35mm Summilux ASPHERICAL (AA) Sample images

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

4 minutes ago, Nowhereman said:

The AA was produced in 1990-94, but I don't know where those years fit in terms of Leica's management travails.

This was a period that the company was declining and they were (not very successfully) trying to regain their position. This led not only to corporate maneuvering (Hermes , for instance) but also to a number of money pits, including this lens, but also the R8/R9 project which ultimately killed off the R series, the delay in adopting digital, an enormous number of "special edition" M6 variants, etc. All of which led to the successful reform at the end of first decade of this century.

[pgk]

20 minutes ago, Nowhereman said:

I would reverse the question above and ask, why did Leica produce the AA with such an expensive process of hand grinding two aspherical surfaces, with the high risk of sample vacation as @jaapv points out?

Almost certainly because they could equal or better its performance and ensure higher production consistency by using a later design with just a single molded aspheric surface. And potentially at a reduced production cost I would guess. The shift from two to one aspheric surface will have some effect on the images but we are talking about very good lenses here so anything will be nuance.

As far as I can gather from a lens designer friend, there are two parameters which influence lens designs. First is performance which today is exceptionally good and increases in lens performance are becomming increasingly difficult to either demonstrate or sell. Or secondly, reduced production cost. Leica's recent 'apo' lenses illustrate how increased performance is now about showing that exceptional lenses can be made rather than actually producing something which has clear and obvious benefits to the photographer. The alternative is to reduce the production cost but this is unlikely to be possible with Leica's M lenses because their mechanics and tolerances are necessarily high cost in terms of QC checks.

[epand56]

23 hours ago, Steven said:

Your "poor cheap" lens is my favorite Leica lens.

Steven mine also. They will have to take it from my cold dead hand.

[epand56]

23 hours ago, Steven said:

Compressed, edited, forum pictures won't let you see that. you need to see it with your own eyes. But I guess you won't

Steven, a great part of the best pictures taken in the history of photography are often blurred, unfocused, taken with normal lenses, sometimes in very hard conditions. I think the "magic" in a picture is due to genius, chance, luck, subject, moment and skill of the photographer. It is never that little extra something that a lens can give you over another one. 

[adan]

A little historical clarity.

In 1979-81 Dr. Walter Mandler at Leitz Canada updated most of the M lens line (21 Elmarit, 28 v.3, 35 v.4, 50 'cron v.4, introduced 75m Summilux, 90mm 'cron v.3 "compact").

The 35mm Summilux-M is notable by its absence from that upgrade program. And as has been noted by many, was pretty much at the technical limits of what a compact double-gauss 35mm f/1.4 could acheive by any means. Even Dr. Mandler could not have improved on it.

After that, no new M lenses were designed for almost a decade - Leica was focusing on the R system. And Dr. Mandler retired.

By 1990, many SLR systems (including Leica R) had introduced excellent (but generally bulky - 60-72mm filter diameters) 35mm f/1.4 designs.

Canon as a part of creating the AF "EOS" system - Canon EF f/1.4L USM version I (1987-1990-ish): https://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/ef-35mm-f-14l-usm

Zeiss Distagon 35mm f/1.4 (1974!) - https://www.grainlab.com/en/carl-zeiss-distagon-t-35mm-f-1-4.html

Leica 35mm Summilux-R (1984)

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!

.......

In 1990, the 35mm Summilux-M was 40 years old, and showing its age, especially at f/1.4, and compared to the new competition.

So the new chief of lens design at Leica Solms, Dr. Lothar Kölsch, delegated designer Walter Watz to start over from scratch. (Although, if one studies the glass assembly of the 35mm f/1.4 Aspherical or ASPHs closely, there is still a 7-element double-gauss lens hiding inside, with 8th and 9th large double-concave ")(" elements attached, front and back.)

Aspheric surfaces were the other innovation in the design. In 1990, for the Aspherical, there was no option yet for press-molded glass aspherics, so they still had to be ground by hand. With a high error rate. By 1994 Leica and Hoya had jointly developed an "optical-grade" technique for molding aspheric glass, so the money-losing Aspheric was re-calculated as the ASPH, with one molded surface, and a slight trade-off in center resolution for better corner resolution.

........................................

The Leica-Hermès involvement was substantially later than that - 2000 to 2006 (at which point, Dr. Kaufmann bought out Hermès' stake). No connection at all to the design of the Aspherical/ASPH 35s, 6-9 years earlier.

Not that Leitz/Leica have not often been on - interesting - financial ground, once the professional SLR tsunami began to roll in, 1960-1970.

