35mm Summicron (latest) vs 35mm Lux FLE

[ChicagoMatthew]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I used to have the 35mm Summicron previous version, plastic hood) and moved into the 35mm Summilux FLE... mostly because I got a deal. After using the Lux for a year I’m starting to think it may not be for me. I used the cron for a long time, so I’m very accustomed to it’s look and feel. I don’t shoot at minimum DOF often... but it nice to have. Idk, I’m torn. 

Does anyone have experience with both? Or does anyone have any insight into the pros and cons of either? Subjective opinions and mtf chart opinions welcomed. 

Matt

[Advertisement]

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

[lct]

Well you will find many posts about those lenses on the LUF. As far as my copies are concerned (6-bit coded 35/2 asph v1 & 35/1.4 FLE) both have a modern rendition with higher acutance, less focus shift and less flare than your 35/2 v4. Not to say that they are flare free though, they cannot compete with Zeiss lenses from this viewpoint. OoF rendition is generally sharper as well but that of the 35/2 asph is a bit smoother than the FLE's around f/2.8. I would recommend both for landscapes but not for portraits unless you (and your models) don't mind to see their little skin imperfections if any. 

Edited September 29, 2019 by lct

[jakontil]

I had both before i sold the cron after a couple of years of use, if budget is no constraints, keep the lux and add the cron for curiosity 

i shot mainly portraits so the big aparture is a priority

[a.noctilux]

I can't help much.

I use some Summicron, 'boring Summilux' for very long time,

 

now my favorite is the light&cheap Summarit-M 2.5/35mm (... plus 50&75 in same line)

maybe you can try one Summarit-M to see if it can do what you want.

[ChicagoMatthew]

12 hours ago, lct said:

Well you will find many posts about those lenses on the LUF. As far as my copies are concerned (6-bit coded 35/2 asph v1 & 35/1.4 FLE) both have a modern rendition with higher acutance, less focus shift and less flare than your 35/2 v4. Not to say that they are flare free though, they cannot compete with Zeiss lenses from this viewpoint. OoF rendition is generally sharper as well but that of the 35/2 asph is a bit smoother than the FLE's around f/2.8. I would recommend both for landscapes but not for portraits unless you (and your models) don't mind to see their little skin imperfections if any. 

Do you think the field curvature of the Lux is an issue for landscape?

[lct]

17 minutes ago, ChicagoMatthew said:

Do you think the field curvature of the Lux is an issue for landscape?

If you mean the FLE, not from f/4 to f/11 in my experience. 

[ChicagoMatthew]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

15 minutes ago, lct said:

If you mean the FLE, not from f/4 to f/11 in my experience. 

Okay... I have been reading conflicting reports on the curvature. Some say its still present, even at F8. I haven't seen it, but I haven't looked hard enough either, and maybe I wouldn't notice until I needed to print something. What I have noticed about my FLE is at 2.8, the center is soft at infinity. Corners and mid range is fine, just the center is soft. And it sharpens up at f2 or f4...Not that I shoot landscapes at f2.8 much, but still it's strange.

[lct]

42 minutes ago, ChicagoMatthew said:

Okay... I have been reading conflicting reports on the curvature. Some say its still present, even at F8. I haven't seen it, but I haven't looked hard enough either, and maybe I wouldn't notice until I needed to print something. What I have noticed about my FLE is at 2.8, the center is soft at infinity. Corners and mid range is fine, just the center is soft. And it sharpens up at f2 or f4...Not that I shoot landscapes at f2.8 much, but still it's strange.

Most of my lenses show some field curvature to a certain extent, including excellent ones like the Summilux 50/1.4 asph. It may be disturbing at fast apertures but shooting landscapes there is not the best idea as you said. Otherwise you may wish to try the Summicron 50/2 apo but it is more expensive and it is not a 35mm lens.

Edited September 30, 2019 by lct

[bags27]

This is a timely discussion for me, because I'm planning on an M 35 to have as a 50mm on my CL. For a while, I was considering a summicron v. 2 or maybe a v 4. But I have to say honestly, even though I tend more to "filmic" rather than digital renderings, some of the photos produced with the FLE on the SL and CL are breathtaking. Of course, they have a higher acutance, but there is something almost dreamy and deeply interpretative about them. And they seem ever so slightly more so than with the Zeiss f1.4. Maybe I'm just projecting and I hope (for my wallet's sake) that I'm wrong.

[lct]

Not sure i would use the word dreamy for a sharp lens like the 35/1.4 FLE but this is a subjective matter of course and there is little chance to notice field curvature at f/8 on landscapes anyway, DoF is too wide for that.

[jakontil]

Anone care to share some lights about field curvature especially on 35 fle?

