Jump to content

35 Summilux Pre-ASPH vs 35 Summicron Pre-ASPH vs 35 Summicron ASPH (2016 edition)


jmui852

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

you ask:

Since you have owned all of those lens, How would you compare the 8 elements to the Lux Pre-A to the version 4? Thanks so much!

 

...

 

- Summilux-M 35mm would be my only goto lens if it only focus closer than 1m and it flare (glow) less sometimes at f:1.4

from f:2 it's like the the Summicron IV to take it short, it's like the Cron IV which can open up one stop at your own risk

 

- Summicron 8 element is another one (with Noctilux 1.0 for me) that is the pleasure lens that has no big flaw, even wide open if some pleasing softness

it's color rendering is superb also (as Noctilux and Summilux 75mm)

 

- Summicron II is very close to the first with more modern at wide open (less flare) but more vignetting

 

- Summicron IV has blended of I + II so people like it for that "pleasing softness in background with enough contrast on plane of focus"

 

My own experiences could not be taken as universal.

 

I have used other 35mm (Summaron, MATE, some Canon LTM, and more) : they have their own good points also.

 

Arnaud

Edited by Just amateur
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is a very fair statement in that indeed that's what those two lenses excel at respectively.

 

 

Personally, and IMHO, the Cron Asph has my vote for my architectural and scenic photography and the 35 1.4 FLE as a second (after the 50 1.4 Lux) for portraits, street and group shots.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I like your characterization in bold  :)

 

That's exactly what it is from what I've read.  Leica took the Summicron and basically gave it a larger max aperture without much if any redesign.  I remember seeing the lens diagrams and the Summicron and the Summilux look identical.  I can't remember if this was the IV generation summicron though.

 

 

- Summilux-M 35mm would be my only goto lens if it only focus closer than 1m and it flare (glow) less sometimes at f:1.4

from f:2 it's like the the Summicron IV to take it short, it's like the Cron IV which can open up one stop at your own risk

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't shoot much portrait so it will be mainly serve as a walkaround lens when I travel / for street. I managed to check out the 8 elements and the Lux Pre A but it seems like when stopped down there isn't a huge difference. But when wide open the Lux does have a pretty unique glow to it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like your characterization in bold  :)

 

That's exactly what it is from what I've read.  Leica took the Summicron and basically gave it a larger max aperture without much if any redesign.  I remember seeing the lens diagrams and the Summicron and the Summilux look identical.  I can't remember if this was the IV generation summicron though.

 

 

Same optical design but not the same performance IMO, not sure if that's related to the type of glass used or modern coatings. Summicron IV has somewhat snappier contrast and color. 

Edited by a911s
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Since I want to use a 35/2 both on my M6 and on my Sony A7R, I certainly had to exclude the 35/2 ASPH - a very bad performer on my A7R which is well described due to the thicker sensor glass in the A7R (leading to blurry corners independent on the f-stop used and severe focus plane shift). I used instead the CV 35/1.2 II which works very well on both cameras but is quite bulky. Recently I finally got a good deal on a 35/2 version IV in very good condition - used prices skyrocket for this lens IMO, and it is not easy to find a good deal for it. But it is one of the best 35 mm M options out there in regard to image quality, size/compactness, character, price, and working well for film and digital.

Edited by Martin B
Link to post
Share on other sites

I also got very blurry / smeary corners with a 35/2 ASPH on the Ricoh GR M mount.  I had assumed it was just a bad copy.

 

Since I want to use a 35/2 both on my M6 and on my Sony A7R, I certainly had to exclude the 35/2 ASPH - a very bad performer on my A7R which is well described due to the thicker sensor glass in the A7R (leading to blurry corners independent on the f-stop used and severe focus plane shift). I used instead the CV 35/1.2 II which works very well on both cameras but is quite bulky. Recently I finally got a good deal on a 35/2 version IV in very good condition - used prices skyrocket for this lens IMO, and it is not easy to find a good deal for it. But it is one of the best 35 mm M options out there in regard to image quality, size/compactness, character, price, and working well for film and digital.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Martin and all, I'm curious as to which are the best Leica lenses (R or M) for use on the Sony A7RII? Wide Angle that is..

 

I am still using its predecessor, the A7R. The A7R II is improved in the regard of corner smearing with some M mount lenses, but I lack personal experience here. I can highly recommend the CV 21/1.8 as wide angle lens both on the A7R (and the A7R II). There is some very slight purple color cast in the corners of the frame but you can easily remove this in post processing with the free Adobe Flat Field Plugin in LR. A bit more tricky - but I love to use it on my A7R is the CV 12/5.6 - you definitely need to use this Adobe plugin in LR to remove color cast and falloff here. But then the results are outstanding. 

