35 Summilux FLE v. Zeiss 35 f1.4 ZM

[edwardkaraa]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Winning the lottery?

I wish!!!

 

Nope, I sold the f/2 and kept the f/1.4 for low light and best IQ, and the f/2.8 for small size and portability.

 

I wouldn't mind winning the lottery, but first I will have to buy the tickets

[diddus]

Just because it wasn't mentioned here at all and the used price is somewhat more in line with the Zeiss. 

 

The 35mm Summilux Asph pre FLE is a wonderful lens. My absolute favorite after having tested the Zeiss 1.4, Summilux FLE, Summilux, Summicron ASPH, CV Skopar 2.5 and CV 1.2 II.

 

-  The Zeiss 1.4 seemed to be the sharpest to me, but with a very clinical look, which I found to not be fitting to what I do. Also ,and that was the biggest problem to me, it's huge AND ugly. I really couldn't stand the look on my (well used) M9. Also, lot's of green CA wide open. 

 

- Summilux FLE - VERY sharp, very similar to the Zeiss in this regard, but quite different Bokeh ... lot's of purple CA wide open. Nice size and lens hood.

 

- Summilux - just way too soft/ glowy wide open ... get's better stopped down. Nice size. 

 

- CV 1.2 - it's big ... it draws quite old school at f1.2 it's not bad. When I do use such a big lens though, I want to be able to use it for anything and I wasn't happy with the performance at any other aperture. Maybe it was the copy, but I had soft corners even at f8. Even if it hadn't, the size just wasn't right for me. So while everyone raves about this lens, I was not impressed at all.

 

- Summilux ASPH Pre FLE - I fell in love with the lens the moment I saw the first file from it. It is a bit large and heavy, compared to the cron, but not by that much. It has focus shift, which I didn't really notice. It has the most wonderful rendering of any M lens I had the pleasure of using (well the 50mm Summilux ASPH is right up there with it) 

The lens hood is awful, it flares (but I absolutely adore the flares it produces)... it's not nearly as sharp as either the FLE or the Zeiss, but it's pretty sharp at f1.4 and incredibly sharp at f5.6 / f8.

It's the one lens I don't see myself selling. Ever. It's glued to my M9. 

 

- Summicron ASPH - very nice lens, but not as sharp as the Summilux ASPH pre FLE and not that much smaller either. 

 

 

- CV Skopar - tiny lens, quite sharp (though I only tested it on the M8 back in the day so it's kind of out of the Competition) .. would like to try it out again, I did quite like it.

[edwardkaraa]

Being ugly is certainly not one of my reasons for not buying a lens. I don't care how a lens looks like as long as it takes beautiful pictures

[diddus]

Being ugly is certainly not one of my reasons for not buying a lens. I don't care how a lens looks like as long as it takes beautiful pictures

 

I do agree on the looks part, but I had other things I did not like about the lens. 

 

Haptics, size and weight do matter (to me) and none of these were satisfying to me. 

 

Now if it had the most beautiful draw of any lens ever, that might be something to consider overcoming, as I suppose many do with the Noctilux.. or indeed the CV 35mm 1.2.

 

For me the Files make up for the Focus shift, Size and weight difference and horrid hood of the Summilux Pre FLE compared to any other 35mm lens I have listed here. 

Obviously it's nice that I prefer the files over the CV 1.2 and CZ 1.4 which by comparison are even heavier, larger (and uglier). 

[cpclee]

The FLE is to me the perfect 35. Superb IQ, compact even with the hood on, and renders with a unique signature.

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!

 

I've never come across purple fringing or CA on this lens at any aperture. It may be a problem with non Leica bodies.

Edited September 7, 2016 by cpclee

[diddus]

I've never come across purple fringing or CA on this lens at any aperture. It may be a problem with non Leica bodies.

 

These are crops taken with the M240 and an FLE, both from loaners from Leica.

 

Processed from RAW, cropped and compromised, no post production. 

 

While these are terrible pictures, with VERY difficult lighting situations, that can be reduced or even removed in post production it's something that never happend to me with my Pre FLE. At least not as much as this.

I could actually send you around 20 more of these. 

 

I only had the camera/ lens combo for a few days, as Leica was very quick in getting me my M9 back (which I also prefer over the M240), but I really struggled with this combo. 

 

There was none of the mojo and magic the M9 and 35mm Pre FLE with this combination, I might as well have been shooting sony.. 

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!

[diddus]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

one that shows the bokeh seemingly being affected by the color fringe as well ... I do realize that grass and such can be quite difficult in bokeh and it certainly is with this lens. 

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!

[Mr.Q]

How about the CV 35/1.7 Ultron II as an alternative? It's cheap, relatively small, optically superb, with Zeiss-like bokeh. No real downsides from the reviews I've read.

[S/W]

In my opinion the Summilux 1.4/35 Asph FLE s a very good and sharp lens:

 

Leica M (240) * Summilux 1.4/35 Asph FLE * f/1.4 * 1/125 sec * ISO 1600 * LR 6.xx * Nik DFine

 

 

[4X5B&W]

I tested the 35 Lux ASPH FLE, and saw no advantage in changing from my pre-FLE ASPH.

 

Yes, it is sharper edge to edge wide open, but in my testing it compromises the smoothness of the image and OOF transition.

Stopped down there is no difference sharpness wise, but the smoothness of the pre-ASPH is still more pleasing IMO......YMMV !!

 

My Lux ASPH is an original chrome version, and it is with me for life.

