35mm 1.4 Summilux pre-asph

[wizard]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor 33 Minuten schrieb lct:

The same glass has not been used during the long life of this lens if i remember well ...

I would have to check at home whether there were two optical versions of that lens, but I currently think there was only one. However, that does not exclude Leitz/Leica having made some uncommunicated changes to the glass materials used, in particular so in view of the unusually long production period of that lens. Those changes in glass materials, if they took place, may also have resulted in minor recomputation of the general optical layout, with a view to accommodate the new glass. And Leitz being what they are, I am sure those recomputations will not have lowered the performance of the lens. That is, a later Summilux 35 non-asph may well be better optically than an early copy.

[Advertisement]

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

[Ernstk]

58 minutes ago, lct said:

The same glass has not been used during the long life of this lens if i remember well but i may be wrong. All i can say is v1 looks softer with more flare than v2 on the pics i've seen, including in this very thread, but again i have no experience with v1.

From serial number 2166702 onwards, 2 of the lens elements were changed for lanthanum glass.

There is no documented information to suggest that the coatings were changed at any time.

Ernst

Edited August 31, 2021 by Ernstk

[adan]

50 minutes ago, wizard said:

The coating on v2 lenses may have been improved to some extent (and certainly over time, as v2 was produced for a very long time), but I believe the optical computation was the same.

Correct.

Sometime recently, the 35mm pre-ASPH Summilux computation was re-examined, and it was discovered that there was no way to improve it, absent modern ASPHs and post-1990 glass types. Which is why the double-Aspherical and Summilux-ASPH (I/II) required such a completely new computation from the ground up.

Voigtländer came up with a lens (35mm Nokton f/1.4 I/II) that improved certain things while degrading other things in trade-offs (e.g. far more curly and complex astigmatic coma in the corners, but slightly better center resolution at f/1.4), but at best that is sideways evolution (different, not better). And uses, of course, an 8th element and modern glass types and coatings.

The fact that the pre-ASPH Summilux can be up to 60 years old does mean aging may play a role in contrast. Acquired haze, subtle coating damage, black aperture blades "polished" with use, as well as older coatings to begin with. (See internal pictures of the lenses posted earlier)

[pgk]

17 minutes ago, wizard said:

I would have to check at home whether there were two optical versions of that lens, but I currently think there was only one.

There were glass changes at some point. Even Elcan do not know precisely when this took place although they do not believe it had any significant effect on performance. Personally I would be very surprised if coatings were not uprated during the long production run of this lens and would be far more surprised if the original coating was continuously applied for such a time period. However, that said, coatings will reduce flare and increase transmission (marginally) so are most likely going to improve colour rendition rather anything else. Earlier lenses might just show colour castes due to reduced transmission of some colours, later lenses may just show less caste. Either way the overall results when using any copies on digital are likely to be so marginal as to be irrelevant as any whit balancing of a RAW file will take up any marginal differences. Not a real world problem.

[adan]

BTW, Paul (localhero) - even the vintage 35 Summicron prices have gone bananas recently. 35 v.4 (that I got for $650 in 2001, and again in 2010 for $1100) is bouncing around $3000 these days - often more than the Summicron ASPH (used). Even the v.1/2/3 are getting up there, just because they say "35" and "Summicron" on the front.

Probably part and parcel to the same recent inflation in M6s.

Edited August 31, 2021 by adan

[Ernstk]

20 hours ago, Steven said:

Here is one from that batch. And this is the description that the seller made of the lens. It sold very fast. As well as the one from the same batch that sold for 23K. 

"Super Rare!! This was the early version of Summilux 35mm following the original design in 1961. The front rim of the silver chrome lens body made by stainless steel. It was produced just 1200 units world wide. This SN (2166XXX - 2167XXX ) is the batch before the last batch. Beautiful one, Lens Body and Glass is in Mint condition, The Glass has just some hairlines. It comes with Original Hood, Box, Rare cap and Filter. Lastly, this batch is “ Gold coating “ which take picture is vary sharp. Like , 50 F1.4 V2, 50 F2 V2 Rigid. Last Batch of 8e In the last batch transition to “ Gold “. Dont miss!! .Collectible one 😎"

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!

This description from the seller is quite bizarre.Firstly, the Summilux didn't have 8 elements, it had 7. Secondly, the seller describes this lens as being in the batch 2166xxx to 2167xxx when the serial number clearly shows 20xxxxx.

There is so much unsubstantiated hype around early versions of this lens, that gullible individuals seem to want to throw money at. There is zero evidence that steel rim versions performed better than any other. In fact, the opposite seems to be the case. Any variation is almost certainly down to production variations, which would be understandable, until production quality and efficiency had improved.

Ernst

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Interesting to note what Marco Cavina wrote on this subject (free translation):

« 5 lens elements of the original Summilux-M contain shares in the order of 50% of Rare Earth oxides, such as lanthanum or tantalum; these elements are characterized by a marked straw yellow color, then borrowed to a greater or lesser extent also to the final optical glass, and certainly two simple SF glasses and the lens treatment cannot do much against this authentic "yellow tide", therefore - theoretically - an evident warm cast is to be expected, at least in the first production specimens [...]. As history teaches, the original Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 was in production from 1961 to 1995 without any major modifications or upgrades to the optical core being officially heralded, although variations in anti-reflection are obvious and even small nuances in the chromatic cast or in the trend of spherical aberration in later models suggest that the glasses originally envisaged have given way to modern variants that had in the meantime replaced them. »

[wizard]

vor 7 Minuten schrieb lct:

Interesting to note what Marco Cavina wrote on this subject (free translation):

Which is pretty much what I had said above 🙂.

