35mm lens comparison

[kaspart]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Having a few 35mm Leica lenses at hand, I made a 1:1 comparison of the image qualities. I’m posting the test pictures here as it might be of interest for some of you as well.

 

Here’s the setup:

- M9 on a tripod, cable release

- focussing distance 2.00m, resolution chart in the center and on the far right

- lens detection off, all settings on ‚standard’, ISO 160, WB ‚cloudy’

- jpg ‚normal’, out of camera

 

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!

 

These are the lenses:

 

- Summilux 1.4/35

- Summilux 1.4/35 FLE

- Summicron 2/35 V1

- Summicron 2/35 V4

- Summicron 2/35 asph

- Summaron 2.8/35

- Tri-Elmar 4/28-35-50 E55

- Summicron-C 2/40

 

 

All used without lens shades. Each lens shot from maximum aperture to f5.6

Here’s the link to the flickr set with the full res files:

 

https://www.flickr.com/gp/kaspart-/1k7i87/

 

Lens and aperture are indicated in the file name.

 

Feel free to explore and compare yourself.

Thomas

[bephoto]

what is your personal favourite?

[jdsheepdog]

Thank you for the effort you put into this. One thing that stands out is how remarkably good is the venerable Summaron. I think I will learn to put up with the goggles and stop lusting after another 35 mm lens! At least, with the M 240, I can get it, and the goggled 135, on and off the camera with the half case on, something I could not do with the M 8 when I had it.

 

Thank you again, you have saved me a lot of money!

[IWC Doppel]

This doesn't help me stop coveting a V1 Summicron !

[bephoto]

V1 looks really nice. but I never thought V4 would be that good, now compared with some badass hi-tech FLE it makes me go get it out and shoot with it again.

V4 is even sharper than ASPH!

[Guest Marc G.]

The problem with the 35 Summicron ASPH is field curvature and focus shift. Both of these together are probably the reason why the v4 appears to be sharper than the ASPH.

[Guest Ansel_Adams]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The problem with the 35 Summicron ASPH is field curvature and focus shift. Both of these together are probably the reason why the v4 appears to be sharper than the ASPH.

 

I am actually seeing it the other way round. V4 badly curved and OOF away from centre. ASPH more flat across the frame and in focus.

[fotomas]

The problem with the 35 Summicron ASPH is field curvature and focus shift. Both of these together are probably the reason why the v4 appears to be sharper than the ASPH.

Thanks a lot. Very interesting.

How did you focus? Fix on 2m? Optical view finder on the chart in the middle, or something else?

[kaspart]

I used a 1.25x magnifier to focus on the chart. I didn't use the distance indications on the lenses, they aren't that accurate imho.

[Guest Ansel_Adams]

Thanks for doing this. A lot of work! But very interesting to see.

[Guest Mr. B]

Thank you for the test. The results are very interesting. I am glad to the the Summaron which I also have do so well.

Mr. B

[2wk]

Which is know for the least distortion?

[lct]

Summaron 35/2.8, Biogon 35/2.8, Summicron 35/2 v4

[kaspart]

I added a new set with different lighting types to check the flare resistance.

[Guest Marc G.]

I have to admit that I would have loved to see the 2 Zeiss 35's added into the comparison as I think both are formidable lenses.

[UliWer]

I added a new set with different lighting types to check the flare resistance.

 

The results are quite astonishing:

 

The 1. version of the Summicron showing less flare than the 4. version, the Summaron and the Tri-Elmar.

 

The Summicron asph is often criticized for its flare, but seems very stable on your example.

[Guest Ansel_Adams]

I added a new set with different lighting types to check the flare resistance.

 

Interesting. The ASPH Cron is still looking pretty formidable! Best of the bunch.

[Guest Marc G.]

Been looking for a 35 (had the Summarit but sold it... looking for one ever since) so I had a proper look at the shots again, on a bigger screen.

 

Opinion:

In these images the Summilux FLE killed just about everything, which was to be expected. The Summicron v4 seems to be better than the ASPH. At the center of the image the ASPH is not as sharp as the v4, for whatever the reason is. All in all the ASPH disappointed me quite a bit. I bet that (in this shot) a Summarit would have performed better flare-wise and sharpness-wise.

 

I suppose I'm going to have a serious look at the Zeiss camp.

[rirakuma]

Thank you for this test, 35mm is my go to focal length and its interesting to see the different flavours available.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[lct]

As far as M lenses are concerned there is no 35 killing anyone else in my modest experience and it is as easy to make a lens flare or to get harsh bokeh as to get the opposite effect. Suffice it to set the light source just outside the frame to begin with and one can see easily how flare prone their lenses can be. Now when using objective criteria like resolution, contrast, CA, vignetting, flare and distortion there are obviously better lenses than others but the best ones are not necessarily the most expensive by far. Aside from vignetting, my most performant 35 is the Biogon 35/2.8 for instance and if a bit of softness is allowed in corners and borders, the Summarit 35/2.5 is no slouch either. Now to get the sharpest results at f/1.4 and f/2 there are no alternative to Summilux asph and Summicron asph IMHO.