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

[otho]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As I tested, only two Leica M lenses: Apo 90 asph. and Summarit 90 f/2.5 (did't try newest version Summarit 90 f/2.4, Apo 75 or Apo-Telyt 135) works on A7r and M240 equally superior. Focusing above mentioned 90mm lenses in some situations is even easier on A7r than on M (implementation of focus peaking function is well done by Sony). Wide angle M lenses on A7r are generally unacceptable. Only CV Ultron 21 and WATE provide sufficient, but not perfect results (LR needed). Leica lenses are prefect for Leica bodies, Zeiss/Sony lenses are optimal for Sony stuff.

[james.liam]

As I tested, only two Leica M lenses: Apo 90 asph. and Summarit 90 f/2.5 (did't try newest version Summarit 90 f/2.4, Apo 75 or Apo-Telyt 135) works on A7r and M240 equally superior. Focusing above mentioned 90mm lenses in some situations is even easier on A7r than on M (implementation of focus peaking function is well done by Sony). Wide angle M lenses on A7r are generally unacceptable. Only CV Ultron 21 and WATE provide sufficient, but not perfect results (LR needed). Leica lenses are prefect for Leica bodies, Zeiss/Sony lenses are optimal for Sony stuff.

 

 

The CV 1,4/35 also appears to do quite well on the a7*.

[Advertisement]

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

[a911s]

Sorry I asked the question that was a bit OT, but I'm glad to have all this info. Saved me some money!

[jmui852]

I think I am gonna choose between the 8 elements V1 and the Summilux Pre-A. For people who have owned / used both lenses, how would you compare their sharpness and rendering? I understand the Lux has more of a glow (or flare as most of you call it), but other than that are their any significant differences? Thanks!

[Stealth3kpl]

You may find this interesting. Perhaps the worst 35 lens in terms of sharpness and coma is the 35 summilux preasph. I expect this is most pronounced in the corners. So how does it compare with the 35 Summicron Asph?

 

Center 100ish crops, no sharpening applied in Lightroom (but some output sharpening because I forgot to switch it off):

 

35 Summicron Asph

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!

 

 

35 Summilux Pre Asph at f2

Edited January 31, 2016 by Stealth3kpl

[Stealth3kpl]

Corner:

35 Summicron Asph

 

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!

 

35 Summilux Pre Asph at f2

 

Edited January 31, 2016 by Stealth3kpl

[Stealth3kpl]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The Summilux 35 preasph is really very good out to the corners at f2. It's hard for me to justify keeping the Summicron Asph. I only keep the cron because I like its ergonomics. Some of you may know I've been struggling with deciding which of my 35mm lenses I'm going to keep. I think I'll sell my 2.8 Summaron, 35 Summicron Mk4, possibly my Summicron Asph, and keep my Lux preasph and Lux FLE. The former gives me character and compact size, the latter a modern look and sharpness and clarity. But what if I want a compact lens with a modern look with sharpness and clarity? That's why I might keep the Summicron Asph. Isn't G.A.S awful!

Pete

[pico]

I think I am gonna choose between the 8 elements V1 and the Summilux Pre-A.

 

I'm lost - what's the difference between any pre-aspherical 35mm Summilux? All versions had the same optics. Oh, and it has has seven elements!

Edited January 31, 2016 by pico

[DezFoto]

The Summilux 35 preasph is really very good out to the corners at f2. It's hard for me to justify keeping the Summicron Asph. I only keep the cron because I like its ergonomics. Some of you may know I've been struggling with deciding which of my 35mm lenses I'm going to keep. I think I'll sell my 2.8 Summaron, 35 Summicron Mk4, possibly my Summicron Asph, and keep my Lux preasph and Lux FLE. The former gives me character and compact size, the latter a modern look and sharpness and clarity. But what if I want a compact lens with a modern look with sharpness and clarity? That's why I might keep the Summicron Asph. Isn't G.A.S awful!

Pete

 

 

What body are you using? I alternate between the 35 Cron ASPH and the Zeiss Distagon 1,4/35 on my M-P. The Zeiss is head and shoulders superior in every way to the Cron ASPH, but I keep the Cron for when I need to travel light.

Edited January 31, 2016 by DezFoto

[Stealth3kpl]

What body are you using? I alternate between the 35 Cron ASPH and the Zeiss Distagon 1,4/35 on my M-P. The Zeiss is head and shoulders superior in every way to the Cron ASPH, but I keep the Cron for when I need to travel light.

This is on an M-P 240.

The FLE is plenty big enough for me :-)

Pete

[a.noctilux]

I'm lost - what's the difference between any pre-aspherical 35mm Summilux? All versions had the same optics. Oh, and it has has seven elements!

