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

[Martin B]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

My two cents!

 

The 35 F1.4 Summilux is a bit soft wide open and you will pay a big money to get one as it's got a bit of  cult following.

 

The 35mm Summicron is a much better lens (IMHO)  and the ASPH version is a bit better wide open.

 

Don't rule out the Carl Zeiss lenses  - the C Biogon 35mm F2.8 is as sharp as any lens that you will ever use or need.

 

The Voigtlaner 35 F1.4 is another very nice lens that looks like  and performs identically to the original 35 F1.4 Summilux.

 

If money no object get a 35mm Summicron ASPH   - on a budget get the Zeiss C Biogon 35mm F2.8 - a truly superb lens.

 

The CV 35/1.4 works well on M series cameras but smears badly on the A7 series - that's why I recommended the CV 35/1.2 II instead because its faster speed leads to a wider pupil entrance and therefore avoids corner fringing and smearing. The Leica 35/1.4 also works well on both camera series - but now we are talking about a different price tag, and the lens is also no longer as compact as the 35/2 Summicron series. I have no experience with the ZM 35/2.8 Biogon, but it is also a stop slower (might not matter practically to a photographer, but technically it is a difference). The ZM 35/2 does supposedly not perform as well as the Leica 35/2 and is more bulky. 

Edited January 30, 2016 by Martin B

[pico]

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.

 

Are you sure that Leica's firmware and hardware are adjusting the raw image in-camera?

[Advertisement]

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

[Martin B]

my Vote goes for the 35 Summicron Asph. I have the V4 as well but the Asph is far better controlled in the corners Here is one from late model 35 Summicron Asph

 

Great shot - the ASPH version supposedly works great on any M series camera. And yes, corner sharpness is improved in this version. Just that the ASPH version is limited in its use to Leica (and not Sony FF mirrorless for example due to severe fringing, focal plane drift, and corner smearing). If you only have Leica M, you have zero issues

[Martin B]

Are you sure that Leica's firmware and hardware are adjusting the raw image in-camera?

 

Not 100% sure since I don't own a digital Leica M. I read this in several reviews. How exactly this adjustment works in Leica cameras is unknown to me. But yes, they way I understood it is that the RAW image itself is adjusted in-camera.

[TRIago]

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.

When you say this "lens needs some sort of adjustment" is that I don't understand. How come this lens need adjustment if it works fine wether on Film or M Leicas? Zeiss Ikons and Voigtlanders too... My point is, I don't think the lens needs any sort of adjustment. Just sometimes frankensteins do not work that well. As for the 35 Cron IV prices, they were this high before A7 series were born. I say this because I was looking for a 35 and I ended up buying the Asph, once it was a bit more than the IV's I found. And that was before the A7 series were born. That's just my POV, tho. I might be wrong. :-)

 

Cheers.

[lct]

[...] 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.

 

Well, I have not conducted serious tests with my Kolari mod A7s so i may be completely wrong but i've just found a bit of softness in the corners at f/2 with the 35/2 asph. See http://tinyurl.com/hkl4hrb. No smearing nor color shifts so far and corners look sharp at f/2.8 and on. FWIW.

[Martin B]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

When you say this "lens needs some sort of adjustment" is that I don't understand. How come this lens need adjustment if it works fine wether on Film or M Leicas? Zeiss Ikons and Voigtlanders too... My point is, I don't think the lens needs any sort of adjustment. Just sometimes frankensteins do not work that well. As for the 35 Cron IV prices, they were this high before A7 series were born. I say this because I was looking for a 35 and I ended up buying the Asph, once it was a bit more than the IV's I found. And that was before the A7 series were born. That's just my POV, tho. I might be wrong. :-)

 

Cheers.

 

The 35/2 ASPH is automatically adjusted on digital Leica M versions when the lens is recognized by encoding. This is fact. Prices for the 35/2 ASPH were in the $2500 range about 2-3 years ago, now you can have it easily for $2200 or even less. The value of this lens decreased but not increased for the reasons mentioned above. 

[DezFoto]

Well, the pre-2016 35 Cron ASPH is not bitingly sharp either but has a color signature that's similar to your other lenses, so I don't think you should rule it out if you're looking for something more forgiving. 

[TRIago]

The 35/2 ASPH is automatically adjusted on digital Leica M versions when the lens is recognized by encoding. This is fact. Prices for the 35/2 ASPH were in the $2500 range about 2-3 years ago, now you can have it easily for $2200 or even less. The value of this lens decreased but not increased for the reasons mentioned above.

