Stay with 35 Summicron or switch to Lux?

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Oh my. MTF graphs can be shown in many ways, as discussed here, let alone interpreted differently by different folks. And MTF says nothing about color, chromatic aberrations, distortion, vignetting, flaring, etc.

 

Not to mention that the poster never said he even tried all 3 lenses. And, even if he had, I could find dozens of posts in other threads with different (or similar) views.

 

And even besides all of that, there are cameras/lenses and then there are real prints, which depend on myriad other variables and workflow methods. Working and seeing are all that counts.

 

Welcome to the internet age.

 

Jeff

[Guest Ansel_Adams]

Oh my. MTF graphs can be shown in many ways, as discussed here, let alone interpreted differently by different folks. And MTF says nothing about color, chromatic aberrations, distortion, vignetting, flaring, etc.

 

Not to mention that the poster never said he even tried all 3 lenses. And, even if he had, I could find dozens of posts in other threads with different (or similar) views.

 

And even besides all of that, there are cameras/lenses and then there are real prints, which depend on myriad other variables and workflow methods. Working and seeing are all that counts.

 

Welcome to the internet age.

 

Jeff

 

Except that the OP asked about sharpness mainly, which the MTF graphs are very good at measuring within their parameters.

 

Leica use the same methodology when creating their own graphs so comparisons between different lens MTFs are entirely valid.

[Jeff S]

Off the ignore list?

 

Sharpness? Resolution? Contrast? Lens? Software edits? Printer? Print size? User skill and preferences? Subject matter and shooting conditions? Etc….

 

This discussion could go on days, and has before. Much better for the OP to simply try the lens and see for himself. That's how I make decisions. YMMV.

 

Jeff

[Guest Ansel_Adams]

Off the ignore list?

 

Sharpness? Resolution? Contrast? Lens? Software edits? Printer? Print size? User skill and preferences? Subject matter and shooting conditions? Etc….

 

This discussion could go on days, and has before. Much better for the OP to simply try the lens and see for himself. That's how I make decisions. YMMV.

 

Jeff

 

Sure but its a discussion forum. Folks come here to talk about stuff and share experiences. How would you describe the step up from 35 Cron to Lux? Noticeable? What do you see?

[jay968]

Jeff, of course you're right. I SHOULD try it for myself. There are so many varying and even conflicting opinions on anything and everything on the internet. Again, I just wanted to hear something from someone who had knowledge or experience with the lenses, to get some kind of idea on whether or not I might even be wasting my own time...again, the cron is a great lens. Maybe I am just looking for an excuse NOT to spend the money.

 

For what it's worth, I do not really believe in judging a lens by viewing samples on the internet. For that matter, I won't even make a judgement based on anything I even see on a computer monitor. I HAVE to see a print, usually at least 16 inches before I will make any kind of judgement. I take what a lot of people online say with a grain of salt, as I know a lot of what people write is biased for one reason or another.

 

However, short of going out and renting the lens, again I just thought it might not be a bad idea to come here and just see what anyone had to say first. Eventually, I will have to try it myself.

[lct]

My 35/2 asph is a good match for my 50/1.4 asph and i don't see any significant jump between the 35/2 asph and my 35/1.4 FLE. Seems like your 35/2 asph needs a good CLA.

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

. How would you describe the step up from 35 Cron to Lux? Noticeable? What do you see?

 

I wouldn't, since I own the 35 Summicron-M ASPH and the 50 Summilux-M ASPH. And even then I would only say that each provides a good enough file for me to follow my established workflow to make a worthy print. And I wouldn't use the term 'step up' to describe my lens selection. They're all good; just different tools for different needs.

 

I also wouldn't say, as the OP did, that the difference is 'striking', since I can generate many different looks using either lens, combined with dozens of other factors before and after taking the pic. I have no doubt that once I finish processing and making a print, and then matting, framing and lighting it, generally nobody knows what lens (or camera) I used in the first place. I proved this based on exhibition experience.

 

I can say that my 35 Summicron-M ASPH does exhibit some focus shift at f4-f5.6, but that doesn't affect my prints as a practical matter, and can be easily accommodated in any event. This is an example of technical specs versus real life use; I care about the latter.

 

Jeff

[Jeff S]

However, short of going out and renting the lens...

 

Even better if you can find a friendly dealer that can lend you one or, better still, someone you know.

 

Jeff

[pfhrased]

The 35 lux will absolutely outperform the cron in sharpness - especially with the floating lens element. If that's all you're worried about, by all means pick up a copy.

 

The character of the lens is nothing like the 50 lux though, just so you're aware.

[lct]

The 35 lux will absolutely outperform the cron in sharpness...

At which aperture(s) and what subject distance(s) did you see that? Just curious.