 

In the 35 mm FL, there are some good options - the CV 35/1.2 II (a bit more bulky) and the 35/2 Summicon-M version IV (pre-ASPH). As jdlaing mentioned, the 35 Loxia is an excellent option, too - but only for Sony E-mount (so you won't be able to use this lens on a Leica camera). 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I also got very blurry / smeary corners with a 35/2 ASPH on the Ricoh GR M mount.  I had assumed it was just a bad copy.

 

Nops, it is because of the lens in general. The ASPH lens version is corrected in camera with the newer Leica M digital cameras. I read that the 35/2 ASPH causes no issue on film M cameras either. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nops, it is because of the lens in general. The ASPH lens version is corrected in camera with the newer Leica M digital cameras. I read that the 35/2 ASPH causes no issue on film M cameras either.

Can you please explain the above with more details? Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On film M that lens is splendid.  You get corner to corner sharpness from wide open onwards.  The blurry corners I saw was with another copy that I got much later and I never shot that one on film.  What you are saying could be true.

 

 

Nops, it is because of the lens in general. The ASPH lens version is corrected in camera with the newer Leica M digital cameras. I read that the 35/2 ASPH causes no issue on film M cameras either. 

Edited by cpclee
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am still using its predecessor, the A7R. The A7R II is improved in the regard of corner smearing with some M mount lenses, but I lack personal experience here. I can highly recommend the CV 21/1.8 as wide angle lens both on the A7R (and the A7R II). There is some very slight purple color cast in the corners of the frame but you can easily remove this in post processing with the free Adobe Flat Field Plugin in LR. A bit more tricky - but I love to use it on my A7R is the CV 12/5.6 - you definitely need to use this Adobe plugin in LR to remove color cast and falloff here. But then the results are outstanding. 

In the 35 mm FL, there are some good options - the CV 35/1.2 II (a bit more bulky) and the 35/2 Summicon-M version IV (pre-ASPH). As jdlaing mentioned, the 35 Loxia is an excellent option, too - but only for Sony E-mount (so you won't be able to use this lens on a Leica camera). 

The only practical Leica lens for me on Sony A7r Mk.I is the Apo 90/2 asph. since I don't have the Zeiss Batis 85 for the Sony (BTW, I'd prefer the fanstastic Apo 90/2 asph. rendering, resolution, bokeh and quality over Batis after testing it). I also like on A7r Mk.I: CV Ultron 21/1.8 and WATE, but these needs little post-processing in LR (vignette).

For A7 folks confirm usability of "Kolari" modification of the cover sensor glass for better corner performance for RF lenses with A7x --->> http://www.getdpi.com/forum/sony/55652-a7rii-leica-m-lenses-post669823.html#post669823 , anyway even after this modifications, A7rII is not playing well with Leica wides. Besides, after the "Kolari" modification, some native FE lenses works worse (i.e. FE 55/1.8)...

On the other hand, Steve Huff has said that the magenta fringing problem has gone with the Summicron 28mm on the A7RII.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you please explain the above with more details? Thanks.

 

I tested the 35/2 ASPH on my A7R and came to exactly the same conclusion as formerly described by Leicaboss on his website (unfortunately this review disappeared). I still have test photos from this lens on my A7R in comparison to the Canon 35/1.4 L lens. Both photos were taken on a tripod. The first shot below is with the Leica 35/2 ASPH on my A7R - I focused on the area in the upper right corner with the magnification tool very accurately. You see that it still is not very sharp in the corners, and especially the grass in front next to the driveway looks very sharp at f/2 whereas the plane with the leaves and the tree is more blurry. You also see it in the brick-like wall structures in the background which are blurry whereas the grass in the front is relatively sharp - looks like misfocusing, but this is the sign of focus plane shift. The 35/2 ASPH lens always leads to unsharp corners and a drift in the focus plane (meaning it's sharp where it is supposed to be unsharp wide open and vice-versa).

 

p1378571173-6.jpg

 

Now the comparison with the Canon 35/1.4 L lens at f/2 using Metabones III adapter - it looks like it should. The leaves and the tree are sharp, the front grass is blurry because of the shallow DoF. Very different compared to the Leica - the Leica simply has no linear focus plane with the A7R sensor. I was able to confirm Leicaboss' test result here, he mentioned the same in the past. 

