Jump to content

Is the Leica 35mm Summilux-M the quintessential Leica Lens?


thestatesman

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have never heard of the 50/1.4 asph being a "fourth version" but always heard the same about the 50/2 non-apo. Same about other lenses like Elmarit 28mm for instance. The 28/2.8 asph is not the "fifth version" of 28/2.8 pre-asph. Or the 35/1.4 aspherical was not the "third version" of the 35/1.4 pre-asph. And the 35/2 asph has never been called a "fifth version" of the 35/2 pre-asph AFAIK. Asph and Apo are just different lenses, not new versions of the same lens in my book. Another example? There were 90/2 v1, v2 & v3 but the 90/2 apo has never been called a "fourth version" hasn't it. I am not being pedantic either hopefully...

 

Its mostly just that I hate the ambiguous abbreviations such as summi. Its not that hard to write summilux is it?

 

As an aside, did Leica ever refer to them as v4, v3 etc, or just by their code?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have never heard of the 50/1.4 asph being a "fourth version" but always heard the same about the 50/2 non-apo. Same about other lenses like Elmarit 28mm for instance. The 28/2.8 asph is not the "fifth version" of 28/2.8 pre-asph. Or the 35/1.4 aspherical was not the "third version" of the 35/1.4 pre-asph. And the 35/2 asph has never been called a "fifth version" of the 35/2 pre-asph AFAIK. Asph and Apo are just different lenses, not new versions of the same lens in my book. Another example? There were 90/2 v1, v2 & v3 but the 90/2 apo has never been called a "fourth version" hasn't it. I am not being pedantic either hopefully...

In order for one to know all that stuff (a 90 apo not being called a version 4 although ot is indeed a version 4, and so on), one has to spend A LOT of time on forums. Which isn't really a good thing.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Poor newbies and intermediate Leica users...

:)

Now I don't know if you're being sarcastic!

 

Are they poor because they have so much to learn, or because they spent all their money buying into Leica at the current prices?

Edited by michaelwj
Link to post
Share on other sites

We've had this discussion before.

The using of  these abbreviations is a strange  and irritating to some phenomena.

I can only think of two reasons to use them. Either the writer is of the turbotalk generation and is in the habit of writing "4u" instead of "for you" etc., or he thinks it makes him appear part of the in-crowd, a bit like using a Lenny Kravitz camera.

If one needs to use abbreviations, why not use the Puts' ones, although they mess up the search function just as badly?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Its mostly just that I hate the ambiguous abbreviations such as summi. Its not that hard to write summilux is it?

 

As an aside, did Leica ever refer to them as v4, v3 etc, or just by their code?

The versions are the invention of collectors and writers to distinguish them. To me these abbreviations are like nails on a blackboard. One seems to find them mainly in posts by our Transatlantic friends.

 

A cultural thing, I suppose, for those who understand the chorus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAsV5-Hv-7U

Link to post
Share on other sites

In order for one to know all that stuff (a 90 apo not being called a version 4 although ot is indeed a version 4, and so on), one has to spend A LOT of time on forums. Which isn't really a good thing.

 

The Leica jargon is earlier than any internet forum. As clear as i understand it myself, an asph or apo lens is a new lens, hence not a new version, compared to the same non-asph or non-apo copy. 90/2 apo as opposed to 90/2 v3 for instance. Good example of yours as those very lenses have the same size almost exactly. The wiki link above [http://tinyurl.com/hnjv8ct] can be useful as well. Now when i read "cron" or "lux" i understand perfectly. "summi" needs a bit more effort i reckon, but my declining brain is still working a bit from time to time so it's OK for me. YMMV.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Leica jargon is earlier than any internet forum. As clear as i understand it myself, an asph or apo lens is a new lens, hence not a new version, compared to the same non-asph or non-apo copy. 90/2 apo as opposed to 90/2 v3 for instance. Good example of yours as those very lenses have the same size almost exactly. The wiki link above [http://tinyurl.com/hnjv8ct] can be useful as well. Now when i read "cron" or "lux" i understand perfectly. "summi" needs a bit more effort i reckon, but my declining brain is still working a bit from time to time so it's OK for me. YMMV.

So if we extend the logic, the asph FLE should actually be the 35mm summilux asph v2?