- commercial failure disappointment of the M5 - 1971-1975
- proposed abandonment of the entire M line in 1976, reversed 1977, with M production moved to ELCAN (Ernst Leitz Canada).
- sale of original Leitz Wetzlar factory, and move to new factory in suburban Solms. Company rebranded as Leica GMBH - 1986
- merger with Wild-Heerbrugg (Wild-Leica), 1987
- sale of ELCAN factory to Hughes Aerospace (now part of Raytheon - still operating) - 1991
- management buy-out of the camera/sports-optics division - 1994-1996
- separation from Leica Microsystems (microscopes/medical/scientific) and Leica Geosystems (surveying gear) divisions - 1996-1998. Leica brand-name and red-dot trademark licensed from Leica Microsystems.
- IPO on the Boerse-Frankfurt exchange to raise cash (partially by selling the Ein Stück Leica ("A piece of Leica") limited-edition M6 - with a stock share included ) - 1996
https://www.cameraquest.com/LM6Ein.htm
- Sale of 36% of Leica Camera GMBH to Hermès, to raise even more cash, and reposition as a "high-end fashion statement." - 2000*
- assets < debt, cash on hand reduced to ~6 months survival. Insolvency warning notice filed with German authorities - 2004
- Dr. Andreas Kaufmann''s Lisa Germany Holdings GMBH acquires 55% of Leica - 2004. Kaufmann fires CEO and other officers. Brings in "turn-around expert" Dr. Josef Spichtig as CEO for 18 months.
- Lisa Germany Holdings GMBH buys out Hermés' 36% stake. Leica M8 digital introduced - 2006
- Leica R-System discontinued (film SLRs and DMR digital back) - 2009
- sale of 44% ownership to The Blackstone Group - 2011-2012
- final squeeze-out of (forced sale by) small shareholders, and delisting from Frankfurt stock exchange - 2012
- The Blackstone Group puts its stake in Leica (now 45%) up for sale - 2017-18. No update on that.

.........................

*https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB974726818477701712

Edited April 24, 2021 by adan

[jaapv]

1 hour ago, adan said:

A little historical clarity.

In 1979-81 Dr. Walter Mandler at Leitz Canada updated most of the M lens line (21 Elmarit, 28 v.3, 35 v.4, 50 'cron v.4, introduced 75m Summilux, 90mm 'cron v.3 "compact").

The 35mm Summilux-M is notable by its absence from that upgrade program. And as has been noted by many, was pretty much at the technical limits of what a compact double-gauss 35mm f/1.4 could acheive by any means. Even Dr. Mandler could not have improved on it.

After that, no new M lenses were designed for almost a decade - Leica was focusing on the R system. And Dr. Mandler retired.

By 1990, many SLR systems (including Leica R) had introduced excellent (but generally bulky - 60-72mm filter diameters) 35mm f/1.4 designs.

Canon as a part of creating the AF "EOS" system - Canon EF f/1.4L USM version I (1987-1990-ish): https://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/ef-35mm-f-14l-usm

Zeiss Distagon 35mm f/1.4 (1974!) - https://www.grainlab.com/en/carl-zeiss-distagon-t-35mm-f-1-4.html

Leica 35mm Summilux-R (1984)

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!

.......

In 1990, the 35mm Summilux-M was 40 years old, and showing its age, especially at f/1.4, and compared to the new competition.

So the new chief of lens design at Leica Solms, Dr. Lothar Kölsch, delegated designer Walter Watz to start over from scratch. (Although, if one studies the glass assembly of the 35mm f/1.4 Aspherical or ASPHs closely, there is still a 7-element double-gauss lens hiding inside, with 8th and 9th large double-concave ")(" elements attached, front and back.)

Aspheric surfaces were the other innovation in the design. In 1990, for the Aspherical, there was no option yet for press-molded glass aspherics, so they still had to be ground by hand. With a high error rate. By 1994 Leica and Hoya had jointly developed an "optical-grade" technique for molding aspheric glass, so the money-losing Aspheric was re-calculated as the ASPH, with one molded surface, and a slight trade-off in center resolution for better corner resolution.

........................................

The Leica-Hermès involvement was substantially later than that - 2000 to 2006 (at which point, Dr. Kaufmann bought out Hermès' stake). No connection at all to the design of the Aspherical/ASPH 35s, 6-9 years earlier.

Not that Leitz/Leica have not often been on - interesting - financial ground, once the professional SLR tsunami began to roll in, 1960-1970.

