Jump to content

Summilux 35 vs Summicron 35


BJohn

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

FWIW I don't agree with this comment at all and feel the latest version 35 cron has a more "sterile" rendering. The 35 Lux wide open creates a very distinct look that the cron doesn't exhibit (obvious but factual point). Even stopped down the lux better.

 

The only advantages of the cron over the lux is size/cost.

You might be right in ideal test conditions but I’d very much doubt anyone would tell the difference. When I look back at my old photos, I’m not always sure which focal length I used, much less the maximum aperture of the particular lens. It is easy to overstate differences or to see the faults you want to see.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

You might be right in ideal test conditions but I’d very much doubt anyone would tell the difference. When I look back at my old photos, I’m not always sure which focal length I used, much less the maximum aperture of the particular lens. It is easy to overstate differences or to see the faults you want to see.

 

 

No, not at all. Maybe I should have been more clear in my comment. The 35 Lux can create moody images in the way of its rendering that doesn't happen with the 35 cron. 

 

They have different "looks." 

 

Unless, you are in ideal test conditions or at noon on a perfectly sunny day, then the two lenses may look similar.

 

I have used both extensively. I will try to dig through my drives to see if I can pull out a couple of examples.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
On 1/15/2018 at 12:56 AM, M10 for me said:

I found this blog (mentionned in post #5) very usefull:

 

www.streetsilhouettes.com/home/2017/1/25/28mm-summilux-vs-35mm-summicron

 

Here I read about the DoF of the Lux vs Cron in 35mm. This maybe is the only part that I would question now. Why does he say that?

 

On 1/14/2018 at 4:25 PM, M10 for me said:

I think that we should seriously look into the aspect of DoF. The Lux‘s DoF at f/2 at 3 or at 5m from the subject is MUCH narrower then the DoF with the Cron at the same distances from the subject and wide open. This is something that I just see now. I was just evaluating Cron or Lux (I have already 28 Cron and 50 Lux) and think that that DoF question might be the killer for one of the 2 lenses the Cron or the Lux. I always thought the in the long run the Lux might make more sense but this DoF question changed my mind.

 

PS: Sorry I think I have mixed up the figures. The DoF of the Lux is narrower than the one of the Cron but not as significantly as I thought when I looked into the Leica lens specs. I have mixed up the clumns. Sorry again

Sorry, I don’t understand how this can be correct. Given the same focal length (35mm), how can the DOF be different at the same aperture? It doesn’t make sense... but I’m not an expert.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Surge said:

Given the same focal length (35mm), how can the DOF be different at the same aperture? It doesn’t make sense... but I’m not an expert.

Neither am i but fact is some lenses of the same focal length at the same aperture have more or less DoF than others behind the subject matter. My understanding FWIW is total DoF is the same but it is distributed differently in front (foregound) and behind (background) the subject matter. See how 75/1.4 and 75/2 Leica lenses behave at f/2 in this respect.

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
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

lct has it right.

A lens with spherical aberration produces a version of focus-stacking. The outer edges of the glass elements focus light in a different plane than the center does, with progressive changes from center out to the edges.

Thus, in his example, the "spherical" 75 Summilux is "stacking" both sharp and blurry images of the "3" in the background, at f/1.4 and f/2 - which taken together appear sharper than the "3" produced by the APO/ASPH Summicron. (And of course DoF is defined as - what appears sharp).

Take a look at this image linked from wikipedia - the top and bottom lenses have spherical aberration, and thus produce a wider zone of "kinda-sorta sharp" (the fat white areas). The middle lens has less SA, and thus a sharper falloff to "fuzzy (grays)" (and thus less apparent DoF).

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!

The same spherical aberration effect also causes focus shift at different apertures. As we stop down, we remove the images from the edges of the glass from the equation and use more and more light only from the center, and thus the "best focus plane" produced by the stacked images changes.

Since we know that the 35 Summilux ASPH does produce focus shift, that means it has residual spherical aberration. And thus it is also likely to show DoF that is different from an "ideal" lens, and from other "real" lenses as well.

And before anyone asks - Leica's ASPH lenses do include aspherical elements, but they also include spherical elements just like regular lenses, and more of those. Thus they may still exhibit spherical aberration.

Ideal and perfect lenses exist in the minds of authors and the textbooks or blogs they write - they do not exist in the real world. Something to keep in mind when a real-world lens seems to break the rules of "theory."

(Fun fact: note how extra-soft and smooth the blurs are, on one side or the other of the spherical-aberration lenses (top and bottom). The upside of a lens with SA, like the 35 ASPH or 75 Summiluxes, is that they are also often "beautiful smooth bokeh" lenses.)

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor 12 Stunden schrieb Surge:

 

Sorry, I don’t understand how this can be correct. Given the same focal length (35mm), how can the DOF be different at the same aperture? It doesn’t make sense... but I’m not an expert.

Yes, it seems unlogical but has been explained above. I have experienced this in a rather surprisingly extreme way when I benchmarked my 35mm Zeiss Distagon against the current summicron version. Most pronounced at f2 and f2.8 and afterwards diminishing towards unnoticeable. 
I’ve written somewhere here about it. Overall, after the distagon I was not impressed by the summicron (especially in the for me important 1-3m area) which I really wanted to like, but finally returned to the dealer in exchange for the summilux. Of course, all of this is complaining on a very level. 
 

cheers

Daniel

Edited by Daniel C.1975
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...