35mm 1.4 Summilux pre-asph

[Metin Colak]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Dear friends,

Will you compare the Lux 35 pre-asph at f1.4 with the Cron35 v4 at 2 at their minimum focus distance? A side by side comparison with the photographs will be greatly appreciated..

I just try to understand their 'character'  at their minimum focus distance and f-stop.

[evikne]

1 hour ago, adan said:

I don't buy any lens shorter than 90mm that won't focus down to 0.7m - the limitation gets in my way.

As Leica themselves realized, since they have progressively removed those 0.9-1.0m limitations in most of their 50s and 35s and 75s (and their cameras, post-M3) over the decades.

Do you (or anyone else) know why it seems especially difficult to achieve a short focusing limit with very fast lenses? Noctilux 50/1.0 and 0.95 have both 1 meter (and when I used Canon, that was also the case with my 85/1.2). The newest Noctilux 75/1.25 is a bit better though.

[Advertisement]

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

[lct]

22 minutes ago, Metin Colak said:

[...] Will you compare the Lux 35 pre-asph at f1.4 with the Cron35 v4 at 2 at their minimum focus distance? [...]

I have not both lenses with me now sorry but such a comparison would just tell that 35/1.4 and 35/2 lenses don't behave the same way at full aperture and that FoV, DoF and perspective are not the same at 1m vs 0.7 m IMHO. A comparison at f/2 and 1m could be interesting though. 

[Jul]

12 hours ago, lct said:

Do you think acceptable results could be kept at 0.7m in such a small f/1.4 lens? Just curious.

Well don't know about 0.7m but here is an useless experiment.

I still have my first sample of this lens. It is from the seventies,

needs cleaning and has the optical cell which spins when given

enough torque.

 

I just spinned it 1800°, mounted it on a M9 (would have been

easier on a camera with focus peaking available but I don't have one)

and set it to its minimum focus distance wide open.

Low contrast subject in bad light purposely chosen,

the apple is here to give an approximation of the magnification.

I see details on the skin of the apple and even at 1280px wide

you might see them.

 

For a better sample of close focus ability see first picture from #45 on page 3 from Jaques with OUFRO. 

 

 

 

 

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!

[adan]

38 minutes ago, evikne said:

Do you (or anyone else) know why it seems especially difficult to achieve a short focusing limit with very fast lenses? Noctilux 50/1.0 and 0.95 have both 1 meter (and when I used Canon, that was also the case with my 85/1.2). The newest Noctilux 75/1.25 is a bit better though.

Basically, to focus closer, a lens without internal or rear-element focusing has to be moved farther and farther away from the camera to focus closer and closer. That puts the weight of the glass (and metal) out on a longer and longer "lever arm," which puts more stress on the lens structure, particularly the mount and the threads for focusing, which can bind (like a chain saw getting pinched in a log). We can add even more metal to the barrel thickness and diameter to make it stiffer and stronger - but that then increases the weight again (The 75 Nocti is 1055g), and round and round we go.

And the longer the focal length, the more extension is needed to get down to a given close-focus limit - a 50mm lens probably needs an extra 2 mm of extension to get from 1.0m down to 0.7m (compared to the 0.55mm I estimated for a 35mm).

Add to that the specific requirements of the M system: to be compact and light like the camera, and not intrude into the viewfinder or block the secondary RF window (due to longer extension for closer focusing), and "balance well" on the camera when hanging from a strap. Which the 75 Nocti gets close to exceeding.

Additionally, it is generally assumed that a fixed lens with no floating elements will lose resolution at close distances, since lenses (except dedicated Macro lenses) are calculated with math optimized for parallel light rays (Infinity, or more realistically, 100x the focal length - ~5 meters for a general-purpose 50mm lens). Which is certainly true with the pre-ASPH 50 Summilux, which gets very "dreamy" and soft in the range 0.7-1m, compared to its long-distance performance.