- commercial failure disappointment of the M5 - 1971-1975
- proposed abandonment of the entire M line in 1976, reversed 1977, with M production moved to ELCAN (Ernst Leitz Canada).
- sale of original Leitz Wetzlar factory, and move to new factory in suburban Solms. Company rebranded as Leica GMBH - 1986
- merger with Wild-Heerbrugg (Wild-Leica), 1987
- sale of ELCAN factory to Hughes Aerospace (now part of Raytheon - still operating) - 1991
- management buy-out of the camera/sports-optics division - 1994-1996
- separation from Leica Microsystems (microscopes/medical/scientific) and Leica Geosystems (surveying gear) divisions - 1996-1998. Leica brand-name and red-dot trademark licensed from Leica Microsystems.
- IPO on the Boerse-Frankfurt exchange to raise cash (partially by selling the Ein Stück Leica ("A piece of Leica") limited-edition M6 - with a stock share included ) - 1996
https://www.cameraquest.com/LM6Ein.htm
- Sale of 36% of Leica Camera GMBH to Hermès, to raise even more cash, and reposition as a "high-end fashion statement." - 2000*
- assets < debt, cash on hand reduced to ~6 months survival. Insolvency warning notice filed with German authorities - 2004
- Dr. Andreas Kaufmann''s Lisa Germany Holdings GMBH acquires 55% of Leica - 2004. Kaufmann fires CEO and other officers. Brings in "turn-around expert" Dr. Josef Spichtig as CEO for 18 months.
- Lisa Germany Holdings GMBH buys out Hermés' 36% stake. Leica M8 digital introduced - 2006
- Leica R-System discontinued (film SLRs and DMR digital back) - 2009
- sale of 44% ownership to The Blackstone Group - 2011-2012
- final squeeze-out of (forced sale by) small shareholders, and delisting from Frankfurt stock exchange - 2012
- The Blackstone Group puts its stake in Leica (now 45%) up for sale - 2017-18. No update on that.

.........................

*https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB974726818477701712

I was not talking about a specific year, but about a period. The final decline of Leica lasted from, say, the late 1980ies to about 2006/7.  I vividly recall visiting the factory in Solms in 2007 - Leica was technically bankrupt, the staff was completely dispirited, there was no money for brochures, so the stands were empty, there was very little visible activity, it was really a depressed atmosphere. Dr. Kaufmann wrought a small miracle.

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, Steven said:

After using my AA for 1 week exclusively on my M10R, I found myself missing the rendering of my pre FLE. I just got home and did a couple side my side to try to figure out what I was missing. It turns out that the performance of the AA is much better than the pre FLE. The pre FLE has smudgy corners, a little bit like the cron v4. And this is what I like. This kind of imperfect vignette that gives a little bit of mood to the shots. 

The advantage of the AA is that it is sharper, and gentler. For portraits, it really is a beauty. But I also love the pre FLE that has less than perfect corners, and it somehow draws you to the center of the photo. 

I also take photos only for myself.

In terms of lenses, particularly for the M system as the choice is so vast, I don’t do comparative tests as they are a pain and they tell me little of interest.  I let others do that for me.  Worse, I jump to the conclusion of most reports.  Sounds lazy, and probably is.  I work out the focal lengths I want, read the reviews, look at comparative images and then buy the lens I like the look of.  Then I move on.

Sometimes I dislike a lens, and sell it - 28 Summicron ASPH version 1 (not sure this made the transition to digital very well), 35 Summicron ASPH, first version (boring - perhaps reflecting my dislike of 35 focal length), 35 Summilux FLE (had two copies, never gelled with it), APO 75 Summicron ASPH (didn’t live up to expectations, and focus hit and miss), and APO 90 Summicron ASPH (I prefer 75 focal length).  That left me with a modest collection of 9 M lenses I like, and use, between 21mm and 75mm, mostly modern but with a couple of older designs.

I agree with you that how you feel about a lens affects how you use it, and that impacts hugely on your pleasure in the results.  That’s a good thing, as small variations can play a significant part in how you use a lens.  But, I don’t believe in magic.

More fool me, but I can only very rarely look at an image, in isolation, and say - oh, that was taken with X lens.  Sorry, but with rare exceptions, I doubt anyone can do this reliably. First, the quality of the image (light, composition, luck); second, post processing (a lot can happen).  I can usually, easily differentiate differences between lenses when the same image, in controlled conditions are pixel peeped side by side (see Sean Reid) - that has little to do with photography, in my view.

None of the push back you see in this thread is personal.  Your enthusiasm, and tolerance of cost, is admirable; but many of us have witnessed this excitement in the past; we’ve owned a few lenses and taken a few photos ourselves.  The 35 Summilux Aspherical has filled a few pages here over the years.  For myself, any “magic” in any photo in this thread is from subject, light, composition and luck.  And, no I do not believe that anyone could look at any photo I have taken in isolation and tell me it was taken with the 35 AA.  Most couldn’t say with certainty what the focal length was.

None of this should detract from the pleasure this lens gives you.  But magic belongs to Harry Potter, and is best left there.

[IkarusJohn]

Ultimately, my comment is that I almost never, ever look at an image and give a thought to the camera or lens that captured it.