 

p1378571207-6.jpg

 

No matter what you do, you will never get sharp corners with the 35/2 ASPH lens on an A7 series camera. Leica M digital cameras have an internal calibration algorithm for this lens to straighten out the focal plane drift. And due to the thinner sensor cover glass on Leica M cameras, the corners remain sharp as they should and don't suffer from purple fringing. Great lens on Leica M series but sucks on Sony A7 series FF cameras. 

Edited by Martin B
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have given up fiddling with that a7 and my M lenses; I had bought a Novoflex M>E and its still unopened (off to eBay she goes). Sony has zero interest in making their sensor cover stack compatible, nor should they. I've the results with Kolari and though superior, does produce results worthy of the effort and cost. I'd rather wait a year or two and get an SL for 1/2 what it sells for now or wait for the next M. Problem solved.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have given up fiddling with that a7 and my M lenses; I had bought a Novoflex M>E and its still unopened (off to eBay she goes). Sony has zero interest in making their sensor cover stack compatible, nor should they. I've the results with Kolari and though superior, does produce results worthy of the effort and cost. I'd rather wait a year or two and get an SL for 1/2 what it sells for now or wait for the next M. Problem solved.

 

I don't agree with the generalized statement that M lenses don't work on the A7 series - many perform very well, most issues are on the wide angle side, but 50 mm M lenses and above are stellar performers which is proven well. On the wide side, you need to review carefully, there are some good keepers and others which simply don't work well. Of course with a Leica M camera you don't need an adapter for the M lenses (even I have zero issues using one) and all M lenses work. It is a very personal and preference plus budget based decision which camera fits best. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I tested the 35/2 ASPH on my A7R and came to exactly the same conclusion as formerly described by Leicaboss on his website (unfortunately this review disappeared). I still have test photos from this lens on my A7R in comparison to the Canon 35/1.4 L lens. Both photos were taken on a tripod. The first shot below is with the Leica 35/2 ASPH on my A7R - I focused on the area in the upper right corner with the magnification tool very accurately. You see that it still is not very sharp in the corners, and especially the grass in front next to the driveway looks very sharp at f/2 whereas the plane with the leaves and the tree is more blurry. You also see it in the brick-like wall structures in the background which are blurry whereas the grass in the front is relatively sharp - looks like misfocusing, but this is the sign of focus plane shift. The 35/2 ASPH lens always leads to unsharp corners and a drift in the focus plane (meaning it's sharp where it is supposed to be unsharp wide open and vice-versa).

 

p1378571173-6.jpg

 

Now the comparison with the Canon 35/1.4 L lens at f/2 using Metabones III adapter - it looks like it should. The leaves and the tree are sharp, the front grass is blurry because of the shallow DoF. Very different compared to the Leica - the Leica simply has no linear focus plane with the A7R sensor. I was able to confirm Leicaboss' test result here, he mentioned the same in the past.

 

p1378571207-6.jpg

 

No matter what you do, you will never get sharp corners with the 35/2 ASPH lens on an A7 series camera. Leica M digital cameras have an internal calibration algorithm for this lens to straighten out the focal plane drift. And due to the thinner sensor cover glass on Leica M cameras, the corners remain sharp as they should and don't suffer from purple fringing. Great lens on Leica M series but sucks on Sony A7 series FF cameras.

Thanks for the text. Very good. But my question is: why do you write "it is because of the lens in general"?

 

I understand the 35 cron asph is not the best on Sony and maybe Fujis. But works well on Digital and Film Leicas. Superb on my M9 and M6. Is there a reason why you say it's the lens and not the Sony/Fujis? Just wondering.

 

Thanks again for the text and examples. Cheers!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the text. Very good. But my question is: why do you write "it is because of the lens in general"?

 

I understand the 35 cron asph is not the best on Sony and maybe Fujis. But works well on Digital and Film Leicas. Superb on my M9 and M6. Is there a reason why you say it's the lens and not the Sony/Fujis? Just wondering.

 

Thanks again for the text and examples. Cheers!

 

With this I meant that the lens is constructed in a way that it needs some sort of adjustment (in general). The adjustment is been taken care of by using thinner sensor glass in Leica M cameras and also by the adjustment algorithm in digital M's. Sony cameras have neither - therefore the issues mentioned. Sorry if I wasn't too clear about this in the beginning. Interestingly, older 35/2 M versions are doing well on both camera systems. That's why the Leica 35/2 version IV is not easy to find and often comes with a price tag just a few hundred dollar less than a brand new 35/2 ASPH lens. 

Edited by Martin B
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...