Summilux FLE 35 vs 50 ASPH 1.4

[bab]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Started new thread since the last one was so helpful and the original topic changed.

 

I am moving to Leica M240 and trying to pick a 1 kit lens to start and tore between these two lenses.

 

What I shoot

-travel use either lens

-family portraits and candid use either lens but the 50 will give you more flattering results

-landscapes use the 35

-fun snap shots around town use either lens

If you could be more specific in your shooting style ie portraits how close do you get to the subject, couples or single people, family are you shooting children, do you intend to shoot with additional lighting, are the portraits in studio,

I've shot the 35 lux as a solo lens for years until I added the 21, then finally the 50.

Now I rarely use the 35 unless I need group shots. The 21 and the 50 alternate on the street. The 50 stays on for single people images and general use.

[philipus]

Fwiw, I only shoot film but have both. I agree the 50 Summilux Asph is a better lens than the 35 FLE. One area in particular is flare resistance. The FLE is not bad but the 50 is just amazing.

 

So the 50mm has that wow factor in a lens but the FL isn't something that would suit a 1 kit lens?

 

This is a personal thing. I happily go through life with 50mm being my main focal length and often the only focal length I bring, even on holiday. At the moment I have four 50mm lenses - the 50 Asph, a 50 pre-asph in LTM, a Summicron v3 and a Summitar. However, the 50 Summilux Asph is the one lens I will never sell. Ever.

 

I also shoot the four things you mention and find 50mm to be the perfect lens for all. My view is that many who use 35 mm and wider have no idea how to use it. Frequently there's too much stuff in the photo, too much foreground, too much background and a motif floating about somewhere in the middle. Useless, often. 50mm is perfect for my style of shooting. If I get closer I will fill the frame with interesting details, if I step away, or point to something farther away like in a landscape shot, I find that I will get just enough in the frame to keep it an interesting photo.

 

Only you can answer the question if 50mm suits for a 1-lens kit. I, however, would wholeheartedly say that yes indeed it is the perfect lens and go for the Asph.

 

Philip

[Advertisement]

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

[freitz]

If you could be more specific in your shooting style ie portraits how close do you get to the subject, couples or single people, family are you shooting children, do you intend to shoot with additional lighting, are the portraits in studio,

I've shot the 35 lux as a solo lens for years until I added the 21, then finally the 50.

Now I rarely use the 35 unless I need group shots. The 21 and the 50 alternate on the street. The 50 stays on for single people images and general use.

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/freitz1/

 

That is my flickr account. I do not post a lot on there but take a look at the travel shots and general shots. Sadly looking at my LR backlog and all my photos 90% of my shots are taken between 24-70 and 90% of those are 35 or 50 for the most part.

 

Portraits its mainly my wife, family friends, friends, people we travel with or strangers. I am not a shy person so getting close does not bother me. We do not have any children yet but those are in the works. Portraits are available light.

 

Looking at flickr to compare the 50 lux vs the 35 fle images they both have something pleasing. I love the landscape work on the 35, some of the shots I've looked at are breath taking. I like the architecture and scenic shots when traveling. My favorite is my thailand picture, the first one posted on flickr years ago shot with a kit lens and t3i (no idea what I was doing just a lucky shot). The 50 has buttery smooth bokeh, subject isolation is beautiful my concern is if I get the 50 I will want something wide to put our travel shots into perspective of where we are and to tight for landscapes (not 100% on this after using mostly zooms for years I need to get back into the mentality of a prime, I could move 2 feet back and compose a similar image I guess). My concern with the 35 is people shots will look off, bokeh is a little harsh depending on how the shot was composed (I haven't seen to many harsh bokeh shots on flickr if someone has an example that would be great). There is a much larger library of photos taken with the 50 lux then the 35 FLE. - This is where I am at right now.

[indergaard]

Both the lenses can mostly do almost the same thing. Both lenses render wonderfully.

Before purchasing any of these lenses I recommend you to rather rent or get some cheap lenses to compare the focal lengths.

 

It seems to me that your uncertainty does not revolve around the Lux 35 FLE or the Lux 50 ASPH, but rather, between the 35mm and 50mm focal lengths.

 

In such a case I would recommend you to try both focal lengths and compare them yourself, as the preference for focal length is entirely subjective - especially between a 35 and 50, both of which can basically almost perform the same - depending on your style of shooting.

