Their focussing action is not as smooth as that of the Summicrons as far as my samples are concerned.

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!

[otto.f]

My very personal view: I'm not that interested in shallow depth of field with lenses wider than 50mm. I might be interested in a Noctilux 35, but the fall-off of focus into depth cannot go that fast with a wide-angle to be interesting for for instance portraits or stills. That is my experience and I see that 01af's reasoning goes in the same direction.

So the only reason for me in your position to move away from the 'cron 35 asph would be bo-keh as such (or color, or flare-resistance). Summicron 35 pre-asph might have nicer bo-keh than an asph 'lux with the diaphragm blades that Leica uses the last 20 or 30 years. See also the latest LFI on bo-keh.

The pre-FLE 35 'lux has very nice color-rendition btw.

[Rva]

I have the 35 Lux and 50 Lux. Somebody can say that both are very close, but they are completely different. Friend of mine lent me the 90 APO and the 35 Cron a few days ago. I've noticed focus shift at the 90 APO. Regarding the 35 Cron, I could see that the Cron is more contrast than the Lux, and color rendering produced by the Lux is really beautiful. From my point of view the Lux produces a warmer color in contrast to the Cron, which I would say is more colder.

[otto.f]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Regarding the 35 Cron, I could see that the Cron is more contrast than the Lux, and color rendering produced by the Lux is really beautiful. From my point of view the Lux produces a warmer color in contrast to the Cron, which I would say is more colder.

 

Which is also true for 50 asph lux in contrast to the cron. But I would not trade the Cron 50 for the 50 Lux when it comes to bo-keh.

Last week someone here in the forum said that selling a Leica lens to buy another Leica lens will always lead to regret. That's also my experience.

 

There's one other thing if we are talking about how to best spend your money. For the first time in Leica history something has changed last year. The old adagium always was: better spend your money on lenses than on bodies. Since the Monochrom arrived this may not be true anymore. For instance your Cron 50 gets a new dimension when using on a Monochrom

[jaapv]

Personally I prefer the rendering of the Summicron 35 asph to the Summilux, especially in low-light, high-contrast shots. But that is a bit unfair as my Bokeh needs are catered for by the Summilux 50 asph (and 24 Summilux)

[4X5B&W]

Used to have the 35 cron ASPH, and really loved it on Kodachrome.

 

It also performs very well on digital cameras, sharp at any aperture, contrasty, saturated colour and edge to edge performance, but almost a bit too edgy IMO.

 

I move the Summilux ASPH (non FLE) and couldn't be happier, besides the obvious speed and DOF advantages, it has a smoother, traditional Mandler style "look" that I really like.

 

In limited shooting with a borrowed Lux ASPH FLE, I found it had more saturated colour, and a higher contrast (more modern look) than the pre-FLE.

 

Again that was in limited shooting, however I am very content with my Lux ASPH - YMMV.