35 Summilux or Summicron or both?

[Robinyuill]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi there. I've had a 35mm Summicron-M IV for a while now and it works great on my Monochrom but I've now got a Summilux-M II on trial and I'm torn between them. I see the "glow" in images taken at f1.4 and it appeals to me is some pictures. I see very little difference when you close down on both lenses but maybe a slight advantage in the Summilux from f4 / f5.6 on. Am I just caught up in the mystique of the Summilux or is it really better? I might be able to keep both but any opinions would be welcome.

Regards Robin. 

[Advertisement]

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

[a.noctilux]

If you mean Summilux-M non asph. , that is mythic/mystic Leica glow second to none.

On Monochrom, this "flaw as modern standards" give some life/glow in photos.

As you like it, swap with your Summicron IV which is same optical formula but lack this f/1.4 "glow".

 

Using filter, if needed is a pain on Summilux, only Serie VII in divisible hood.

If you accept 1m minimum focus, you have two in one : Summicron IV result with more life/glow when you need at f/1.4 .

[michaelwj]

The big question is are you willing to trade 0.7m minimum focus distance for 1m minimum focus distance and 1 extra stop?

Image quality stopped down is pretty similar, although the summilux does have less distortion (not that the summicron has heaps).

I'm a summilux user, the extra stop comes in handy occasionally, and it is better a distance when wide open - up close and wide open is where it really struggles.

[lct]

I have both lenses as well. Main difference is glow at f/1.4 as you said. The Summilux is also more flare prone than the Summicron. Both have a bit of focus shift around f/4 and are pretty similar re contrast and resolution at f/4 and on. The 35/1.4 is perhaps a bit sharper at f/2.8 but it is not obvious. Also the Summicron can be 6 bit coded by Leica contrary to the Summilux.

[NB23]

 

It appears that while they're both undiscernable around f4, one is the bokeh king (at f4) while the other is far from it.

I don't know for you but I'm super confused.

 

All I can tell you is to go for the bokeh king. In case you didn't know, the bokeh king is any Leica 35mm lens set at around f4. All experts seem to agree, this is the pount of no-differentiation.

 

I own both lenses and I can't recomend one over the other since I'm confused.

[Robinyuill]

Thanks folks for the views on the question. I think I'll keep both as I'm smitten with the Summilux and I don't think I can lose on the long term value of the cash invested in the lenses. Thanks again. Robin.

[semi-ambivalent]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi there. I've had a 35mm Summicron-M IV for a while now and it works great on my Monochrom but I've now got a Summilux-M II on trial and I'm torn between them. I see the "glow" in images taken at f1.4 and it appeals to me is some pictures. I see very little difference when you close down on both lenses but maybe a slight advantage in the Summilux from f4 / f5.6 on. Am I just caught up in the mystique of the Summilux or is it really better? I might be able to keep both but any opinions would be welcome.

Regards Robin. 

See:

http://www.antiquecameras.net/35summicronmlenses.html

for the v4 entry. Whatever one might think of "bokeh" the individual who coined that term came to regret having done so. Just another data point, and if I can find the link again to that individual's review and regrets I'll post it.

 

s-a

[semi-ambivalent]

See:

http://www.antiquecameras.net/35summicronmlenses.html

for the v4 entry. Whatever one might think of "bokeh" the individual who coined that term came to regret having done so. Just another data point, and if I can find the link again to that individual's review and regrets I'll post it.

 

s-a

http://www.leicalux.com/blog/35mm-summicron-version-iv-king-of-bokeh, and

https://luminous-landscape.com/the-best-lens-for-a-leica/

 

s-a

[lct]

[...] Whatever one might think of "bokeh" the individual who coined that term came to regret having done so [...]

 

Not sure if this individual was born when i bought my 35/2 v4 but i have always liked it for its OoF rendition. So have i about my 35/1.4 v2 BTW but i got more "cat's eyes" with the latter so "bokeh king" it cannot be i'm afraid but it is certainly the "glow emperor" .

[NB23]

Let's be serious: this bokeh king stuff was always a joke. There's no real bokeh to talk about in a 35mm lens, anyways.

 

And this word, "bokeh", is so silly. Conventions...

[jdlaing]

They mock what they don't understand.

[NB23]

There is mocking, and then there is mocking.

 

The latter is more powerful, deep and sincere when it's about a subject mastered in-depth.

 

Differenciating them is the key.

[pico]

[... snip unnecessary innuendo ...]

There's no real bokeh to talk about in a 35mm lens, anyways.

And this word, "bokeh", is so silly. Conventions...

 

Here be the definitive divide between those who can see and those who cannot. Let's name it -NB23, which seems obscure enough a term that readers just gloss over: a good thing.

.

[pico]

There is mocking, and then there is mocking.

The latter is more powerful, deep and sincere when it's about a subject mastered in-depth.

Differenciating them is the key.

 

Explain without innuendo.

[NB23]

Here be the definitive divide between those who can see and those who cannot. Let's name it -NB23, which seems obscure enough a term that readers just gloss over: a good thing.

.

Well, to make it simple, the bokeh king would have to be the 75 summilux, for all the right reasons. How a 35mm lens can be called a "king of bokeh" over 50mm, 75mm and 90mm lenses, is nonsense.

 

Then, there is subjectivity. Bokeh is so subjective that there is no way there can be.a king of It.

 

The whole bokeh king thing was a joke, and always seemed like it. At least to me.

The fact that it stuck around is typical of the Leica world: there is no logic. Logic is unwelcome. The Leica world needs mysticism. We need to be assured that all our lenses are magical in this or that way.

 

Bad CA? Call it a German trait.

Bad Distortion? Call it a Mandler feature.

Soft corners? Yeah, it's unique.

sharp corners? Yeah, it's unique.

Too Mandlery? Masterpiece.

Too Karbey? Masterpiece.

Summicron versions? It's a Dynasty in progress.

Any version of any Leica lens is assuredly the "most something".

 

The Summicron 35 v1: the most first!

V2? The most rare. The most unique aperture ring.

V3? The most under rated.

V4? The most Bokehlicious (allow me to disagree).

V5? The most sharp. And the most "clinical".

V6? The new most sharp and the new most "clinical".

 

The concept of "most" and "unique" is what keeps the Leica Ststem alive. Take out the "best bokeh" feature from the 35mm V4 and you'll See new features get born. Things like "first version to feature 7 elements!" "Smallest" and so on.

 

It's the Leica Sport! Where the sport is not about photography: it's about Ownership.

 

All only my opinion, of course .

 

.

[lct]

[...] There's no real bokeh to talk about in a 35mm lens [...]

 

Biogon 35/2.8 & Summilux 35/1.4 v2.

 

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!

 

[Exodies]

Is all blur bokeh? I presume not or we would call it blur. So how do you tell the difference?

[michaelwj]

Is all blur bokeh? I presume not or we would call it blur. So how do you tell the difference?

Bokeh is the "quality" of the blur, just to make it entirely subjective.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Exodies]

Does it apply to motion blur or only optical effects?

[adli]

Bokeh is the way different lenses draws the out of focus areas. Has nothing to do with motion blur. The rendering of the out of focus areas can be perceived as pleasant or unpleasant. Of course subjective, but as in most matters related to esthetics, some common ground can be found.