lepremier Posted June 1, 2007 Share #1 Posted June 1, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) I've had a Summilux 35mm/f1.4 on order for a few months now and it still seems as far away as ever......I just found a Summicron f2 in a shop and was wonderring whether or not to go for that instead. The guy in the shop said he thinks that it is actually a better lens than the Summilux......could be that he has it and can't shift it of course...??!! Any profi comments would be much appreciated...as ever. Thanks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 Hi lepremier, Take a look here Summilux 35mm F1.4 / Summicron F2. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Paul Hart Posted June 1, 2007 Share #2 Posted June 1, 2007 Assuming you're talking about the latest ASPH version of each lens - the general consensus, which accords with my own experience, is that the performance of these two lenses is exceptional and virtually identical, the only difference being the extra speed of the Summilux. Some say the bokeh of the 'lux is harsh or unpleasant, but that's to stray into subjective areas. I'd be very surprised if your dealer is struggling to sell a current Leica lens, unless his prices are silly. It's down to whether you really need the extra speed. I find that on my M8, I prefer the compactness of the Summicron to the speed of the Summilux as I can easily alter the ISO rating. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
punktum Posted June 1, 2007 Share #3 Posted June 1, 2007 Assuming you're talking about the latest ASPH version of each lens - the general consensus, which accords with my own experience, is that the performance of these two lenses is exceptional and virtually identical, the only difference being the extra speed of the Summilux. A few month ago, a comparison of all the M Lenses was published on the german leica webside. It was a 83 pages pdf. I´ve just tried to find it, but it´s not there anymore. Maybe it was on the english pages as well and somebody downloaded it. Unfortunately I only have the german version on my computer. It says both lenses perfom almost equal at f2, the summicron is a litlle, little, little bit better in the corners. The summilix has an extra speed and performs excellent at f1,4, both lenses reach their best quality at f4. Well, somebody find that pdf. I don´t want to go into to many details. My english is not prepared for that technical stuff. The overall conclusion is, that the Summicron is again a little, little, little ahead in that comparisson. That´s what Leica published. I have the f2 and I´m very satisfied with it. all best Frank Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lepremier Posted June 1, 2007 Author Share #4 Posted June 1, 2007 Thanks guys for your replies...I also did a search and found a few more comments on the subject and the general consensus of opinion seems to be that both are great lenses but if you can "afford" the extra stop/speed then go for it. Thanks again.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted June 1, 2007 Share #5 Posted June 1, 2007 A few month ago, a comparison of all the M Lenses was published on the german leica webside. It was a 83 pages pdf. I´ve just tried to find it, but it´s not there anymore. It's still around. I found it just now on the English site by going to a specific lens, and clicking on "Know-How." It's an abbreviated version of Puts' "Leica Lens Compendium," without some of the introductory material and covering products in circulation in 2002. Very much worth downloading if you have any interest in the technical capabilities and characteristics of the recent lenses. I also have a 35/2.0 ASPH from the current generation, and really love it. I don't miss the extra stop, and I like the quasi-detailed rendering of OOF backgrounds. scott Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lensblur Posted June 1, 2007 Share #6 Posted June 1, 2007 I used to own 2 x 35 lux asp (at different time), and 1x 35 cron when I used film bodies. The lux was always on the camera bodies, and always find myself looking for it when I want to go out. It was my very favourite lens. Although everybody says that the cron has almost the same optical performance as Lux, I have never been impressed by it. I guess it's my shooting style, as I like to take photos in a dimly lighted interiors. The cron just didn't give me the ability to take sharp image - or put it the other way round, my hands are not steady enough to use the cron in poor lighting situation...and I liked to use Velvia!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
egibaud Posted June 1, 2007 Share #7 Posted June 1, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hi, I had a brand new Lux35 to use on my M8, I had backfocus problems. I changed it for a Cron 35 and I am very satisfied by the results. Not to mention the price difference, you'll me able to buy an extra lens or invite your wife to a fantastic weekend! Eric Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolo Posted June 1, 2007 Share #8 Posted June 1, 2007 I have both for the time being as I'm in the process of swapping over to the 'Lux and just need to test the two together to confirm the 'Lux is the one for me. I've been shooting church weddings on an MP and the extra stop is important as every wedding causes me to be shoot wide open at 1/15s and important moments are occassionally missed, or blurred. For a few weddings recently I've been shooting a dslr with a 24-70 f2.8 zoom and ratcheting the iso up to 1250 with a consequential loss of quality in the end result. However, whilst Summicron performance can match the Summilux at f2, the Summicron can't deliver the f1.4 OOF bokeh and glow of the 'Lux which will be important in my future 'isolate and emphasise' philosophy and for night shooting. This is not insignificant to many and is presumeably what inspires the wide open use of a Noctilux for its unique rendition. Rolo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarethC Posted June 1, 2007 Share #9 Posted June 1, 2007 Can you post a link to the lens summary that has been noted. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted June 1, 2007 Share #10 Posted June 1, 2007 I think the difference comes down to contrast and saturation. It was in the beginning when I started the M's because of the bright sun here the cron would be a little heavy on contrast and saturation compared to the Lux which maybe more delicate in this area. Never tested the two , did only shoot the cron for a day in Yosemite and it certainly was a nice lens but never did put them head to head. i have the 35 lux and reality for me it is the least used lens of the lot. It's not the lens but the focal length that i don't use often. I do use it mostly for event work. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted June 1, 2007 Share #11 Posted June 1, 2007 Can you post a link to the lens summary that has been noted. Oh, OK: Go here, and then click on "know-how" to initiate the download. The link appears only on the lenses which are described in that document, dated 2002. scott Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
xrogers Posted June 1, 2007 Share #12 Posted June 1, 2007 I have both lenses (I take a long time to decide things like this...) and mostly echo the above comments. I mostly use the Lux, but have lately felt the bag is a little heavy, and am thinking about the Cron again. Consider that the Lux is the second most hand-holdable low light Leica lens (only the Noctilux beats it), in a comparatively tiny package. Consider that the Summicron is a little more contrasty, but just as sharp, and is notably smaller (and cheaper) than the Lux. The Cron may be slightly preferable for landscape, and the Lux for people. An individual who's really into subtleties of lens performance may pick one or the other based on these small variations in signature. Most folks (myself included) would do better to choose based purely on speed, size and cost. --clyde Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ecaton Posted June 1, 2007 Share #13 Posted June 1, 2007 I have both lenses (I take a long time to decide things like this...) and mostly echo the above comments. I mostly use the Lux, but have lately felt the bag is a little heavy, and am thinking about the Cron again. --clyde In several threads in this forum one could read that the lux would be the heavier lens. As per Leica's official data sheets this does not seem to be the fact, the 35mm asph weights 255g and the 35mm asph lux 250g (black versions). The lux is the longer of the two lenses. Cheers Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted June 1, 2007 Share #14 Posted June 1, 2007 I'm on the "I shoot events" side and so since a 35mm lens is essentially a 50 on the M8, I opted for the fastest one I could get from Leica--the lux. I use it all the time; it's my standard perspective, couple shots, go-to lens on the M8. It's fabulous; sharp, portable (relative to other fast 35s) and perfect in terms of contrast and colour. Gee. Think I like it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
xrogers Posted June 1, 2007 Share #15 Posted June 1, 2007 In several threads in this forum one could read that the lux would be the heavier lens. As per Leica's official data sheets this does not seem to be the fact, the 35mm asph weights 255g and the 35mm asph lux 250g (black versions). The lux is the longer of the two lenses. Cheers I have both lenses, and the Lux clearly weighs more. I just stuck them both on a scale, cron 250g, Lux 300g. That data sheet also implies a ridiculous weight penalty for a chrome lux---they do weigh more, but not as much more as the data sheet shows. They weighed the chrome lens properly, and likely had a typo on the black Lux weight. Leica should fix that data sheet! Until later, Clyde Rogers Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
xjr Posted June 1, 2007 Share #16 Posted June 1, 2007 What do you really need : f2.0 or f1.4 ? Decide on this. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
xrogers Posted June 1, 2007 Share #17 Posted June 1, 2007 Now that I've stuck them on a scale, I'd have to say that a 50g weight difference doesn't seem worth much consideration. So I amend my response---decide based on cost and the extra f-stop. If you choose the cron, take the smaller size and lower weight as a bonus. I may be selling that 'cron... --clyde Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted June 1, 2007 Share #18 Posted June 1, 2007 Both lenses are part of a 35 mm lens review that I'm working on now. They're both excellent, the F/2.0 has higher contrast, for better or worse. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
manolo Posted June 1, 2007 Share #19 Posted June 1, 2007 does anybody know the difference between sgittal and tangential structures for the dotted and solid lines in the MTF charts? also the charts in the compendium and in the individual tecnical info in the lux asph are very different Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordfanjpn Posted June 1, 2007 Share #20 Posted June 1, 2007 I have these two lenses here now, but they're not mine (borrowed from a friend, who unfortunately wants them back). The 'Lux is a first generation one in titanium, and weighs 235 grams. The 'Chron I can't seem to find in my Big Book o' Leica Lenses. It's built like the old one from 1958, with a raised aperture ring and flared base, but it's labeled "asph". It's quite heavy - 365 grams. Maybe it was some kind of special edition? I haven't had a chance to try either of them with the M8, but they go back on Monday, so it's now or never. Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.