 

You don't need a 50 Lux and 35 Lux FLE to compare 35mm and 50mm focal lengths. You don't need a Leica even. You can even do it with a zoom. Set the zoom at 35mm one day - and restrict yourself to ONLY shoot with that, and 50mm another day with the same restriction, and find your preference based on that, then purchase the Lux that you want.

 

I want to add one thing - the 35 FLE is better for low-light shooting, as 35mm allows slower shutter speeds for static images. Due to it's slightly lower contrast it is also more suited for night time shooting (which tends to be very contrasty). I even find the 35 Lux FLE to be better for low-light shooting than the Noctilux f/0.95, as it allows for slower shutter speeds, and the unbalanced Nocti increases the chance of camera shake compared to a smaller, lighter and better balanced lens.

Edited September 2, 2014 by indergaard

[indergaard]

Looking at flickr to compare the 50 lux vs the 35 fle images they both have something pleasing. I love the landscape work on the 35, some of the shots I've looked at are breath taking. I like the architecture and scenic shots when traveling. My favorite is my thailand picture, the first one posted on flickr years ago shot with a kit lens and t3i (no idea what I was doing just a lucky shot). The 50 has buttery smooth bokeh, subject isolation is beautiful my concern is if I get the 50 I will want something wide to put our travel shots into perspective of where we are and to tight for landscapes (not 100% on this after using mostly zooms for years I need to get back into the mentality of a prime, I could move 2 feet back and compose a similar image I guess). My concern with the 35 is people shots will look off, bokeh is a little harsh depending on how the shot was composed (I haven't seen to many harsh bokeh shots on flickr if someone has an example that would be great). There is a much larger library of photos taken with the 50 lux then the 35 FLE. - This is where I am at right now.

 

For travel and making pictures of friends and events with friends and family I would definitely go for the 35 Lux FLE. Even though, technicall, I prefer the rendering of the 50 Lux ASPH - the 35 Lux FLE is more versatile for that type of use.

 

Me and my fiance traveled around in Norway this summer and the 35 Lux FLE was almost permanently glued to my M240. I had the 50 Lux with me as well, and I used it for like 15 minutes then swapped back to the 35 again. Why? Because for that type of use (where you want to show people in a context) the 35 is a much better focal length.

 

Here are two pictures, from the exact same viewpoint, with the exact same WB and exact same processing settings made within minutes from each other - both are at f/4 - so if you inspect the Exif just ignore the weird aperture guestimation performed by the M240. One step behind me there was a road with lot's of traffic from busses and cars on, so it wasn't possible to take one more step back:

 

50 Lux:

 

 

35 Lux:

 

 

For this type of use the 35mm is much better. It shows the subject in a context. The 50mm has focus on the subject, and the subject only. The context and surroundings disappear, which is not what you want for typical travel and event photography.

 

That's why the 35mm stayed on my m240 for the entire trip, with the exception of about 5 pictures with the 50mm...

 

Some more pictures with the 35mm. It definitely does not have a problem with "people pictures". You just have to change your technique a little bit. 35mm is more prone to distortions (the lens distorts more also). The 50mm is the easier lens to shoot in that respect.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[bocaburger]

I really don't get spending $7000 on an interchangeable-lens camera and then anguishing over which single lens to buy for it, but then I have years of experience shooting and know what focal lengths to buy without polling a bunch of albeit gracious and helpful strangers who don't know me or my shooting style/preferences. For the cost of a new 35/1.4 or 50/1.4 I could (and would) buy a 21/4 CV, 35/2 V.4 (or .3), 50/2 V.4 (or .3) and any one of the 90/2.8's.

[freitz]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I really don't get spending $7000 on an interchangeable-lens camera and then anguishing over which single lens to buy for it, but then I have years of experience shooting and know what focal lengths to buy without polling a bunch of albeit gracious and helpful strangers who don't know me or my shooting style/preferences. For the cost of a new 35/1.4 or 50/1.4 I could (and would) buy a 21/4 CV, 35/2 V.4 (or .3), 50/2 V.4 (or .3) and any one of the 90/2.8's.

 

Sometimes its nice to hear what others have to say. It doesn't hurt to ask and I feel that I do not have the experience a lot of the other users have esp. with a new system.

