35mm Summilux vs. 35mm Summicron

[HarleyTusk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

6 hours ago, ianman said:

TBH when someone asks the question whether f/2.0 or f1.4 is more suitable for low light conditions, it tells me that the poster doesn't know a whole lot about photography or hasn't thought the question through. 

My Profile does read "Newbie"

[Advertisement]

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

[adan]

8 hours ago, ianman said:

Well neither you nor I know the answer to that. Could you post an example? Don't tell me the photo you posted couldn't have been taken with a Summicron.

No - the previous image was part of my response to the OP, regarding Summilux contrast.

Here's one place I like to work - rural Saturday night car racing.

This shot was with the M10 and 35 Summicron ASPH at f/2 - required ISO 16000 (definite shadow banding - had to clip the shadows hard to hide it) at a barely acceptable 1/125th sec. (car racing includes a lot of movement - fortunately this couple was static).

I ended up using the 75 f/1.4 in cases where a 35 would have been more appropriate for intimacy and field of view - because f/2 just didn't cut it.

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!

Dark basement gallery openings, night-time alleyways and sidewalks, poorly-lit music clubs - lots of places I go and find interesting pictures with lots of movement going on, where 35mm f/2 is borderline or inadequate. (below: 35 Nokton at f/1.4).

Get me a clean ISO 25600, and I can give up f/1.4 (maybe - there are always darker places to explore. )

Edited November 1, 2019 by adan

[TG14]

10 hours ago, adan said:

You must not shoot in the same dark places I do. (NB: M10 noise above ISO 10000 is too ratty and banded in the shadows for serious use.)

To the OP - the 35 Summilux ASPH is a truly exceptional design. Visibly cleaner corner performance at f/1.4 than the Summicron ASPH at f/2. (That's a test on film, ignoring sensor-glass effects).

I also find the Summilux to be a bit more open and limpid in high-contrast light - more shadow detail for a given amount of strong highlight detail.

However, the lux does have more distortion. "Moustache-type" over the whole frame. The Summicron keeps lines straighter until the extreme corners.

35 Summilux ASPH - Rural library, Hartsel, Colorado

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!

That bludge on the right looks bad. Surprised that the lux has that much distortion.

 

[adan]

That's just an 90-year-old wooden building settling.

[RexGig0]

I looked into this, with price being a consideration, but able to afford the Summilux-M FLE if it seemed necessary. I already had a tiny, but slow, Summaron-M 3.5cm f/3.5. I bought a Zeiss 1,4/35mm Distagon ZM. List price is $2290 US, but I bought pre-owned, in perfect condition, for several hundred less. The size, which does partially block one corner of the viewfinder, does not bother me. The images are pleasing, to my eyes. This is a relatively new ZM lens, not one of the several designed during the film era.

Had I spent one to several thousand more, on a Leica Summicron or Summilux 35mm, I might have been unable to buy a specific special edition of the Summicron-M 50mmm IV, and a pre-owned, like-new Thamber-M, when they were listed for sale.

Had I waited until I could afford the Leica ‘Lux or ‘Cron, I might have missed the opportunity to get some very low-light, candid images of my father, near the end of his life, the last time I saw him in normal clothing, without an oxygen tube on his face. Those images are now priceless. I could have used my Nikon 28/1.4E, except that I can wear a Leica, whereas I carry a Nikon, a subtle but significant difference. I might not have had a Nikon with me, that evening.

I am not (yet) a “landscape shooter,” but am loving this ZM for images with plenty of land and sky in them.

I am not sufficiently capable, technically, to define or defend micro-contrast, or how/whether it differs from “sharpness,” but some folks say some Zeiss lenses have it. I recommend doing one’s own homework, on this.

I was already accustomed to Zeiss SLR lenses, before I added the Leica M system, so had no prejudice to overcome. (135mm f/2 APO Sonnar, 85mm f/1.4 Otus.)

I am not trying to urge anyone to choose Zeiss over Leica. There is a relatively recent discussion thread, in this forum, that helped me make my decision. I have no disagreement with those who would rather use only Leica lenses.

[lct]

58 minutes ago, RexGig0 said:

[...] I am not trying to urge anyone to choose Zeiss over Leica. There is a relatively recent discussion thread, in this forum, that helped me make my decision. I have no disagreement with those who would rather use only Leica lenses.

Less a matter of using only Leica lenses than using compact lenses vs 35mm as bulky as 90mm ones IMHO.

