Summicron-M 35/2 (2016 Version) x Summilux-M 35/1.4 (2011 Version) in a SL!

[Lins-Barroso]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I will buy a new Leica SL next month and already have the SL 24-90!

 

I would like to have a prime, but find to buy the SL 50/1.4 now is a challenge and the SL 35/2 will appear only next year and to find one copy to buy will take time and will be... another challenge.

 

So, I am deciding to buy a Leica-M 35mm Lens.

 

My question is:

Why to buy the Summilux 35/1.4, when next year will be the SL 35/2 autofocus that will work like a 1.4?!

 

1- I was reading too that the Summicron 35/2 is sharper than the Summilux 35/1.4.

2- The Summicron is smaller than the Summilux and it will still be very useful, even when I buy the SL 35/2 (a big lens - as all - in the SL System!) next year.

3- I've read too that the newest Summicron-M 35/2 (2016) was prepared by Leica to be used with better results in mirrorless cameras.

 

I will always use it with a Leica SL or a Sony a7R II.

 

I need help... PLEASE!

[Advertisement]

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

[phovsho]

Hi

I think you have already answered your own questions!

Sounds like your mind is made up on the cron. I can't comment on that lens specifically but there are lots of reasons why I own the 35/1.4 fle and use it on my SL. I'm finding it a great match.

I don't own a 2016 35 cron. Though I do have an earlier version. Whilst the crons are smaller than lux lenses, I always go with the faster lens. One of the draw cards to me with the Leica M system is the fast and relatively small lenses. I love the tight depth of field and the low light capability (though better iso performance is negating that somewhat, but not entirely).

I think the extra weight/size of the bigger/faster M lux lenses is less of an issue with the SL than with the M cameras. The lux and noctilux lenses often to my mind create a poorly balanced outfit on the M - forward heavy. However on the SL body the bigger lenses feel great and are better balanced - I love the Nocti on my SL.

I will keep my M 35 1.4 FLE even once the SL-35 arrives. I also shoot M bodies and a 35/1.4 is my primary lens in that configuration. I'm yet to be convinced that a relatively big SL-35 cron is essential - I have the zoom 24-90. Though I'm a gear head so no promises that I won't buy one. That said I haven't pulled the trigger on the SL-50 (yet).

I'm sure either lens will make you happy. The cron will also save you money I guess.

Good luck.

[thighslapper]

Leica M lenses tend to keep their value ...... I would get the M lens of your choice and sell it when an AF equivalent comes along if it looks worth it. You won't lose much money. 

 

Also, the latest Zeiss Distagon 35/1.4 is as good as the Leica 35/1.4 and much cheaper, albeit a bit bigger, but that won't be noticeable on the SL. This is one of a very few lenses where the non-Leica equivalent is for all practical purposes as good as their own branded lens. 

[steppenw0lf]

I have both the Summilux M 35 AA and the Summicron 35 (V 4).

On paper it is clear which lens is better, but I use the cron much more often. Both give the results I want.

So simply buy the lens that you like best and do not worry too much about what others write about the differences and "the best lens of all".

[ropo54]

Leica M lenses tend to keep their value ...... I would get the M lens of your choice and sell it when an AF equivalent comes along if it looks worth it. You won't lose much money. 

 

 

 

Is that really true?  Perhaps true when buying in the pre-owned market, but not so much when buying new. I have found as a general rule that new Leica lenses depreciate by about 30% (rough guesstimate) from their new prices once on the pre-owned market.  A new 35 1.4 FLE for the M series retails for $5000 USD but can be found on the used market for $3K-$4K.  A Noctilux f0.95 retails for $10.6K but can be purchased on the used market for $6K-$7.5K.  A 24-90 Vario Elmarit SL retails for $4950 and can be purchased used in the range of $3600.  

 

Used prices may stabilize after initial depreciation (and perhaps in rare cases there can be some appreciation on some of lenses with time), but sometimes it may make more sense to make the decision based on absolute dollars lost rather than % depreciation.

 

Just my perspective.

[thighslapper]

I should have said 'don't depreciate' much .... nowhere near as much as camera bodies and other manufacturers lenses.

[steppenw0lf]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The longer you keep them, the more value they have - simply because everything rises in price, also the new lenses.

But it is like shares - this is just the general direction, not true in every single moment. 

And unlike shares there is no official market. So depending where you are, it can be difficult to sell them. The best place is probably a busy mega city (NY, London, Tokyo, HK, Singapore, Berlin?, Munich?, Frankfurt?, Zurich?, Vienna?, Milano ). And there are popular and less liked lenses - accordingly the sale can also be difficult.

 

So buying them only to sell them again and make a profit is not a good idea. Just like vine or whiskey.

But you can enjoy using them several years (maybe decades) - and unlike vine or whiskey there is still something left at the end.

 

There are rare lenses like the Nocti 1.2 or the Summilux 35 AA that are much more valuable today than when built. Or the R 2.8/35-70 zoom (it is one of the rarest lenses at all - some say there are only 200 copies)-