Summicron-R 35 on SL

[robgo2]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Cross posted in Leica R section

 

I have recently been acquiring R lenses for use on my Leica SL and have been highly impressed by their construction, feel and optical performance. Now I am thinking of getting a 35mm lens, and I would like opinions on the Summicron 35 f2 (vII). Is this a good all-around lens that would be suitable for street, landscapes, portraits etc, or is it more of a specialist? Are there any other R lenses that I might consider or even M lenses?

 

Thanks,

Rob

[ramarren]

In general, R lenses are the equal of M lenses, plus or minus per the specific lens model. The R lenses, in my opinion, are a better ergonomic fit to the SL body with more regular focus and aperture control locations designed for more similar SLR bodies.

 

The Summicron-R 35mm is an outstanding performer, every bit as good a lens as the M-mount Summicron 35 that I could tell.

[Advertisement]

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

[robgo2]

Well, I received the R 35 f2 (vII) today and did some test shooting around the house and outside as well. My initial impression of the lens is very favorable. Build quality and handling are excellent, as one would expect. Most importantly, the images that I have seen are gorgeous with rich, natural colors, lovely tonality and 3D rendering. It is plenty sharp in the center wide open, but even at f10, the corners remain a bit soft. This does not bother me much, as the corner sharpness is good enough for my purposes, even with landscapes. I wish that the R was as small as the M version, but I think that the close focusing advantage (0.3 vs 0.7m) more than offsets the size disadvantage. The lens balances well on the SL and does not seem excessively heavy. 

 

Rob

[Steve McGarrett]

As odd as it may sound, v1 Summicron-R is sharper in far corners than v2, but it's heavier and much more prone to flare because of its more complex 9 element design. Pick your poison

[robgo2]

As odd as it may sound, v1 Summicron-R is sharper in far corners than v2, but it's heavier and much more prone to flare because of its more complex 9 element design. Pick your poison

 

Yes, I have read that, but also I have read that most users consider v2 to be a better lens overall. As I continue experimenting with it, it seems to be an excellent fit for the SL. I also own the Zeiss ZM 35 f1.4, which is regarded by some "experts" as the best 35mm lens ever made. To be honest, I prefer the look of images coming from the Summicron-R 35. They seem more organic, for lack of a better term. Early days, I realize, but I am falling hard for this lens. Thanks to rammeren for giving me a push in its direction.

[Steve McGarrett]

Well, the Distagon ZM is the sharper lens (and the flatter field) of the three, but global rendering is a highly subjective matter... everyone should find the right lens to his taste.

[robgo2]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yes, the ZM is technically superior, but the Summicron-R does not lack for sharpness. I am more concerned with overall rendering, at which it surely excels.

BTW, is there an M mount equivalent with the same optical design?

Edited April 21, 2018 by robgo2

[Steve McGarrett]

Yes, the ZM is technically superior, but the Summicron-R does not lack for sharpness. I am more concerned with overall rendering, at which it surely excels.

 

BTW, is there an M mount equivalent with the same optical design?

 

No, there isn't. Wide-angles (35 and below) are different design between M and R lines.

[robgo2]

No, there isn't. Wide-angles (35 and below) are different design between M and R lines.

 

Thanks for that info. One thing that I have noticed is that the Summicron-R 35 f2 has almost no vignetting wide open, which is not the case with my M-mount 35s.

 

Just to give people a sense of how the lens renders on an SL, here are two closeup shots taken around my house. Nothing artistic, but I hope that the rich colors and 3D quality come through. The first pic is at f4 and the second at f5.6 and at minimum focusing distance. Raw capture with basic editing only in Photo Ninja. No color enhancement.

 

 

Rob

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 April 21, 2018 by robgo2

[robgo2]

Here is the second photo.

 

 

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!

[Musotographer]

I tried an R 35/2 on my M10 yesterday and loved it, but couldn't quite justify spending yet more money on yet another lens that I don't positively need; but I'm very much afraid that seeing these two shots, especially the first with the binoculars positively leaping out of the frame (and only at f4) has pushed me over the edge, damn you.    At this rate my R lenses are soon going to outnumber my M ones..... Looks as though there may be an SL lurking in my future, ugly brute though it is.

[robgo2]

I tried an R 35/2 on my M10 yesterday and loved it, but couldn't quite justify spending yet more money on yet another lens that I don't positively need; but I'm very much afraid that seeing these two shots, especially the first with the binoculars positively leaping out of the frame (and only at f4) has pushed me over the edge, damn you.    At this rate my R lenses are soon going to outnumber my M ones..... Looks as though there may be an SL lurking in my future, ugly brute though it is.

 

Technically, I didn't push you over the edge, the lens did. Is there not an equivalent M lens that would work better on an M10, e.g. rangefinder focusing?

 

Rob

[Musotographer]

Rob - I think if we're going to split hairs, it was your posting what the lens did that pushed me over the edge  .

There are of course M 35s - I had the 35/2 Asph for a while, but at the that stage I didn't feel very comfortable with the 35 FL and as It got little use I sold it, to part-finance the M10. I like the R lenses for their 'feel', their build, their low cost and the much lower minimum focusing distances. I do have a Canon LTM 35/2, but it's not very robust - in fact it's away at the moment being mended, which is another reason why I've been looking at alternatives.  Incidentally - I looked at your website; many very beautiful and impressive photos there - congratulations.

Christopher

Edited May 16, 2018 by Musotographer

[robgo2]

Rob - I think if we're going to split hairs, it was your posting what the lens did that pushed me over the edge  .

There are of course M 35s - I had the 35/2 Asph for a while, but at the that stage I didn't feel very comfortable with the 35 FL and as It got little use I sold it, to part-finance the M10. I like the R lenses for their 'feel', their build, their low cost and the much lower minimum focusing distances. I do have an Canon LTM 35/2, but it's not very robust - in fact it's away at the moment being mended, which is another reason why I've been looking at alternatives.  Incidentally - I looked at your website; many very beautiful and impressive photos there - congratulations.

Christopher

 

Christopher,

 

Thanks for the kind words about my photos on the website.

 

All of the things that you mention in favor of R lenses over M are true. One of the most important, IMO, is the shorter MFD. I really feel the difference whenever I use my M lenses.

 

Rob