[SiggiGun]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The 35mm is my most used M lens over the time. That means It should be general purpose : best results under every conditions and situations

That means Summilux for this 35mm

[TG14]

8 hours ago, adan said:

That's just an 90-year-old wooden building settling.

Ha. Ah... then where is the distortion?

[ianman]

9 hours ago, adan said:

This shot was with the M10 and 35 Summicron ASPH at f/2 - required ISO 16000 (definite shadow banding - had to clip the shadows hard to hide it) at a barely acceptable 1/125th sec.

Barely acceptable 1/125th? You could gain 1 or maybe 2 stops right there.

I totally agree with Wattsy though. I don't see the point of trying to turn a dark place into a light place by bumping up ISO to ridiculous levels. Surely the point of taking a photograph in a dark place to start with is because the low light makes it visually appealing, it creates mood. I prefer to work with those limitations (I would call them advantages) and create a dark moody picture rather than making a poor photograph that is battling against the lack of light. Also, I've found that when we think a situation is very low light, there is actually quite a bit about (Your photo of the woman in the street for example, or at concerts).

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that there is no need or no place for Summiluxes, far from it, I have a 75 and 50 pre-asph. But as I wrote previously, if I were in the shoes of the OP,  as a newbie, I would get a secondhand Summicron ASPH. It's a fantastic lens and can be found at really good prices. And it's suggestion based on the situation of the OP, not based on what I have.

[otto.f]

19 hours ago, ianman said:

when someone asks the question whether f/2.0 or f1.4 is more suitable for low light conditions,

Still, a Summicron that has a fine contrast at 2.0 may be better for low light than a Summilux that reaches that contrast only at 3.4. And in the 60-70’s that was rather rule than exception with Summiluxes. I don’t know how the 2.0 of the Summicron asph and the Summilux FLE compare. My FLE at least is at 1.4 a bit insecure so to speak, for instance with cityscapes at night. I mostly use 1.7 if there’s no deliberate artistic purpose involved with 1.4.

Edited November 1, 2019 by otto.f

[adan]

2 hours ago, ianman said:

Barely acceptable 1/125th? You could gain 1 or maybe 2 stops right there.

Not sure what you mean here. Do you mean use 1/60 or or 1/30th with gyrating guitarists or dancers - seriously?

I use high shutter speeds for subject motion, not camera shake. And yes, I find 1/125 barely acceptable (often totally unacceptable) - 1/500th is preferable - 1/2000th would be nice .

There is nothing wrong with "creative motion blur" pictures - but I want them to be my choice, not forced on me just because the light is low or the lens is slow. The funny thing about an f/1.4 lens or a camera offering ISO 20000 is that one can use them at f/2 or f/11, or ISO 200, if desired.

As to the woman in the alley - yes, there was other light out there. But she wasn't standing in it. I'm photographing moments as they exist, not dragging my subjects around to pose them in the brightest light.

There's an old story about that: Cop walking his beat finds a drunk crawling around under a street light. "What are you doing, sir?" he asks. "Looking for my wallet," says the drunk. The cop helps him look for 5 minutes with no luck. Finally the cop asks, "Are you sure you lost your wallet here?" "Oh no," says the drunk, "I lost it over there in that alley." "Then why are you looking for it out here?!" saks the officer. "Because the light's better," replies the drunk.

I prefer to avoid the logic of drunks.

Yes, we once lived with ISO 400 and f/2 lenses. We also once lived with cars that got 13 mpg, and when cancer was an inescapable death sentence within weeks or months. Fortunately, things improve and we escape the chains of the past.

Photography is not a 3rd-Form sonnet competition, where one has to stay within a antique format. It is free verse, with no limits except effective expression.

Anyway - it's First Friday (and Dia de los Muertos). Gotta go cook up a couple of gallons of (vegan) Tamal en Cazuela for my fellow artists to eat at the gallery....

[Daniel C.1975]

Hi,

 

for me it's the Summilux. And that's why:

I've started with the mighty 1.4 35 Distagon, which optically is a great lens. A bit on the contrasty side, but optically really, really good - ah forgot: Also on the largish side. So I've used it for just over two years, but finally got nerved from a) the size and protrusion in the VF, b) the a bit over damped focus ring c) the third stop aperture. 

 

So I've decided to move to a Summicron because a) it is praised and above all critics, b) is quiet small and c) f2 should be good enough. I've bought a new one with the new hood design.

I am somebody who nearly never uses the front lens cap, but always use the lens hood. And the lens hood of the new summicron is doubling the size of the lens and is making it nearly as long as the Summilux. 

