Summilux 35 pre-asph vs Pre fle vs fle.

[DickieT]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have the pre-asph, FLE and 35/2 8 lens. The pre-asph is a little tricky with flare, but has a nice glow and is pretty soft wide open. The 35/2 8 lens has a little less glow and is far less prone to flare and still has plenty of 'character'. The FLE is tack sharp. Different lenses for different purposes 

[Advertisement]

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

[Stein K S]

3 hours ago, lct said:

 

The 35/1.4 pre-asph can be compared to 35/2 lenses from the same period but the 35/2 v4 is a more modern lens from the eighties or end of seventies with more contrast, less flare and no glow (halos around highlights) at all. Focus shift is not the same on both lenses either. Appears at f/1.4 and f/2 on my 35/1.4 v2 and at around f/4 on my 35/2 v4.

Hi again

You underline that the v4 has absolutely no glow... but wide open this lens clearly ¨bleed¨ highlights and I thought this was ¨glow¨ or...?

regards

[evikne]

13 minutes ago, Stein K S said:

Hi again

You underline that the v4 has absolutely no glow... but wide open this lens clearly ¨bleed¨ highlights and I thought this was ¨glow¨ or...?

regards

Maybe more "smudge" than "glow"? That's what I think about my v.4. wide open.

[Gregm61]

2 hours ago, DickieT said:

I have the pre-asph, FLE and 35/2 8 lens. The pre-asph is a little tricky with flare...

My experience with both the 35mm f2 Summicron ASPH (original version) and the current 35mm f1.4 FLE, if the sun is in the frame and anywhere other than sitting right on the horizon 1-2 minutes after sunrise or sunset, you'll wind up with ugly flare, bell-shaped reflections, or both, neither or which I would describe as "glow" or "attractive" in any sense.

Contra-light shooting is NOT a good reason to be spending $3-$5,000 for a new Leica 35mm lens.

The only current 35mm Leica-branded lens where I have been able to shoot directly into the sun at any angle from the horizon and be relatively safe from either of those happening is the 35mm f2.4 Summarit. Go figure. No idea if it's the more modest design or something else, but it just WORKS against the light. If you place the sun just outside the FOV, you can get a weird sort of flare, whether the hood is fitted or not. You're better just putting the sun right in the image and shooting.

If I shoot into the light with the 35mm f2 Summicron ASPH I do still own (sold the 35/1.4 FLE long ago), I'll only do it if I can place the sun to where it's shining through an object such as tree limbs or the like, which can help eliminate flare and/or reflections.

Edited August 2, 2019 by Gregm61

[lct]

1 hour ago, Stein K S said:

Hi again

You underline that the v4 has absolutely no glow... but wide open this lens clearly ¨bleed¨ highlights and I thought this was ¨glow¨ or...?

regards

Everybody has his own definition of glow i guess, reason why i dared to recall mine: halos around highlights. The Summilux 35/1.4 pre-asph has glow in spades at f/1.4 in that sense but not the Summicron 35/2 v4. The latter will never do things like that. Just to take an example.

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!

 

[Stein K S]

22 hours ago, evikne said:

Maybe more "smudge" than "glow"? That's what I think about my v.4. wide open.

Hei

I have always liked this «behaviour» of this lens... so I guess the use of the term «smudge» does not hurt afterall 😉... And I do see the difference in the Lux photo posted by Itc.

Getting even more tempted by that old Lux though 🤒

[evikne]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

34 minutes ago, Stein K S said:

I have always liked this «behaviour» of this lens... so I guess the use of the term «smudge» does not hurt afterall 😉..

I like the "smudge effect" a lot, it's one of the charming behaviours with this lens. It doesn't necessarily appear around highlights like glow, but rather out to the edges. 

[epand56]

I never had the pre-Aspherical, but had both the Asph. and the FLE. In the end I've sold the FLE because I much more like the rendering of the Asph.
But I think it's quite impossible answering the question of the OP, being this an exquisite matter of personal taste.

[Jeff S]

The OP has had about a year and a half to figure it out.

Jeff

[lct]

Neither 35/1.4 FLE nor 35/2 v4 have gaussian blur bokeh people seem to prefer nowadays and tend to call it "creamy". Details are still visible in the background w/o double lines or sharp edges but creamy they are not or there is some salt in the cream . See sample pics thereafter at full aperture. 35/2 v4 # 1.  35/2 v4 # 2. 35/2 v4 # 3. 35/1.4 FLE # 1. 35/1.4 FLE # 2. 35/1.4 FLE # 3.

[Ray Vonn]

10 minutes ago, lct said:

Neither 35/1.4 FLE nor 35/2 v4 have gaussian blur bokeh people seem to prefer nowadays and tend to call it "creamy". Details are still visible in the background w/o double lines or sharp edges but creamy they are not or there is some salt in the cream . See sample pics thereafter at full aperture. 35/2 v4 # 1.  35/2 v4 # 2. 35/2 v4 # 3. 35/1.4 FLE # 1. 35/1.4 FLE # 2. 35/1.4 FLE # 3.

Ah the double lines. Don’t suppose this is much liked by most people but I really like that characteristic of the V4.

[lct]

13 minutes ago, lct said:

Neither 35/1.4 FLE nor 35/2 v4 have gaussian blur bokeh people seem to prefer nowadays and tend to call it "creamy". Details are still visible in the background w/o double lines or sharp edges but creamy they are not or there is some salt in the cream . See sample pics thereafter at full aperture. 35/2 v4 # 1.  35/2 v4 # 2. 35/2 v4 # 3. 35/1.4 FLE # 1. 35/1.4 FLE # 2. 35/1.4 FLE # 3.