[albireo_double]

If money is the limiting factor, I suggest you consider the 35 Lux asph pre-FLE. There is plenty of them available on the used market, as many users sold them when the FLE version became available. Yes, it has a bit of focus shift (mine has none at f1.4 but does have some at f2.0-4.0, something like 5-7 cm back focus at very close distance) but I can't recall missing an image because of it (on an M9). I bought one from a reputable dealer where I buy all my Leica equipment; asked for the most beaten-up, cheapest specimen with clean glass and got one for the price of about 60% of the FLE new, which was a meaningful saving. I was told I could bring it back if I didn't like it, for a full refund or part-exchange. The lens draws quite wonderfully and I am definitely keeping it. Now - I also used to own the FLE which I had sold, perhaps a bit unwisely, together with the M240 and some other M lenses at one point...So I can compare the two versions and maybe, just maybe, I actually prefer the older version as it seems to me a bit more gentle than the FLE in the way it draws and also because I was occasionally getting strange artefacts with the FLE version, especially on the horizon, at infinity, when shooting landscapes at f8-11. These looked like "double" or "hairy" edges; not sure what they were but they didn't look pretty. For sure, the better hood and 6-bit coding on the FLE version would be a bonus but a saving of nearly 2000 Eur was a bonus, too...

[Jeff S]

Sometimes its nice to hear what others have to say. It doesn't hurt to ask and I feel that I do not have the experience a lot of the other users have esp. with a new system.

 

You can read for days what others already have said about these and other lenses. Yes, experience matters…your experience.

 

Some people like using a RF, some don't. Do you? Why sweat over a lens when you first need to figure out if the system is to your taste and style.

 

Almost any Leica (and some other brand) lens will be plenty good enough…Summicron, Summarit, 35, 50….used or new...whatever. Seriously. And unless you're going to print, then the distinctions are even less material.

 

If you're ignoring the rental option, then just buy from a reputable Leica dealer, with warranty.

 

Jeff

[gotium]

Lots of replies.

 

My opinion is that the 50 lux is a better lens, sharp and with very smooth bokeh. The 35 has an odd curved focal plane and the bokeh is a touch busy - both features that you can pick out if you view a series of photos. However, I use a 35 much, much more than a 50 because the focal length suits me better. As in the comments above from Norway.

[colonel]

50mm allows you to be a slightly more respectable distance from subjects in many cases. Can be used for landscape, general walk around and reasonably flattering for people. The best focal length for shallow DOF (f1.4 or 0.95) whilst still retaining enough of the scene. Can be claustrophobic for people and scenes. Sometimes difficult to get everything required the frame in tight urban or indoor environment.

 

35mm. More epic in feel. Allows more of the scene/background and the people in people shots. Better for tight urban and group people and indoors. Often need to be closer to subject then 50mm. Can be used for landscape and mild architecture. Not really flattering for portraits (although can be used) and thin DOF more difficult to achieve, however larger DOF by default is useful when opened up to retain more of the scene in focus.

 

I have shot entire holidays/evens with just one or the other.

My preference is 50mm when I am people shooting and 35mm when in more of a travel mode but I never shoot entirely one or the other type of scene in a day so it goes without saying there is considerable cross-over usage at these focal lengths.

 

Lastly both the latest Leica 35mm and 50mm f1.4 are exceptional, with sharpness, draw, micro-contrast, colours, size, weight, handling, build, etc. Both of them IMHO are the best 35&50 1.4 primes in the entire market.

 

Finally, just a closing comment, being restrictred to one focal length for a period of time (e.g. day, holiday, etc.) does tend to make one more creative in my experience.

 

That's why the 35mm stayed on my m240 for the entire trip, with the exception of about 5 pictures with the 50mm...

 

 

First of all compliments on your beautiful fiance. Reminds me of all the european holidays I could grab with my wife before we had kids (not complaining mind )

 

I agree. If pushed to the wall it would be 35mm for travel but both are good.

 

rgds

Edited September 3, 2014 by colonel

[Peter H]

I have both lenses and I just checked to see which I had used the most this year so far. I thought it might be the 35 but It turns out that it's about equal, but as I knew, both are way ahead of any other lens.

 

Some days I go out with just the 35, others it's the 50. Sometimes it depends on where I am or what I photographing, and other days others it's just what I feel like.

 

Looking at your Flikr set I'd suggest the 35 for you, but somehow you'll have to decide what you want yourself, obviously.

 

In your position I'd get a couple of less expensive lenses.

[indergaard]

First of all compliments on your beautiful fiance. Reminds me of all the european holidays I could grab with my wife before we had kids (not complaining mind )

 

I agree. If pushed to the wall it would be 35mm for travel but both are good.