[lct]

3 minutes ago, wizard said:

Which is pretty much what I had said above 🙂.

Cavina wrote this in 2013 so royalties will be for him i fear .

[pgk]

I have quoted this before but I will do so again. From a paper by two optical designers (I studied with one of them) at Elcan written in 2006: "Considering our 1st example ….. the 35mm f/1.4 Summilux. LaF21 replaced three elements, marked as ‘LeT29’ in the original design, at some point. We have been unable to clearly identify the latter. All analysis has been done on the design with LaF21 glass type. The original, or equivalent glasses for the remaining four materials used are readily available.".

This makes it quite clear that glass types were changed at some point but the date of the change is not known. As the authors had full access to Elcan's data, if they were unable to determine the exact change or date it is highly unlikely that anyone else can. There is no mystique to lenses nor their design. Changes are made for a variety of reasons but I would very much doubt that any degrade performance for obvious reasons.

[wizard]

vor 2 Minuten schrieb lct:

Cavina wrote this in 2013 so royalties will be for him i fear .

No royalties due here anyway. I cannot read Italian very well, so do not rely on Mr. Cavina. But what I wrote above is in the public domain. The only thing I am proud of is that I am able to still remember things correctly 😉.

[wizard]

vor 8 Minuten schrieb pgk:

This makes it quite clear that glass types were changed at some point ...

The question here then is if glass types were changed because the former glass types became unavailable (which would not be uncommon. It happened with other Leica lenses, too) or if a recomputation took place (in an effort to enhance lens performance) requiring those different glass types.

[lct]

What i find interesting in Cavina's link above is also what he wrote about  « lanthanum or tantalum elements (being) characterized by a marked straw yellow color ». I seem to recall such a color cast on some v1 pics but not that much on my v2's. Any comments?

[pgk]

11 minutes ago, wizard said:

The question here then is if glass types were changed because the former glass types became unavailable (which would not be uncommon. It happened with other Leica lenses, too) or if a recomputation took place (in an effort to enhance lens performance) requiring those different glass types.

Another two quotes:

"Extensive use is made of the LaK and LaF glass types [in the 35mm Summilux] with more dispersive SF types employed in the cemented meniscus elements surrounding the stop."

"In recent years optical glass manufacturers have modified their glass catalogues, primarily to remove lead and arsenic from their formulæ for environmental reasons, but also to remove lesser-used glass types and rationalise their glass range. Typical of older designs, the selected double Gauss lenses we have analysed contain obsolete glass."

Which to me  suggests that it might have been due to lack of availability of the original glass types.

[skueh]

9 hours ago, Steven said:

Is the lock made of brass or alu ?  

Brass.

[IkarusJohn]

I have a version II of this lens, manufactured in 1987.  It has its appeal (small, and like other Mandler lenses of that era, it’s sharp stopped down).  I bought it because it was cheap (compared to the current ASPH FLE version).  But to be honest, I don’t really see a benefit in a soft wide angle lens, when shot wide open. I see this as a flaw, and something later versions, like so many other lenses of the Karbe era, have rectified.  Leica’s ability to make lenses almost as sharp and almost as good wide open as stopped down is remarkable.  

This has tended to mean that the newer a Leica lens, generally the better.

With the 75 Summilux, I get a certain softness wide open - as a portrait lens, this can be a useful flaw.  But the flare I get from my vII 35 Summilux, I don’t appreciate, and I tend to stop down in most of the situations where I want to use this lens.  I must be missing something, but the appeal of older lenses is playing to their strengths, or using their flaws to beneficial effect.

As a general rule, however, a lens is usually “rare” because it wasn’t good enough to go into wider production; and a later version of a lens is better.  It’s a poor business model where you reduce your product quality with later versions, though there are obvious exceptions …

Edited August 31, 2021 by IkarusJohn

[lct]

The "useful flaw" is the one i (we?) like i guess. Bit of softness at full aperture on lenses like 75/1.4 or 90/2 v3, vignetting on 21/3.4 or 28/5.6 etc. I'm not after perfection with a lens like the Summilux 35/1.4 v2. What i like mostly is its "glow" i.e. the halos it produces around highlights at f/1.4 mainly. I like its softness too but that of v2 is relative. It can look decently sharp with a bit of sharpening in PP. The way it looks in this thread, v1 is significantly softer, "dreamy" so to speak. Not my cup of tea but i understand it may please to others.

[LocalHero1953]

I have just bought one from Meister, to live on my M4, also just bought. The complications of Brexit, import duties and covid mean that I am having it delivered to my daughter in Brussels, and may not get it in my hand till October - so I'm buying it on a bit of trust.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Wonzo]

Lovely pictures, Steven !  They are very much like the ones, I`m looking for in photography. I`m as well not looking for sharpness in the first place, even more for moody, artistic images. This is why I always return to lenses like the 0,95 Canon "Dream Lens", the Thambar, the Summarex. Yet I don`t have a pre asph. 35mm, I only tested a few. But from what I saw, the Steel Rim comes close to the previous mentioned lenses in terms of their beautiful and dreamy rendering. 

[ianman]

On 8/31/2021 at 8:58 AM, LocalHero1953 said:

 I find that everyone else likes this lens so much that the prices are higher than the cost of the camera.

I got a Pre-Asph steel rim for $1200 about 12 years ago. I cannot believe the prices people are paying for these now.