M TYP(240) with Pre-ASPH 35mm Summilux vs Summicron

[dugby]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi. For my M TYP(240) I'm investigating running with a light-weight 35mm, so have been considering the pre-ASPH 35mm lenses:

1) Summicron 35mm version IV (11310 / 11311) (King of Bokeh notoriety.... or not)

2) Summilux 35mm (11870 / 11871).

 

Whilst I'm obviously aware the lux is faster with f1.4 and I've had a good internet (Kenrockwell etc) read about these fine (but older) lenses.

 

I'm looking for advice from M9 or M240 users of the above lenses, for chosing one over the other.

 

I am very aware that in both cases, the ASPH versions are better at wider aperatures, but ultimately I want to go light weight with a wide.

 

I currently have been playing with a Version 3 Summicron 35mm, but find it a bit lacking (if that's the right description)

 

 

 

 

 

Note: already have Summilux-M ASPH 50mm, and Summicron-M APO 75mm

[01af]

I'm investigating running with a light-weight 35 mm, so have been considering the pre-Asph 35 mm lenses:

1) Summicron-M 35 mm (11310)

2) Summilux 35 mm (11870).

I am very aware that in both cases, the Asph versions are better at wider aperatures, but ultimately I want to go light-weight with a wide.

If light weight is more important than lens speed or performance at wide apertures then you might also want to consider the Summarit-M 35 mm 1:2.5. At 220 g, the weight almost is in the same ballpark as the other two's. Lens speed is only insignificantly slower than the Summicron's but performance wide open is up to the modern Asph lenses—so it'll match the lenses you already have—and furthermore it's the most flare-resistant lens I've ever encountered.

[lct]

At f/1.4 the Summilux is soft but shows some halos around bright subjects which gives it an inimitable glow. My favorite 35 for portraiture for this reason. Beware that it flares a lot though and that the halos can be ugly when they are not white. Red halos around red flowers for instance.

At f/2, both lenses are sharp in the center but rather soft on edges and corners.

At f 2.8 and on, both lenses are as sharp as their modern counterparts more or less with less contrast and no clinical rendition.

The 35/2 v4 has generally less flare than the 35/1.4 but is not immune from it.

Both have a bit of focus shift around f/4-f/5.6, visible mainly at short distance, and a generally smooth bokeh.

None of them will give you the modern rendition of your 50/1.4 asph and 75/2 asph though.

For a better match see the current Summilux, Summicron and Summarit 35.

[dugby]

At f/1.4 the Summilux is soft but shows some halos around bright subjects which gives it an inimitable glow. My favorite 35 for portraiture for this reason. Beware that it flares a lot though and that the halos can be ugly when they are not white. Red halos around red flowers for instance.

At f/2, both lenses are sharp in the center but rather soft on edges and corners.

At f 2.8 and on, both lenses are as sharp as their modern counterparts more or less with less contrast and no clinical rendition.

The 35/2 v4 has generally less flare than the 35/1.4 but is not immune from it.

Both have a bit of focus shift around f/4-f/5.6, visible mainly at short distance, and a generally smooth bokeh.

None of them will give you the modern rendition of your 50/1.4 asph and 75/2 asph though.

For a better match see the current Summilux, Summicron and Summarit 35.

 

Thankyou for your replies, The Version 3 Summicron 35mm that I am playing with is unacceptable at f2. It's very soft in the corners and sides, making only the center acceptable....

 

Guess I may need to pump some more iron (actually aluminium or brass) and step up to an ASPH