 

rgds

 

Thank you

 

For travel where you want to catch the surroundings I indeed prefer the 35mm. Also for indoor use the 35mm is mostly a must. But for my normal day-to-day walkabout shooting I prefer the 50mm.

 

Also, one thing that is important to me: I can compose properly with the 50mm with spectacles/sunglasses on. I can't with the 35mm. With the 35mm I have to use my contacts or take off my sunglasses to be able to see the entire 35mm frameline. That also makes the 50mm easier and more convenient to use for day to day use - for me anyway.

[philipus]

50 Lux:

[ATTACH]455355[/ATTACH]

 

Nice photographs. However, the above image, and the 35mm one after, show exactly what I meant by my comment above. Naturally I see this from the perspective of my own style of photography. I go 50 over 35 simply because in most cases it focuses on the main subject without including lots of unnecessary stuff or without filling the frame completely with it. Just my 2 proverbial cents. Like the last shot shows the 35 can be used in a similar fashion provided one is brave enough to step up close (which one likely is with one's fiancee).

 

Btw, my 35 FLE doesn't distort as far as I've been able to tell.

 

On bocaburger's comment above - I agree re the v3 50 Summicron. Brilliant, and exceptionally affordable, lens.

 

Philip

[pedaes]

 

Btw, my 35 FLE doesn't distort as far as I've been able to tell. .

 

Philip

 

+1

[indergaard]

Btw, my 35 FLE doesn't distort as far as I've been able to tell.

 

The 35 FLE has 1% distortion according to Leica's own specs.

That's considered to be moderate, and it's not really noticeable unless you turn on lens distortion correction in ACR/Lightroom for example, and start comparing images with straight lines.

 

The 35 FLE's distortion has the same tendency as the Noctilux 0.95 to make subjects in the center appear wider and rounder than they are. For pictures of people this is not a good thing. But it's not a whole lot. But I prefer to correct this distortion - especially when there are people in the picture, or horizons or straight lines.

 

The 50 Lux ASPH has 0.3% distortion in comparison, according to Leica's specs. The distortion this lens has actually makes subjects in the center appear slimmer and narrower than they are by a very small and basically unnoticeable margin.

 

1% distortion is not a big deal at all. But it is noticeable. I'll quote Lloyd Chambers about the distortion on this lens:

 

Distortion is moderate for a 35mm lens, and will be noticeable on architecture or horizons.

This type of distortion is rarely an issue, but it will show up on even horizons, buildings, etc— anything where there is a straight line for the eye to see.

Still, in the vast majority of situations this level of distortion should be of little concern.

 

The Summicron 35/2 ASPH has less distortion, and is a better lens for landscape and architecture, for example, since distortion correction basically crops the image by a few percent.

Edited September 3, 2014 by indergaard

[jai]

You can read for days what others already have said about these and other lenses. Yes, experience matters…your experience......

 

If you're ignoring the rental option, then just buy from a reputable Leica dealer, with warranty.

 

Jeff

 

I would strongly iterate what Jeff said, if you are in doubt what focal length suits you - do consider renting, sometimes you will realize you might not need the wider apertures.

 

I knew exactly what I need for my prints, and hence have the 35 Lux and 21SE.

[MarkoM8]

Summarit is great if you don't need f / 1.4 lens..

[freitz]

Well in case anyone was wondering I pulled the trigger on a used 35 FLE found a great deal on it. Figured I will probably get the 50 down the road anyways and hopefully find the same deal on that as well.

 

I also chose this because I will be traveling and shooting shots at my sisters wedding where I think a 35 would fit best (these shots are just for the family I am not the photographer shooting the wedding we paid someone to do that).

 

Thanks for all the help This forum has been really useful in my first dive into this. Hopefully I can return the favor when I get a bit more experience with the Leica.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[piblondin]

I really don't get spending $7000 on an interchangeable-lens camera and then anguishing over which single lens to buy for it, but then I have years of experience shooting and know what focal lengths to buy without polling a bunch of albeit gracious and helpful strangers who don't know me or my shooting style/preferences. For the cost of a new 35/1.4 or 50/1.4 I could (and would) buy a 21/4 CV, 35/2 V.4 (or .3), 50/2 V.4 (or .3) and any one of the 90/2.8's.

 

I have been using 35 and 50 forever, and prefer 50. If I could save money by buying a non-interchangeable M with a fixed 50mm Summilux, I would. :-)