 

 

Pico, J. forgot to write that the "8 elements" is Summicron version I

and indeed the Summilux is seven elements as you mention.

 

So to resume, J. can not choose one of these :

 

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!

 

Neither me, so as seen here

two M-A AND two 35mm attached

 

Arnaud

[jmui852]

Pico, J. forgot to write that the "8 elements" is Summicron version I

and indeed the Summilux is seven elements as you mention.

 

So to resume, J. can not choose one of these :

 

M_A_Lux_Cron35.jpg

 

Neither me, so as seen here

two M-A AND two 35mm attached

 

Arnaud

 

Do you have sample photos taken by both lenses that you can show me? Thanks!

[a.noctilux]

Do you have sample photos taken by both lenses that you can show me? Thanks!

 

Sorry, no.

As I don't use them in same time for same subject to compare side by side.

As I have written, samples photos by another one mean nothing for another one to help choosing a lens.

 

If you insist, and if you have not seen, plenty of "samples", here and there:

 

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=49501

 

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=97129

 

But one of the two may be good choice, anyway .

[james.liam]

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. 

 

-Not sure you're correct about the CV 1,4/35 and the a7.

 

-Also, the ZM 2/35 is a superb lens, in many ways superior to the older 35 Summicron ASPH; it is bigger, blocks some of the VF and shows uncorrected chromatic aberrations but projects a damned near flat field and doesn't suffer from the focus shift of the 35 'cron ASPH.

 

-The 35 Biogon C is one of the great sleeper 35's out there. There's muchado about its high contrast; while true and even more so than the 2/35 this can be dialed back in PP. It is a thoroughly modern design and tiny by comparison.

Edited February 1, 2016 by james.liam

[lct]

Not sure what you mean by "older" 35/2 asph but i have never got the least focus shift with mine. Field curvature is not the same thing as you know. Only issue with this lens is CA and a bit of flare from time to time but the highly appraised 35/2 v4 flares even more and has some focus shift actually. As for the ZM 35/2 the one i've used was so soft in borders and corners that i did not keep it i must say. The ZM 35/2.8 is a great lens though. My favorite 35 in good light so far. Same on my Kolari mod A7s BTW. FWIW.

[james.liam]

Not sure what you mean by "older" 35/2 asph but i have never got the least focus shift with mine. Field curvature is not the same thing as you know. Only issue with this lens is CA and a bit of flare from time to time but the highly appraised 35/2 v4 flares even more and has some focus shift actually. As for the ZM 35/2 the one i've used was so soft in borders and corners that i did not keep it i must say. The ZM 35/2.8 is a great lens though. My favorite 35 in good light so far. Same on my Kolari mod A7s BTW. FWIW.

 

The ASPH is "older" as in introduced in 1996 versus the ZM 2/35, 2004.

The Zeiss, is a bit soft at f/2 (the reason I passed on it too), some glow but no curvature of field I was able to discern.

The 35 Summicron ASPH shifts a bit from f/2.8-5.6 at close range, at least my copy.

[lct]

[...]The 35 Summicron ASPH shifts a bit from f/2.8-5.6 at close range, at least my copy.

No significant focus shift there. Looks like your copy could need some CLA.

(35/2 asph - f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6 - 100% crops)

 

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!

Edited February 1, 2016 by lct

[Martin B]

-Not sure you're correct about the CV 1,4/35 and the a7.

 

-Also, the ZM 2/35 is a superb lens, in many ways superior to the older 35 Summicron ASPH; it is bigger, blocks some of the VF and shows uncorrected chromatic aberrations but projects a damned near flat field and doesn't suffer from the focus shift of the 35 'cron ASPH.

 

-The 35 Biogon C is one of the great sleeper 35's out there. There's muchado about its high contrast; while true and even more so than the 2/35 this can be dialed back in PP. It is a thoroughly modern design and tiny by comparison.

 

I lack personal experience of all lenses which you mention - I only read fairly bad reviews about the CV 35/1.4 on the A7 series which was later also confirmed due to its smaller pupil entrance.  I have no doubt that the ZM 35/2 is very good, too - and in some areas better than the ASPH lens. Read good things about the ZM 35/2.8, too!

[NB23]

So many optical wizards around here.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jim0266]

Speaking of the Zeiss 35/2.8 C-Biogon, I came across this image last night from Ireland taken last year. 

 

It's the full 5212x3468 JPG from the DNG out of Lightroom. On my iMac 27" Retina it's a lot of fun to look at. The EXIF data reports f/8 at ISO 160 on the M-E.

Edited February 2, 2016 by jim0266