[lct]

Did some focus shift tests with my 35/1.4 FLE a couple years ago. Might give you some insights on field curvature eventually. 
(M240, 35/1.4 FLE, EVF, focus on "XII" at f/1.4, 10MB files)

• f/1.4: http://lctphot.smugmug.com/photos/3863225316_brdMmLw-D.jpg
• f/2: http://lctphot.smugmug.com/photos/3863232051_2gWWvLC-D.jpg
• f/2.8: http://lctphot.smugmug.com/photos/3863239032_S6zkGzL-D.jpg
• f/4: http://lctphot.smugmug.com/photos/3863246890_3T9dCVC-D.jpg
• f/5.6: http://lctphot.smugmug.com/photos/3863255072_LsXvRFw-D.jpg
• f/8: http://lctphot.smugmug.com/photos/3863264199_mQZRjdQ-D.jpg
• f/11: http://lctphot.smugmug.com/photos/3863272294_S5r9rh4-D.jpg
• f/16: http://lctphot.smugmug.com/photos/3863280346_4sWMNBT-D.jpg

[LeicaR10]

ChicagoMatthew,  In your OP you asked about the pros and cons of two 35mm M lenses.  I initially had the same questions years ago and realized after looking at hundreds of my photographs with either lens that I owned, both rendered superbly for their intended designs.  Same goes for the field curvature that you brought up in a later post.  I never found it and I realized I was wasting my time with technical aspects that neither my clients or myself ever saw in the photographs.  My clients are corporations and private collectors that have very high expectations on the Content of the photograph, not the technical aspects of the lens or camera that took the landscape photograph.  Based on my decades of professional use of Leica S, M and SL systems, I discovered nearly ALL Leica lenses are superb for their intended design purpose.  IMO, many well intentioned photographers here will give you all kinds of advice.  But unless one is either a gear head or perfectionist, you will not notice the technical "flaws" of the lens.  What photographers should consider is the content of their photographs and create images that cause the viewer too; Stop, Look, Think and if possible convey "Feeling" with the captured moment in time.  IMO, "Feeling" is the most difficult aspect to convey.  So, to help with your angst over field curvature, I would recommend get neither and get a 35mm Summarit-Asph M f/2.4 that has no field curvature and it renders IMO better than either of the two lenses you are pondering.  But, your genre of photography might be different than mine that is landscape photography too remote and challenging locations by means of hiking.  As a very wise photography professor once told me many moons ago, it is the content of your photograph and what you are trying to convey that is most important.  Not the latest expensive camera or lens that took the image.  IMO, wise advice.  I hope this helps. r/ Mark

Edited October 1, 2019 by LeicaR10

[lct]

I have no experience with the Summarit 35/2.4 but my f/2.5 version is softer at edges and corners than both my Summicron asph and Summilux FLE below f/5.6 i must say. The ZM 35/2.8 is a better performer from this viewpoint. It has also less flare and less CA than both Summarit f/2.5 and Summicron asph v1. It is very contrasty though and vignettes more than the Leica's. FWIW.

[Balivernes]

All I know from my Leica M experiences is that one always yearned for a summilux when one owned a summicron, and also that one always yearns for a smaller lens when one owns a bigger one.  In the modern high performance sensor digital age however, I have decided that the extra stop between f/2 and f/1.4 has become less useful than it used to be. And in the age of crazy weight and size gains for top class lenses across all other brands and systems (hello SL!) there is probably nothing more satisfying and useable than a 35 ‘cron asph.

Edited October 1, 2019 by Balivernes

[a.noctilux]

Summicron lenses are the sweet spot for Leica M since 1954's M3 .

I've owned some Summicron (happy user then) but lured toward Summilux/Noctilux and finally bought them over time (when finance allowed).

 

But these days, things changed a bit, and Leica Camera understood that and "offers" the huge choices ( F/0.95, F/1.4, F/2, F/2.4, F/3.4, F/3.8 , etc. )

for every needs and budgets.

 

Now my sweet spot is Summarit-M lenses line (older f/2.5 second hand bought cheap) as good as the other expensive lenses that I have/use.

Even Summicron lenses (my former workhorses) have less use now.

Funny thing I use more the even older Elmar/Summaron in LTM lenses that I have for my Barnack Leica .

[MarkP]

7 hours ago, Balivernes said:

All I know from my Leica M experiences is that one always yearned for a summilux when one owned a summicron, and also that one always yearns for a smaller lens when one owns a bigger one.  

So true 🙂

[Stein K S]

8 hours ago, Balivernes said:

All I know from my Leica M experiences is that one always yearned for a summilux when one owned a summicron, and also that one always yearns for a smaller lens when one owns a bigger one.  In the modern high performance sensor digital age however, I have decided that the extra stop between f/2 and f/1.4 has become less useful than it used to be. And in the age of crazy weight and size gains for top class lenses across all other brands and systems (hello SL!) there is probably nothing more satisfying and useable than a 35 ‘cron asph.

Well... it must be the v4 then... even smaller... and even more charming 😉 (sorry... I could not help it... basically I fully buy in on your reasoning 👍🏻).

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Lelmer]

4 hours ago, Stein K S said:

Well... it must be the v4 then... even smaller... and even more charming 😉 (sorry... I could not help it... basically I fully buy in on your reasoning 👍🏻).

 

For my next city trip, I'll spend the day with the v4 while the FLE will be waiting in the hotel room for evening and night walks 😊

[ChicagoMatthew]

On 9/29/2019 at 7:32 PM, lct said:

Most of my lenses show some field curvature to a certain extent, including excellent ones like the Summilux 50/1.4 asph. It may be disturbing at fast apertures but shooting landscapes there is not the best idea as you said. Otherwise you may wish to try the Summicron 50/2 apo but it is more expensive and it is not a 35mm lens.

Yeah... I considered that actually. I tested the 50APO against the 50lux and found by f4 it was extremely difficult to see the difference between the two. But at 2 & 2.8 it was insane how good the APO performed. A lot of people bash the APO ergonomics, but I don’t mind it. I like the smaller design very much actually. I’ll post my pics for discussion if anyone is interested.