[Knipsknecht]

vor 13 Stunden schrieb IkarusJohn:

Ultimately, my comment is that I almost never, ever look at an image and give a thought to the camera or lens that captured it.

... as well as I don’t mind the kitchen tools a cook is using when I visit a restaurant - as long as the food tastes good😉. But well, I am not a hobbyist cook. If I would be, maybe I would think differently😅.

Edited April 25, 2021 by Knipsknecht

[Guest Nowhereman]

25 minutes ago, Knipsknecht said:

... as well as I don’t mind the kitchen tools a cook is using when I visit a restaurant - as long as the food tastes good...

As @Steven implies, it's a matter of whether it's a cook or a chef.
_______________________________________
Frog Leaping photobook and Instagram

Edited April 25, 2021 by Nowhereman

[John Smith]

I thought this thread was about images by the 35mmAA. It's one thing to tell people. It's another to show them. I really haven't seen anything that would make me want a 35mmAA over the 35mmAPO.

Edited April 25, 2021 by John Smith

[01af]

vor einer Stunde schrieb John Smith:

I really haven't seen anything that would make me want a Summilux-M 35 mm Aspherical over the Apo-Summicron-M 35 mm Asph.

I haven't, either.

And I don't need to rely on other persons' pictures. I own the 35 mm M lenses in question (and more), and I can assess them on my own devices. Among the 35 mm Summilux lenses, the Aspherical and the Asph FLE behave almost like twins (with slightly softer global contrast in the Aspherical), and the Asph (non-FLE) is a pretty close second (except in terms of bokeh; here it's ahead). The notion that the renditions of the over-hyped Aspherical and the original spheric Summilux were similar (expressed elsewhere in this thread) is just ridiculous. As a matter of fact, the spheric Summilux on the one hand and the three aspheric Summiluxes (i. e. Aspherical, Asph, and Asph FLE) on the other hand are in two different leagues.

And the latest Apo-Summicron-M 35 mm Asph, in terms of detail rendition, bokeh, and flare resistance, is in a class of its own altogether.

[IkarusJohn]

No doubt, if 35mm was my thing, I’d be putting my name down for the new APO. 

[Steve Ash]

I think it might be the time to agree to disagree. How about sharing images instead?

Regards,

Steve

[pedaes]

1 hour ago, Steven said:

The compression is just too bad

Max file size 4.88MB? There are plenty of fine images on the Forum (not this thread)  showing the full range of effects so don't think that is a issue.

[ELAN]

Back to photos.  Here are some taken during the lockdown.

M10, 35AA @ f/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!

[ELAN]

M10, 35AA @ 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!

[ELAN]

M10, 35AA @ f/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!

[epand56]

On 4/24/2021 at 5:59 PM, Steven said:

do you see any focus shift on your pre fle ?

Apparently not. It's very sharp and where I want it to be. I had it 6bit coded years ago at Kamera Service by Will van Manen. According with the SN it's a 2000 sample.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[insideline]

10 hours ago, Steven said:

Personally, I’ve given up on sharing images here. The compression is just too bad. As an example, the subtle highlight glow of the AA I mention completely disappear when I post here. As if it wasn’t enough, since a couple weeks, my uploads to the forum become over saturated. What’s the point of posting photos that look nothing like what the lens renders, for people to end up saying the lens is nothing special .... 

 

as for agreeing to disagree, can’t do that yet. If I agree, I essentially admit that everything I said before was a lie. Same of Elan, same for Insideline, and same for the others that also tried the AA and the FLE, and saw a difference worth keeping the AA. 
the only thing I can agree with at this point is that some people’s eyes are sensitive to different lenses subtleties, and some aren’t. Which is fine. But those who aren’t can’t call those who are the crazy ones 🤷🏻‍♂️ 

Thank you Steven: As I have previously shared I have owned my 2 copies of the AA Double Aspherical since I purchased them new in 1991 but I have not owned the Pre-Fle Asph to compare yet I have owned two copies of the FLE, first when the lens was first released and then again just recently. I performed back to back shots with both lenses in many different situations and settings and the biggest differences between the AA and the FLE, and why I could not ever gel with the FLE is its out of focus rendering as in my eyes it is jittery and has an uncertain pattern to it, whereas the AA possesses a smooth and more artistic look, and these characteristics were the same on both copies of the FLE. The FLE however is a very sharp lens and also possesses quite nice contrast but I will not purchase a copy of it again.

I also "very" much like the 28 1.4 Summilux for many reasons which may keep me from buying any replacement 35mm lens, but as I also shared before the wonderful part of photography is we get to enjoy these cameras and lenses predominantly on our own and to our own pleasure, so to say that any of our opinions on preferences for these lenses is ridiculous feels like an insult against the personal element of photography. I say each to our own so lets keep it fun when sharing our preferences. 

Edited April 26, 2021 by insideline
grammer