But that was not my problem: Compared to the Distagon the Summicron was in the range up to 2.5m noticeable softer than the Distagon and showed, at the same aperture, a noticeable deeper depth of field - I assume the reason is the different focusing mechanism (floating vs. non-floating). I've made several comparisons, used the lens for roughly two weeks, but was not able to get on loving terms with it. And as 35mm is for me the most important focal length, I was not very happy. Don't get me wrong -the Summicron is a very, very good lens. But in the for me very important nearer focus range and compared to the Distagon it just made me not happy.

So I went back to the Leica dealer and he checked the Summicron and was so friendly to take it back for my purchasing price and changed it to a nicely silver Summilux FLE - of course for a "little" cashing up ... 

 

And with the Summilux I couldn't be happier! The size is just ok, the lens hood makes sense and is not beefing up the lens like an oversized jockstrap - as the Summicron one does.

Sharpness from 1.4 onwards is perfectly fine and the contrast is ever so slightly lower than the Distagon, which gives a way more pleasing result on colors. 

And as far as I can tell it is definitely sharper than the Summicron, especially in the larger aperture range and near focus area. 

 

I know that not everyone might agree with my findings, but that's how I experienced it - and I really wanted to come in terms with the Summicron, but couldn't. In addition I see it as a valuable difference when I can use Iso3200 over 6400 - if the more narrow depth of field still works

 

Cheers

Daniel

 

And one simple picture from todays walk with the dogs F1.4, of course. ... nothing special, but I like it

 

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 November 1, 2019 by Daniel C.1975

[ropo54]

Great shot.  Almost looks medium format!  

[ianman]

48 minutes ago, adan said:

Not sure what you mean here. Do you mean use 1/60 or or 1/30th with gyrating guitarists or dancers - seriously?

Yes, I meant exactly that, well done.

Of course, I missed all the gyrating guitarists and dancers in the photo you posted... I must be blind.

14 hours ago, adan said:

This shot was with the M10 and 35 Summicron ASPH at f/2 - required ISO 16000 (definite shadow banding - had to clip the shadows hard to hide it) at a barely acceptable 1/125th sec. (car racing includes a lot of movement - fortunately this couple was static).

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!

 

[albertospa]

3 hours ago, otto.f said:

Still, a Summicron that has a fine contrast at 2.0 may be better for low light than a Summilux that reaches that contrast only at 3.4. And in the 60-70’s that was rather rule than exception with Summiluxes. 

I use the Summicron 35 IV and the Summilux 50 II. I can say that the Summilux at f 1.4 already has a very high contrast like the summicron. I also have a Summicron 50 but the Summilux is always better in low light.

[otto.f]

8 hours ago, albertospa said:

I use the Summicron 35 IV and the Summilux 50 II. I can say that the Summilux at f 1.4 already has a very high contrast like the summicron. I also have a Summicron 50 but the Summilux is always better in low light.

Ok, and when you compare within same focal length?

[adan]

11 hours ago, ianman said:

Of course, I missed all the gyrating guitarists and dancers in the photo you posted... I must be blind.

Photos. I did post two images (well four, but three grouped together). Dancers and guitarists now emphasized, since you missed them.

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!

Anyway, the OP now has a variety of opinions and samples to work from. He can decide how "deep into the dark" he wants to go for himself .

 

[ianman]

On 11/1/2019 at 4:59 AM, adan said:

This shot was with the M10 and 35 Summicron ASPH at f/2 - required ISO 16000 (definite shadow banding - had to clip the shadows hard to hide it) at a barely acceptable 1/125th sec

"This shot" now emphasized sinced you forgot what you wrote.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[ianman]

The Gyrating Guitarists project, impossible to capture under ISO 16000 and 1/500th (minimum)

All M9, ISO 640 - 800 @ 1/125 - 1/180

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]

Ian, go ahead and do your thing.

#5 is pretty interesting - nice to have seven spotlights just within the frame (how many more were there?).

Me - I want to be able to capture faces, preferably sharp, even in venues where the total stage lighting wattage is limited to low three-figures. Assuming there are stage lights at all.

Amazing the hugs and kisses I get from the jazz and alt-rock performers in grungy venues - they can't believe how good they look.

Single 200-watt flood at 25 feet (same as previous stage shot), plus ambient spill. Ev 2.6, ISO 10000, 1/350 (fortunately not much movement), 75mm at f/1.4.

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!