1) You say: "The 35/2 ASPH is automatically adjusted on digital Leica M versions when the lens is recognized by encoding. This is fact." I say: I am not sure this is a fact. If it really is a fact, can you please prove? I would love to find that out (I'm honest here)

 

2) But even if it is, all other Leica 6 bit lenses should be adjusted as well. Which I do not believe, but maybe.

 

3) And all (or almost) Leica lenses work fine on Film too. Not only on Leica film cameras, as well as Zeiss or Voigtlanders.

 

Not only the 35 cron asph did decrease. Some others did too, like the 50mm Lux Asph, to say one. So I don't believe the decrease in price has to do with the lens being corrected by digital Leicas. Because I believe they are not. This lens was realease in 1997, way before the the M8 was born. And has always worked fine.

 

So, to my eyes, the problem is not Sony or Leica. But the fact that someone is trying to use a Leica lens on a Sony body. I believe the A7 series are fine. And I am 100% sure the 35mm Cron Asph is a very, I mean, very good lens. I have had quite a few Leica/Zeiss/Voigtlander/Canon lenses. Sold them all and now I have only two Summicrons. The 35 asph is one of them for a very good reason: it's quality. Unless someone proves me wrong.

 

Cheers.

[james.liam]

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. 

 

 

Not so much a generalization but a gestalt. As many RF users stay at 50 and wider, these are the most popular FL's owned.  For precision focus, anything longer than a 50 is probably is better paired with the Sony than an M using a RF. Definitely the case for 90 & 135.

Point of fact, many 50's are still impaired on the a7*.

[Martin B]

1) You say: "The 35/2 ASPH is automatically adjusted on digital Leica M versions when the lens is recognized by encoding. This is fact." I say: I am not sure this is a fact. If it really is a fact, can you please prove? I would love to find that out (I'm honest here)

 

2) But even if it is, all other Leica 6 bit lenses should be adjusted as well. Which I do not believe, but maybe.

 

3) And all (or almost) Leica lenses work fine on Film too. Not only on Leica film cameras, as well as Zeiss or Voigtlanders.

 

Not only the 35 cron asph did decrease. Some others did too, like the 50mm Lux Asph, to say one. So I don't believe the decrease in price has to do with the lens being corrected by digital Leicas. Because I believe they are not. This lens was realease in 1997, way before the the M8 was born. And has always worked fine.

 

So, to my eyes, the problem is not Sony or Leica. But the fact that someone is trying to use a Leica lens on a Sony body. I believe the A7 series are fine. And I am 100% sure the 35mm Cron Asph is a very, I mean, very good lens. I have had quite a few Leica/Zeiss/Voigtlander/Canon lenses. Sold them all and now I have only two Summicrons. The 35 asph is one of them for a very good reason: it's quality. Unless someone proves me wrong.

 

Cheers.

 

The decrease in price is IMO related to the fact that it can't be used on A7 series cameras. Do you think not many people use Leica M's on Sony A7 series cameras? Well, there was a recent survey about this on FM, and it proved that many are using Leica lenses not only on Leica M's but also on Sony A7 series - me included. I am not brand addicted, for me the final outcome counts. The ASPH version of this lens is well made, no question about it - but it works only well on Leica M cameras. That's why the price goes down - yes, there are (many) people out there now buying Leica M lenses but not owning a Leica M camera! I have the 35/2 Summicron version IV because it works well on both - Leica M and A7R. That's why especially this lens version is in demand on the used market

[TRIago]

The decrease in price is IMO related to the fact that it can't be used on A7 series cameras. Do you think not many people use Leica M's on Sony A7 series cameras? Well, there was a recent survey about this on FM, and it proved that many are using Leica lenses not only on Leica M's but also on Sony A7 series - me included. I am not brand addicted, for me the final outcome counts. The ASPH version of this lens is well made, no question about it - but it works only well on Leica M cameras. That's why the price goes down - yes, there are (many) people out there now buying Leica M lenses but not owning a Leica M camera! I have the 35/2 Summicron version IV because it works well on both - Leica M and A7R. That's why especially this lens version is in demand on the used market

I never said not many people use Leica M's on Sony A7 series cameras. Never. Ever. That's something you are saying. I never did.

 

Again, I do not agree with your opinion because the 35mm Cron Asph is not the only lens with a decrease in price on the used market lately. Just use the search and you will find out that people already did bring this subject up. Including with lenses that, in theory, work well on A7 series.

 

The 35 Cron IV always was in demand on the used market. At least in the past few years.

 

Regardless, are you able to (or can you please) answer the question I asked you above on the previous post? I am still curious. Cheers.

[lct]

I don't think that the price has to do with Sony or whatever camera brand. The same way as the 50/2 non apo, the 35/2 asph will be called to become the poor man's 35/2 apo, i believe, but i may be wrong again .