Correction. Can't seem to edit the post above sorry. #2 and #3 FLE pics have been shot at f/2.8.

[Ccoppola82]

1 hour ago, Steven said:

What do you guys think of pre fle vs fle ? 

I keep asking around but cant find the right info. 

I have a silver (no noticeable FS) pre fle that I like. I have the opportunity to trade it against an FLE Leitz edition, which I like the way it looks a lot. 

Is the rendering really different between the two ? Some say a lot, some say there's no difference. 

I have the leitz edition FLE. It’s amazing and Looks great. Couple things to note, it IS stiffer to focus which I’ve read is due to the floating elements.  It’s also not tiny, nor is it cheap.  The latter is why I’ve considered getting a v2 Nokton as a beat around lens.  I’m not a fearful person, but sometimes carrying around a 6k lens on a non-photo specific day is just overkill and I’d like something I don’t have to worry about banging around. Plus, it’s smaller for those days as well. It IS an amazing optic though. 

[Ccoppola82]

6 minutes ago, Steven said:

I carry a 50 year old steel rim with me everyday and I don’t even put a filter on it 😂 mainly because I can’t find any 41mm filters.. 

I think that a silver pre fle in the condition that mine is in and with box and papers costs nearly the same as the leitz edition now. If not more. 

i think the Leitz Is beautiful looking. 
however, I’ve just spent the past two hours reading old ASPH and FLE thread. They reminded me that a lot of people find the rendering of the FLE too clinical and the pre fle to more beautiful. It made me scroll through the past year with my pre fle and reminded me that I shot some of my favorite photos of my life with it. My decision making has just leaned heavily into a direction ....... 

 

They both take photos and do it well

[Ecar]

8 hours ago, Steven said:

It's not the first time I read about this, on this forum and elsewhere. I am really curious to know if this is true as some people debunk it. 

I have a pre fle that I love but I am being proposed a rare edition of the fle that I think looks nicer. I'm worried to trade in my pre fle against my FLE and be disappointed in the OOF rendering. 

Especially that my pre FLE doesnt exhibit FS either... 

How about testing them side by side? A few shots with each should settle the matter. That's what I did a few years back.

[Ecar]

1 hour ago, Steven said:

Definitely the only way to settle it! 
 

Ecar, I think I might be in processionals of a lens you once were in procession of: a modified steel rim .. could that be ? 
 

I’ve read a few of your 35mm posts from 2017. May i ask, four years later, what did you settle for ? 

Regarding processions, I guess you need to start somewhere. The two of us are a beginning. Now we only need to attract others 😏

More seriously: I currently own a plain vanilla 35/1.4 v1 (aka "steel rim"), had and sold a similar copy several years ago, but never had a "modified" one.

Not sure which 2017 posts you are referring to - and too lazy to search for what I might have written then. A hint perhaps?

[Guest Nowhereman]

13 hours ago, Steven said:

The FLE #2 shot seems a bit creamy to me. At least, much less "nervous", if you allow me the choice of word to describe the opposite of a Gaussian blur bokeh, than the V4 shots. I personally, as of March 13th 2021, prefer the v4 look. 

Might change... 

This drove me (last night) to look in Lightroom at all my Summicron 35v4 vs my Summilux 35 FLE shots. Generally, at f/2 and smaller apertures, I find that I prefer, somewhat, the v4 rendition in terms of color and bokeh. As for the FLE, at f/1.4, with strong backlight or sidelight, it produces bokeh balls (such as leaves on trees) that I don't care for; but, for the following type of shot, the rendition is not bad. I bough it used, in perfect condition, at a very good price and am trying to decide whether to keep it as I use the v4 more often. Though, I suppose this is off-topic for this thread...

M10 | Summilux 35 FLE | ISO 800 | f/1.4 | 1/90 sec | Bangkok

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!

 ________________________
Frog Leaping photobook and Instagram

[Ecar]

1 hour ago, Steven said:

Oops ! Possession ! 
someone told me the lens I bought from them used to belong to you, as well as other forum members. It was true for the others, might have been a mistake about you. 
 

in 2017, you mentioned having chose the pre fle over the fle, and that it was one of your favorite rendering of any 35. 
 

your steel rim is an incredible lens, but very particular. You haven’t kept a more modern 35 to complement it ? 

No, never owned this particular one (although I know who did).

For modern rendering, I stand by what I wrote: still very happy with my (non-shifting) pre-FLE. I also have a 35/2 ASPH v1, a couple of CVs and a 7a.

I may try the 35/2 APO, but will wait for a BC version. In the meantime, I have enough "very particular" vintage 35mm to play with.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[lct]

Must be the silver color . Just kidding. Both lenses have the same acutance in my memories but i did not purchase the pre-FLE so i have not enough experience to be sure.

[lct]

1 hour ago, Steven said:

or not. Many have said that the Silver copies are focus shift free. Mine is, and everyone who owns one can confirm the same. I know they have the same formula as the black ones, and I'm not sure that the common theory of the more precise technique required to build a chrome lens really has anything to do with it. 

My theory is that the silver copies were produced in the last batches. By then, Leica calibrated them differently. Which would also explains why some black copies have less FS than others. Maybe towards the end they calibrated them at F2, so that the FS would be less noticeable/balanced between F1.4 and F4 than if the lens was calibrated at F1.4. In my experience, beyond F5.6, focus shift is usually a non issue due to the more forgiving DOF. 

It is well possible, Sepulchre suggested something like that if memory serves me well. Now contrary to what i read here and there, focus shift can be more visible on closeups than at further distance and vice versa. My 35/2 asph v1 doesn't suffer from focus shift at 5m and further for instance but both my Canadian and German made 35/2 v4's do.