 

BTW, the issues that people often discuss (focus shift) with the pre-ASPH was dealt with by Leica years ago when they changed the calibration equipment to today's  standards for high res digital bodies.

Remember the Lux ASPH was designed and sold before digital bodies were available, and any lens from those days needs to be re calibrated to perform at it's best.

It does make a difference!!

[derleicaman]

I tested the 35 Lux ASPH FLE, and saw no advantage in changing from my pre-FLE ASPH.

 

Yes, it is sharper edge to edge wide open, but in my testing it compromises the smoothness of the image and OOF transition.

Stopped down there is no difference sharpness wise, but the smoothness of the pre-ASPH is still more pleasing IMO......YMMV !!

 

My Lux ASPH is an original chrome version, and it is with me for life.

 

BTW, the issues that people often discuss (focus shift) with the pre-ASPH was dealt with by Leica years ago when they changed the calibration equipment to today's  standards for high res digital bodies.

Remember the Lux ASPH was designed and sold before digital bodies were available, and any lens from those days needs to be re calibrated to perform at it's best.

It does make a difference!!

I agree 100% with the above on the merits of the pre-ASPH Summilux 35. I have owned mine since it was first announced at photokina in the 90's. I used it with my M6 and MP and later now with the M9 and MMv1. It is a magical combination! I will never sell it and don't see any reason to "upgrade".

 

Before the pre-ASPH, my go to lens was the 35 Summilux. I got mine new in 1972 and we grew up together (I was a teenager back then!) I took it every where with me for over twenty years. I began to neglect it when the pre-ASPH came along. After acquiring the MMv1, I began to experiment with it again, and it does have the "Leica glow" in spades wide open, but does get quite sharp stopped down. Quite a special lens for the classic Leica look of the Mandler days. I have a v2 Summicron and the 35/2 ASPH, but they just don't seem to have the magic of the Summiluxes.

 

I guess this is part of the lens addiction side of Leica ownership. My latest sojourn has been experimenting with the various fast 50's. Xenon, Summarit, Summilux, Sonnars, Canon LTM and Nikkor 1.4's. Down the rabbit hole we go!

[james.liam]

 

BTW, the issues that people often discuss (focus shift) with the pre-ASPH was dealt with by Leica years ago when they changed the calibration equipment to today's  standards for high res digital bodies.

Remember the Lux ASPH was designed and sold before digital bodies were available, and any lens from those days needs to be re calibrated to perform at it's best.

It does make a difference!!

 

 

I was under the impression that focus shift is inherent to a particular design, not fully mitigated by calibration.

[vhfreund]

I was under the impression that focus shift is inherent to a particular design, not fully mitigated by calibration.

indeed, it´s inherent to the design!

[4X5B&W]

I was under the impression that focus shift is inherent to a particular design, not fully mitigated by calibration.

 

 

Well while some focus shifting still exists (the FLE is said to have some as well, just less than the pre-FLE) Leica can now better optimise the calibration where at one aperture it may be forward, and towards the rear at another, better equalising any shift.

BTW this is covered during coding by Leica, any Lux ASPH that is not coded probably has not been re calibrated.

 

Personally, I feel it is somewhat dependant on how good one's eyesight and focusing ability is, to see any great change.....YMMV.

[jrp]

Focus shift degree is one of the lens design choice parameters, for fast lenses.

 

It is not a feature unique to Leica. Fast Nikon and Canon lenses suffer from it just the same. It results in a good deal of dissatisfaction for fast lenses on these systems because they focus as if the lens was stopped down to f2.8, rather than wide open, so if there is a discrepancy...

 

The online pictures that I have seen show that the preFLE has smoother backgrounds, but in my case, I must admit that I am always pleasantly surprised by how my FLE 35mm f1.4 renders, and how sharp it is. And yes, I have tried the Zeiss pretender.

[ibramr]

Greetings.  Would any body with a picture please compare the size of both Zeiss ZM 35mm f1.4 with the Summicron APO 75mm.  I am trying to gauge the Zeiss' size and handling characteristics with the nearest comparable lens I have.  Thank you very much.   

[Peoplewing]

Still not winning lottery :-(

But sold the wonderful tiny ZM 35/2.8, and seriously regretting this deal.

Althougt the ZM 1.4 enables really fine low light results it's weight could become a real offence - specially if I pack two or three other lenses in my little foto-bag (btw.: C-Sonnar, Heliar 15 III, and Summarit 75).

[jlindstrom]

Greetings. Would any body with a picture please compare the size of both Zeiss ZM 35mm f1.4 with the Summicron APO 75mm. I am trying to gauge the Zeiss' size and handling characteristics with the nearest comparable lens I have. Thank you very much.

Have them both and they're about equal in size. Same filter thread too, which is nice.

 

They both handle just fine, no problem there.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[CYBORA]

    Technically, the Zeiss 35 1.4 ZM is a better lens than 35 FLE , but we mostly use a rangefinder expecting to have a compact system. This is where the 35 FLE is ahead of ZM.  If I used a DSLR , I would definitely buy those bazooka Otus lenses, but with a rangefinder , size matters for me.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[blacksinner]

does anybody tried the voigtlander 35mm f1.7 ultron m? i suggest all of you try this lens. from my test vs the summilux fle, is the difference is very minimal, i think the voigt is even sharper wide open. bokeh is similar as well. the only difference i notice is the lux has more pop and tiny more contrast. i haven't decide though i will keep the voigtlander or the lux. i still have more testing togo through.