Stay with 35 Summicron or switch to Lux?

[jay968]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have been shooting with both the 35mm Summicron ASPH (current version) and the 50mm Summilux ASPH FLE (current version) and feel that while the 35 is a wonderful lens, it is just no match for the 50. If I had never purchased the 50, I would be perfectly happy as I have been for years, with the 35. However, the 50 is just without a doubt the best lens I have ever shot with.

 

So, I wonder...can I expect to see the same kind of jump mainly in sharpness if I switch from the 35 cron to the 35 lux? Is the 35 lux that good, or is it somewhere in between the 35 cron and the 50 lux? If the 35 lux is as good as the 50 lux, I would make the switch. If it's only a subtle improvement over the cron (or the same beyond f2.8) I think I would just save the money and stay with the cron.

 

Any comments from someone who owns or has shot with all 3 of these lenses would be appreciated.

[Jeff S]

Rent it and decide for yourself.

 

I own both lenses you do and appreciate what they each offer given my shooting and print style. Whatever I or someone else says shouldn't matter. But if you do anyway, there are tons of comments already available via the search box at top. I can assure you that there are advocates on all sides, and myriad issues from bokeh to focus shift to flare to fringing, and lots more to keep you reading rather than testing.

 

I also wouldn't be surprised if Leica eventually announces a new 35 Summicron-M (akin to the 50 APO Summicron-M). But I wouldn't hold my breath.

 

Jeff

[jay968]

I have read countless comments which seem to discuss things in general terms and give conflicting opinions. Some say after f2.8 there is very little difference between the cron and the lux. Some say the lux is sharper at any f-stop. I am not interested in bokeh, only in sharpness and color, and all I really want to know is whether the 35 lux gives results like the 50 lux or if it's only a small step up from the cron.

 

To me, the difference between 35 cron and 50 lux is striking, it's not subtle. If there is this big a difference between the 35 cron and the 35 lux, I will upgrade.

 

I suppose the suggestion to rent is probably the best.

[Malvolio]

The 35 Cron was the one lens on my M9 and M8 that was always a little ..ho hum. I would look at the 35 Lux if you want something a little faster but can I strongly recc the 28 Cron. It renders a lot like the 50 Lux and will give you a better focal length spread

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guest JonathanP]

I have been shooting with both the 35mm Summicron ASPH (current version) and the 50mm Summilux ASPH FLE (current version) and feel that while the 35 is a wonderful lens, it is just no match for the 50. If I had never purchased the 50, I would be perfectly happy as I have been for years, with the 35. However, the 50 is just without a doubt the best lens I have ever shot with.

 

Thats exactly my experience as well. I started with the 35 'cron but since I bought the 50 'lux fle I've hardly used the 35. Its just the way the 50 draws (not just wide open) that I love - the tonality is wonderful. I also find the focus shift of the 35 'cron around f4-5.6 to be annoying - its pretty well behaved by f/8 but then you can start to see softening due to diffraction.

 

I'm going to be trying my son's 35 C-Biogon shortly, to see if that would work for me as a small light lens, which would let me sell the 35 'cron and replace with a 35 'lux (or I may delay that in favour of going wider first - 24/28 - I'm not in a big hurry to change).

 

Jonathan

[wda]

I wonder whether your particular 35mm Summicron needs a check-up. At working mid-range apertures, performance comparisons should not be significant.

[wattsy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

To me, the difference between 35 cron and 50 lux is striking, it's not subtle. If there is this big a difference between the 35 cron and the 35 lux, I will upgrade.

 

Maybe you have a duff 35 Summicron? There are reasons why you might prefer one 35 over another but the Summicron has sharpness in spades.

[JPH1962]

well, I had all three of these and what I remenber is that my 35 Summicron Asph has been a bit behind the others when bought new.

 

I quickly found out, that it was just about sharp at 2.0 but the plane of sharpness went backwards a bit when stopping down to 2.8 or worse 4.0 - this lens has a mild focus shift without any doubt.

 

Once I explained my observation to our local CS here in Switzerland, they adjusted the lens (bringing focus slightly frontwards) and the issue became irrelevant.

 

Maybe it would be worth checking your lens regarding that? In any case I do not remember a significant difference in sharpness compared to the 50 asph.

 

All the best

 

JPH

[philipus]

I have the 35 Summilux Asph FLE and the 50 Summilux Asph and agree that the latter is a better performer, in particular when it comes to flare resistance. The 50 also has the upper hand regarding sharpness at wider apertures. I only shoot film and don't pixelpeep but there is a difference. Still, as Erwin Puts found, the 35 Summilux is an exceptionally good lens.

 

I am surprised about the OP's comments about the current 35 Summicron as I've always understood it to be a very very sharp lens wide open.

 

And one shouldn't forget that while it is always possible to add sharpness in post, it is more difficult to remove it.

 

Also, the 35 Summilux Asph is quite a large lens when compared to a 35 Summicron, fwiw.

 

Philip

[Guest Ansel_Adams]

I have aways found most 50mm lenses to perform better than their 35mm brethren, regardless of brand. They just have a much more pleasing look to them.

 

I have never found the 35 Summicron ASPH to be lacking in the sharpness or colour departments, and no focus shift here either (on film at least) that I have observed.

 

Of course the summicron can not do 1.4, if that is what you are after.

 

Have a look at the recent 35mm lens comparison in this forum - I see very little difference between the Cron ASPH and Lux ASPH at 35mm.