[james.liam]

Prices spiked when the M9 appeared and did so again when the factory could not keep up with demand. I appreciated another small spike when the a7 was to appear and everyone anticipated it as the universal body which was the case for SLR lenses but sadly, not M. Demand for M lenses have declined in general and has more to do with the state of the world economy (worsening) and the general sense of value for M bodies (not so great given price and technology included).

[DezFoto]

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. 

 

There are no Leica M lenses that "perform well" on other mirrorless cameras, there are only ones that perform acceptably (depending on your needs/standards). The sensor cover glass is just too thick on Sony cameras, and robs the lens of critical sharpness even in the center of a longer lens. Every last one of them has a drop in performance, which is why so many people went bleating on about Fuji or Zeiss mirrorless lenses being superior to the more expensive Leica lenses. 

[DezFoto]

For precision focus, anything longer than a 50 is probably is better paired with the Sony than an M using a RF. Definitely the case for 90 & 135.

 

I'm not sure I would agree with this, I have no issues focussing my 90mm Elmarit-M f/2.8 with the rangefinder on any of my M's. 135 is not difficult either, if you have viewfinder magnifier but can be more hit-and-miss without. 

[TRIago]

There are no Leica M lenses that "perform well" on other mirrorless cameras, there are only ones that perform acceptably (depending on your needs/standards). The sensor cover glass is just too thick on Sony cameras, and robs the lens of critical sharpness even in the center of a longer lens. Every last one of them has a drop in performance, which is why so many people went bleating on about Fuji or Zeiss mirrorless lenses being superior to the more expensive Leica lenses.

I don't have any A7 around to give it a try but I'm 100% sure that every single Leica lens used on my M6 and M9 were/are sharp. Really, really sharp. One just gotta know how to use it.

[DezFoto]

I don't have any A7 around to give it a try but I'm 100% sure that every single Leica lens used on my M6 and M9 were/are sharp. Really, really sharp. One just gotta know how to use it.

 

I did side-by-side comparisons between my old M9 and my friend's A7 a while back when he first got it, and every single one of my lenses performed better on the M9. Same result with the NEX-5. Same result with another friend's Fuji X-Pro 1. The longer the lens, the better the corners are and the less noticeable the center is, but it's still degraded quality nonetheless. 

[Martin B]

There are no Leica M lenses that "perform well" on other mirrorless cameras, there are only ones that perform acceptably (depending on your needs/standards). The sensor cover glass is just too thick on Sony cameras, and robs the lens of critical sharpness even in the center of a longer lens. Every last one of them has a drop in performance, which is why so many people went bleating on about Fuji or Zeiss mirrorless lenses being superior to the more expensive Leica lenses. 

 

Avoiding to get into a "brand fight" here, I can only say that I heavily disagree with your statement. I could post now excellent photos taken with A7R and different kind of M mount lenses (even in the ultra-wide!), but I accept that this is a Leica specific forum and not a Sony forum. Yes, wider M mount lenses require some additional post processing (I mentioned the Adobe Flat Field Plugin) but at 50 mm everything is sharp even with the thicker sensor glass without performance drop. Likely I won't convince you and vice versa - let's leave it that we agree to disagree in this matter. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[DezFoto]

Avoiding to get into a "brand fight" here, I can only say that I heavily disagree with your statement. I could post now excellent photos taken with A7R and different kind of M mount lenses (even in the ultra-wide!), but I accept that this is a Leica specific forum and not a Sony forum. Yes, wider M mount lenses require some additional post processing (I mentioned the Adobe Flat Field Plugin) but at 50 mm everything is sharp even with the thicker sensor glass without performance drop. Likely I won't convince you and vice versa - let's leave it that we agree to disagree in this matter. 

 

 

I don't recall saying that it wasn't possible to take "excellent" photos with an A7R and Leica Lenses. It has noting to do with brand loyalty, it's simply compatibility as neither Sony, nor Fujifilm nor any other camera manufacturer currently designs their cameras with compatibility for Leica M lenses in mind. Sony's not trying to prop up the sales of Leica's lenses any more than Leica is trying to prop up the sales of Sony bodies. It's just like how some Zeiss and Voigtlander lenses don't work well with digital Leica's, they weren't designed for them, they were designed for their own film rangefinders. Furthermore, an excellent photo rarely hinges on sharpness or a lack of corner smearing and/or aberrations, but usually on lighting and composition. You're welcome to disagree all you like, I just know what I can see with my own two eyes with the help of a monitor and large format printer as I've actually done direct comparisons, there is a drop in quality across the board but if what you're doing works for you, that awesome! Don't let anyone dissuade you from it, you're still getting the general look of the Leica optics, which for most, is all that really matters.