35mm summicron - v4 vs asph

[lawman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have an early circa1970's Canadian made v4 35/2 in excellent condition. I would appreciate some knowledgeable advice on whether I would notice much difference between this lens and a new asph 35/2 on the M9p and the M240 - thanks for the advice

[IWC Doppel]

Hi

 

I have the MkIV and have owned the ASPH twice and then sold on. I currently have three 35's.

 

From my experience the ASPH is better wide open, especially at the edges of the frame. But in the centre it's difficult to see that much difference at f2 in respect of sharpness. The colouring is different the MkIV has a more yellower hue and to my eyes a more natural colouring. The ASPH tends towards pink and I like the tonality less.

 

At F2.8 to F4.0 I prefer the mkIV it has to my eyes a greater ability to capture perspective and depth and we all know about the bokeh around this aperture. Beyond F5.6 it would be hard to call.

 

The size is noticable too. Pop a 12504 hood on the MkIV and its hard to beat for size and performance. In the end I simply perfer the MkIV. Somehow for me the MkIV has things I wouldnt want to lose (that magic around f4 and the colouring, and the ability to show image depth with a tiny bit more interest) The APSH is excellent but I havent missed it, its kindof 9/10 everywhere but I struggle to find the 10/10's.

 

There must be a new 35 ASPH on the horizon, so I'd keep your Cron and not look at new ASPH's personally (All from using an M8 and M9-P)

[pgk]

I have had both and currently have the same lens that you have. The last post was pretty comprehensive but I would add that whilst the aspheric lens is 'technically better', the v4 has a smooth delivery which many find more appealing. For clarity of detail and overall punch the aspheric is preferable, but for a more 'traditional' look the v4 will satisfy. I'm not sure that I like comparing lenses in terms of which is 'better' because there are few 'bad' lenses, but would suggest that unless you are finding the delivery of the v.4 restrictive, then there is no point changing.

 

To answer your question though, yes you may find that you notice a difference between these two lenses, especially wide open. Successive 35mm Summicrons have performed 'better' wide open as they have been updated (I've had V1, V2 and V4 and the aspheric) but in all honesty the v4 is a lovely little lens and is my own choice of Summicron to use.

[lct]

I own both lenses, have used the 35/2 v4 for 30+ years and i'm using now preferably the 35/2 asph. Main reason is i shoot often at f/2 - f/2.8 where the asph is sharper and it has also less flare and less focus shift than the v4. I prefer the v4 for its smaller size and weight though. It is also less contrasty which can be an advantage when adjusting dynamic range in PP.

[a911s]

I have both, use both, and would agree with the above. The version 4 follows the Mandler improvements to the 35 Summicron over the years... Each new version has sharper resolution and contrast in the center of the frame wide open, sometimes at the expense of the outer regions. The aspheric is a different animal. It sacrifices a little center sharpness at larger apertures for more uniform correction over the entire frame. It has an apparent reduction in depth of field and a more modern "snap" to the images it produces due to improved contrast. At smaller apertures it is hard to tell the lenses apart. The black paint aspheric is much heavier, but the smoothest operating Leica optic I have owned.

[Leicakillen]

I own both lenses, have used the 35/2 v4 for 30+ years and i'm using now preferably the 35/2 asph. Main reason is i shoot often at f/2 - f/2.8 where the asph is sharper and it has also less flare and less focus shift than the v4. ..[...].

Agree - I have tested both (actually Cron lll, lV and ASPH) side by side at the same objects and I, without doubt, prefer the ASPH, sharper and no focus shift. I love this lens and use it every day...

Regards

/Anders

[lawman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks to those that responded to my query -- I will be getting the asph to go with the V4 - all the best, Larry:)

[russell]

There have been several comments about focus shift and the v4. I haven't heard nor have I seen this in my use. Can those making these comments please provide visual examples? I'm skeptical as to the materiality of the focus shift.

[lct]

Quite easy to check it by yourself. Just focus at f/2 and shoot at f/4 or f/5.6. You will see that focus has shifted if your sample behaves like mine at least.

[JWW]

For a while I had a v4, ASPH Cron, and the ASPH Lux, In comparing it all, it was very hard to tell the difference, so I sold the ASPH Cron and kept the v4 and ASPH Lux FLE. The v4 is very small while the ASPH Cron weighs close in hand to the ASPH Lux. That gives me a light to heavier, small to bigger, older to newer image style choice.

 

In all the years of using the v4 I never noticed any focus shift. I just now tried it out on a stretched out measuring tape on the floor and I detect no focus shift from f2 to f5.6. My v4 is a late German 368xxx.

[mr_big]

I just purchased a 35 Summilux FLE with the intention of selling my v4, but I decided to keep it because of its compact size. There are times when I just want to walk around with the M-P around my neck without the added weight of the larger lens.

[Nr90]

Quite easy to check it by yourself. Just focus at f/2 and shoot at f/4 or f/5.6. You will see that focus has shifted if your sample behaves like mine at least.

 

I assume you're talking about focussing with the M240 and live view?

 

Using the rangefinder patch it does not matter what aperture is used when focussing, since the rangefinder does not look through the lens.

Given focus shift, the rangefinder should only be accurate at the aperture the lens was calibrated for.

[lct]

You assume right.

[bocaburger]

I have the III and IV, had the ASPH. I did not find it sharper at wide apertures, just more micro contrast which gave the illusion of sharpness but that came at a price which was a harshness I didn't care for. I much prefer the rendering of the III and IV (virtually indistinguishable from one another in practical use). At f/2-2.8 there is that pleasing "roundness" or "Leica glow" that to me is what really sets Leica glass apart from the herd. By f4-5.6 any differences to the ASPH have been sorted. The ASPH (in fact, all the ASPHS, I had most of them and sold them all) is clinical, like most modern lenses, and to me lacks any Leica signature to justify it's cost. As for build quality, the III is a notch above the others.

[IWC Doppel]

I have the III and IV, had the ASPH. I did not find it sharper at wide apertures, just more micro contrast which gave the illusion of sharpness but that came at a price which was a harshness I didn't care for. I much prefer the rendering of the III and IV (virtually indistinguishable from one another in practical use). At f/2-2.8 there is that pleasing "roundness" or "Leica glow" that to me is what really sets Leica glass apart from the herd. By f4-5.6 any differences to the ASPH have been sorted. The ASPH (in fact, all the ASPHS, I had most of them and sold them all) is clinical, like most modern lenses, and to me lacks any Leica signature to justify it's cost. As for build quality, the III is a notch above the others.

 

I do very much beg to differ on some aspherical lenses, like the 35AA, the 24 Elmarit ASPH