 

Edit: perhaps you could post some image samples to illustrate the issue?

[a911s]

The 35 Cron was the one lens on my M9 and M8 that was always a little ..ho hum. I would look at the 35 Lux if you want something a little faster but can I strongly recc the 28 Cron. It renders a lot like the 50 Lux and will give you a better focal length spread

 

I started with the 35 'cron but since I bought the 50 'lux fle I've hardly used the 35. Its just the way the 50 draws (not just wide open) that I love - the tonality is wonderful. I also find the focus shift of the 35 'cron around f4-5.6 to be annoying - its pretty well behaved by f/8 but then you can start to see softening due to diffraction.

 

I agree with these observations.

 

If you want the sharpness of the 50 Lux in a slightly wider lens, the 28 Cron will provide it for you. My 35mm IV Cron outperforms my 35mm Cron Asph from f8 to f16.

[rramesh]

Try a 28 Cron. You might just like it.

[Paul J]

The 35mm Summicron I tried was softer wide open. Perhaps it was a bad copy though. I would say it has a rounder rendering. The colour and contrast, I think, is a step up also. I have found the Summilux FLE to be a near perfect lens design. Wide open it often leaves me to wonder - how can it possibly be this good? Wide open and close up with the floating element is also going to have a bearing on comparative sharpness with the Cron. Some don't like the bokeh, i love it, it's one of the reasons I was attracted to it. Painterly and impressionistic. The only real limitation I have found with this lens is the diffraction at f16. I don't shoot it f16 unless I really need to.

 

I have no hesitation at all in recommending the Summilux FLE.

[M9reno]

To be honest I have not yet been able to fall in love with my Lux 35 FLE, which I have owned since 2012. Hard to say why, but I keep coming back to my old 1958 Summaron 35 f/2.8. The FLE is the only Leica lens that I have ever considered selling. Still sitting on the fence on that question! By the way, I also own the 50 Lux ASPH, and I would rate it as my favourite lens.

[Jeff S]

I have read countless comments which seem to discuss things in general terms and give conflicting opinions.

 

Exactly.

 

You may also want to send your Summicron to DAG (Don Goldberg) for a check. He does great work at fair prices, as well or better than Leica, and generally faster. You can call him in advance to discuss any issues you have with its performance to determine if it's worth checking.

 

Jeff

[jay968]

Some of you may be slightly misunderstanding me...

 

I mentioned that had I never purchased the 50 I would have been very happy with the 35 cron (as I have been for years). It's a great lens. There is no issue with it.

 

What I am talking about is the fact that the 50 lux is just so good, I am wondering if I can do BETTER with the 35 by changing it to the 35 lux. I have seen over the years that the Leica 50s usually do outperform the 35s in test results, so this may be the same here. However, if the 35 lux does something different and actually IS in the same league with the 50, to me it would be worth trading for as 35 is my main focal length on the Leica. If not, and the 50 is still going to outperform the 35 lux, then so be it. I have not seen any MTF charts to compare the 2, so this is why I am asking for opinions from people who own or who have shot with both lux lenses.

 

I also have no interest in the 28 as again, 35 is my most used FL.

 

At any rate, I am again seeing a variety of opinions, so I guess an awful LOT of it is just that, opinion. Sooner or later I am just going to have to rent one to decide for myself.

[M9reno]

If you happen to be in England you would be most welcome to try my 35 Lux FLE, especially if you could let me try out your Cron. I am actually curious in moving in the opposite direction to you, Lux to Cron, given what I said in my earlier post.

[Jeff S]

Some of you may be slightly misunderstanding me...

I mentioned that had I never purchased the 50 I would have been very happy with the 35 cron (as I have been for years). It's a great lens. There is no issue with it.

 

We understand you, and some feel that given your statement that the difference "is striking" (although you don't say how) that your lens might not be optimized. I, for instance, would characterize the difference between my same lenses in another way. But who knows whether that's personal taste or something else…or both?

 

No misunderstanding; rather some recommendations to eliminate variables (check out the Summicron) and to see for yourself (test the Summilux). Forum discussion solves nothing for you.

 

Jeff

[Guest Ansel_Adams]

So, I wonder...can I expect to see the same kind of jump mainly in sharpness if I switch from the 35 cron to the 35 lux?.

 

If you look at the MTF graphs, there is a much bigger jump from 35mm Lux to 50mm Lux than there is between the two 35mm lenses [cron and lux], therefore you are unlikely go get such a big jump in sharpness by moving to the 35 lux as that you have experienced with the 50.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jay968]

If you look at the MTF graphs, there is a much bigger jump from 35mm Lux to 50mm Lux than there is between the two 35mm lenses [cron and lux], therefore you are unlikely go get such a big jump in sharpness by moving to the 35 lux as that you have experienced with the 50.

 

Thanks! That's the kind of response I was hoping for when I originally posted this question.

 

To the others, thanks too for your responses. I know I have been a bit difficult to respond to but basically I just wanted to hear from someone who has shot with all 3, or who has seen the MTF graphs on all 3 to confirm whether or not it might be worth pursuing.

 

I did say the difference to me was striking...not in the sense though that the cron is bad, just in the sense that for years I have considered the cron to be among the best lenses I have ever used. Perhaps it is 'striking' to me that it has been surpassed! I apologize if I gave the impression that the cron is just a bad lens compared to the 50 lux. It's not, it's a great lens.