[jay968]

So I finally got a chance to try out the 35 lux asph fle and to put it mildly, yes there is a difference...enough such that I now own the lens.

 

The summicron is a wonderful lens, don't get me wrong. But it is just no match for the lux, not the 35, not the 50. Both of those lenses provide better color, contrast, edge to edge sharpness at all f-stops. The summicron almost looks lifeless compared to the summilux. I also find the summilux handling to be superior as its focus ring is a tad wider and easier to use if you aren't in love with the focusing tabs (I never have been).

 

The lux is a ridiculously expensive lens. But I would say, that if you are contemplating which to go with (as I have been) and can afford the extra money, the lux is definitely the way to go, hands down.

[lct]

...The summicron almost looks lifeless compared to the summilux...

At which aperture(s)? At what subject distance? The more i'm reading this thread the more i think that my Summicron asph must be exceptional as i don't see any significant difference with my Summilux FLE aside from bokeh, the latter's being harsher than the former's at f/2.

[jay968]

I haven't done anything real extensive but so far, I have shot at F2, 5.6 and 8 and the lux looks better at any of those stops at any distance I have shot at. If I have to define the difference, I would say that the lux has more contrast, more color saturation,more accurate color, cleaner whites and better micro contrast.

[lct]

Then (to me) your 35/2 asph needs a good CLA as i see no significant difference between it and the 35/1.4 FLE from these stand points.

[Guest Ansel_Adams]

The summicron almost looks lifeless compared to the summilux.

 

 

If you look at this lens comparison (http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m-lenses/328856-35mm-lens-comparison.html) there is very little difference:

 

Summilux FLE

 

Summicron

 

Would you be so kind as to post a couple of pics of the same subject at the same f stop with your copies, one with the Summicron the other the Lux to illustrate what you are saying?

[jay968]

At some point I will post comparisons but in the meantime I am going to make a statement which can be accepted or rejected;

 

I do not feel that posting photos of any lens comparisons makes for much of any true comparison. To me, the true test of a lens is achieved by making prints, as large as possible. I for one do not normally see ANY difference whatsoever between any two or more modern day lenses when I view them on a computer monitor, especially after they have been posted onto some website. If I had judged these lenses using a computer montor, I might have been perfectly happy with even a 50 year old Jupiter lens, or a Voigtlander. I have rarely noticed any difference when viewing online between either of those and the modern day Summicron or Summilux lenses. When I view with a monitor, my Canon lenses look just as good as my Leica lenses. Even if I make an 8 inch print I am hard pressed to see a difference. On the other hand, if I make a 17 inch print, the Leica lenses usually show their superiority.

 

For those of you who say you do not see a difference between the Summilux and the Summicron, I would have to ask how you are viewing. Are you using just a monitor, or are you actually making 17 inch or larger prints to compare?

 

There isn't a great difference between the 35 Summilux and Summicron, but it's there alright.

 

Again, I will try and post some examples at some point. Sorry I can't just yet.

 

One more question;

Are all you who do not see any difference between the 2 lenses using M240 as I am, or M9 cameras? Just wondering if the camera has anything to do with the Summilux lenses looking better. It might make sense, as the extra resolution of the M240 sensor may take more advantage of any extra resolving power that the lux lenses may have.

[Jeff S]

There isn't a great difference between the 35 Summilux and Summicron...

 

... The summicron almost looks lifeless compared to the summilux.

 

Glad you aren't a lens reviewer.

 

Jeff

[jay968]

Never said I was. I just wanted to update this so as to let everyone who was kind enough to provide me with their opinions as to what I had done.

 

My point was, the difference isn't a real big one but if I had to pinpoint it in a nutshell, the Summicron lacks brilliance (contrast, saturation) compared to the Lux. That's what I meant be "lifeless." The difference though is subtle.

[Jeff S]

But it is just no match for the lux, not the 35, not the 50. Both of those lenses provide better color, contrast, edge to edge sharpness at all f-stops.

 

But you said these things, too. I'd say you see a big difference.

 

I've used the 35 Summicron-M ASPH, the 50 Summilux-M ASPH and the 35 Summilux-M ASPH (non FLE), and made prints with them all. There's not a bad lens among them, and practically nothing that a totally disciplined workflow can't accommodate IMO.

 

Jeff

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Guest Ansel_Adams]

Here's one of mine with the 35 Cron ASPH that I have printed to 12x16 inches, the table detail is so realistic you almost want to reach out and touch it. One of its great improvements over the previous version is that this sharpness goes right into the corners. It does not lack contrast or sharpness in my experience.

 

Untitled by - Antonio Russell -, on Flickr

 

Edit: Kodak TMY/LC29