Another question springs to mind, how is the inclusion of an aspherical surface different from a major resign? I'm thinking about the 35 summicron v1 (8 elements) - v2/3 (6 elements) - v4 (7 elements) to v5 :) (also 7 elements - 1 aspherical surface) to v6 (current model different number of aperture blades).

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Leica jargon is earlier than any internet forum. As clear as i understand it myself, an asph or apo lens is a new lens, hence not a new version, compared to the same non-asph or non-apo copy. 90/2 apo as opposed to 90/2 v3 for instance. Good example of yours as those very lenses have the same size almost exactly. The wiki link above [http://tinyurl.com/hnjv8ct] can be useful as well. Now when i read "cron" or "lux" i understand perfectly. "summi" needs a bit more effort i reckon, but my declining brain is still working a bit from time to time so it's OK for me. YMMV.

 

 

My mileage certainly does vary.

 

I would find it helpful if people were clear about which lens they were talking about without requiring me to work out through a process of elimination and, in my case, external reference since I don't remember all of the versions of all of the lenses to immediately know which "Summi" had a fourth version and which didn't, which one they mean. 

 

I'd consider it a small politeness.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Another question springs to mind, how is the inclusion of an aspherical surface different from a major resign? I'm thinking about the 35 summicron v1 (8 elements) - v2/3 (6 elements) - v4 (7 elements) to v5 :) (also 7 elements - 1 aspherical surface) to v6 (current model different number of aperture blades).

 

 

Yes, I was wondering that. I suppose the answer is little to do with the philosophical differences between different redesigns and more to do with the naming convention used by Leica: the inclusion of an aspherical element usually means the official name changes, for example, from 35 Summicron-M to 35 Summicron-M ASPH.

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

I did a week's swap of my chrome 35 ASPH Summilux with a friend for his FLE a few years ago. I found that I got a lot of purple fringing on the M9 with the FLE, like I used to get with the 50 ASPH Summilux. Now this may be an inevitable consequence of its very high edge contrast and just something that you have to live with. I don't know if the CMOS sensor on the M240 alleviated this. Certainly the FLE is a little sharper in the corners than my ASPH when used wide open but like others, I prefer the slightly softer bokeh and smoother transition from in focus to OOF of the older lens. I am lucky that my ASPH does not aperture shift to the extent it becomes a problem, which negates a lot of the advantage of the FLE. Mind you I prefer my 35 ASPH Summicron to both of them both for rendition and lack of weight.  It is my favourite lens on the M240. 

 

Wilson

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

So if we extend the logic, the asph FLE should actually be the 35mm summilux asph v2? [...]

 

v3, v1 being the 35/1.4 "aspherical" ;)

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!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

v3, v1 being the 35/1.4 "aspherical" ;)

 

 

Depends how serious you treat this naming business. IMO Michael is correct, the FLE is v.2 of the Summilux-M 1:1.4/35 ASPH. The double aspherical you show comes before the Summilux-M 1:1.4/35 ASPH and has it's own distinct name, Summilux-M 1:1.4/35 ASPHERICAL.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

My mileage certainly does vary.

 

I would find it helpful if people were clear about which lens they were talking about without requiring me to work out through a process of elimination and, in my case, external reference since I don't remember all of the versions of all of the lenses to immediately know which "Summi" had a fourth version and which didn't, which one they mean. 

 

I'd consider it a small politeness.

And it messes up the search function.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Leica jargon is earlier than any internet forum. As clear as i understand it myself, an asph or apo lens is a new lens, hence not a new version, compared to the same non-asph or non-apo copy. 90/2 apo as opposed to 90/2 v3 for instance. Good example of yours as those very lenses have the same size almost exactly. The wiki link above [http://tinyurl.com/hnjv8ct] can be useful as well. Now when i read "cron" or "lux" i understand perfectly. "summi" needs a bit more effort i reckon, but my declining brain is still working a bit from time to time so it's OK for me. YMMV.

I would make it Leica-wannabe jargon. I seems to be a pity that it appears to have penetrated to more expert levels. to a certain extent. Most knowledgeable Leica people I know will use the full name of the lens, or set up a consistent system of abbreviations, like Erwin.

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...