With floating elements and other modern design tricks, that is less true than it was with the 50 Summilux design (1961). But I used the 1970s Hasselblad 100 Planar and 120 S-Makro-Planar (f/5.6). The 100 Planar is outstanding at infinity (designed at NASA's request for orbital photography - subjects hundreds of miles/km away) but disappointingly soft at 1m, until stopped down. Conversely, the Makro is something of a dog at infinity, requiring stopping down to f/11, but outstanding at 1m or on extension tubes, far outperforming the 100 Planar (or the 80, for that matter) at those distances.

Thus it has been assumed that, especially with an extreme aperture (> f/1.4), the image quality will be too weak if the close focus limit is too close. So why bother?

There are exceptions of course, as with every rule in photography.

[evikne]

@adan Thank you very much for an extensive explanation!

[Metin Colak]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

13 hours ago, lct said:

I have not both lenses with me now sorry but such a comparison would just tell that 35/1.4 and 35/2 lenses don't behave the same way at full aperture and that FoV, DoF and perspective are not the same at 1m vs 0.7 m IMHO. A comparison at f/2 and 1m could be interesting though. 

Dear ICT,

Thanks for your reply. Yes, there are differences between the two at the their minimum focus distance. It would be interesting to see the rendering of each lens side by side on the same subject/object in the same lighting condition.

Your consideration on these lenses at their minimum focusing distance at f2 is important for me. What is your opinion when you compare in terms of FOV, DOF and the transition from FOV to DOF at f2?

Cheers..

Edited November 21, 2018 by Metin Colak

[lct]

I'm not good at comparing different focus distances sorry. 

[UliWer]

vor 18 Stunden schrieb Metin Colak:

Dear friends,

Will you compare the Lux 35 pre-asph at f1.4 with the Cron35 v4 at 2 at their minimum focus distance? A side by side comparison with the photographs will be greatly appreciated..

I just try to understand their 'character'  at their minimum focus distance and f-stop.

I'll try this evening. 

[UliWer]

Sorry, I can try only next weekend with natural light outside. Indoors a 35mm even at f/1.4 and min. distance shows too many distracting details, which don‘t give a good impression of the lenses „character“.

[Metin Colak]

52 minutes ago, UliWer said:

Sorry, I can try only next weekend with natural light outside. Indoors a 35mm even at f/1.4 and min. distance shows too many distracting details, which don‘t give a good impression of the lenses „character“.

Thanks a lot UliWer for your reply. It will be an interesting comparison which might  be a reference point for the future discussions, I think.

Cheers.

Edited November 21, 2018 by Metin Colak

[Metin Colak]

9 hours ago, lct said:

I'm not good at comparing different focus distances sorry. 

Dear ICT thanks for the reply. Your general contribution to the discussions/questions/analyses has already been great..

Edited November 21, 2018 by Metin Colak

[UliWer]

Late November weather, and I was astonished how much perspective changes with a difference of less than 20cm. Both examples at min. distance and max opening:

First 1:2/35mm Summicron-M version IV:

 

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!

 

[UliWer]

1:1,4/35mm Summilux pre. asph.:

 

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!

 

 

[UliWer]

Summicron-M:

 

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!

[UliWer]

Summilux:

 

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!

[Metin Colak]

On 11/25/2018 at 2:06 PM, UliWer said:

Summilux:

 

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!

Dear UliWer thanks so much for your wonderful, very explanatory photographs. Yes, even this 20cm difference in the perspective creates a lot in the meaning. The Summilux produces more 'life-size' perspective in this dreaminess while the Summicron creates  a very well known 'closeness' that even we might recall from other 35mm images. I personally take the Summilux perspective and images where reality and dream, consciousness and unconsciousness, combined in a more 'natural' perspective, like in our reality where we actually experience these two spheres without being conscious of the latter (unconsciousness) in most cases. A different level of realism/surrealism/magic exists in the summilux images.

[Jul]

Before someone asks, no, there wasn't a third lady with a magenta jacket on the right.

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!

[simonr]

For what it is worth, I just compared my Summicron v4 to the summilux pre asp  v2 ( s/n 2222032)  at  f stop 2 at about 2 meters. My results show that the summicron v4 is indeed sharper at f2. Even at f stop 2.8 the summicron was still a bit sharper, but less so. Not much in it by 2.8

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[pico]

Yea, but how's that Summicron at ƒ1.4?