35mm Summilux ASPHERICAL (AA) Sample images

[frame-it]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 3/21/2021 at 2:55 AM, JMF said:

Hello, 

a couple more shots taken with the 35 AA on the M9M 🙂

 

 

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!

 

 

 

 

Best, Jean-Marc

very nice..feels more organic on the M9 Sensor

[Guest JMF]

11 minutes ago, frame-it said:

very nice..feels more organic on the M9 Sensor

35 AA on the M9:

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!

 

[Wonzo]

Is there anyone willing to sell his AA to me for a reasonable price ? 😅

[dkmoore]

6 hours ago, Wonzo said:

Is there anyone willing to sell his AA to me for a reasonable price ? 😅

+1. I’ll take one for a not so reasonable price. 🤣

[fotografr]

2 hours ago, dkmoore said:

+1. I’ll take one for a not so reasonable price. 🤣

Leica have recently redefined "reasonable." 

[AndreasG]

If I bought such a lens at a "reasonable" price, my wife requested almost instantly a reasonably priced handbag - Hermes, Chanel.....

[fotografr]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 3/18/2021 at 1:25 PM, ELAN said:

This photo with B+W ND3 F-Pro. I prefer the MRC-Nano but can’t find mine.  In general I dislike ND filters because they vignette and alter the colors. My #1 wish for the M11 is 1/8000 shutter speed and 50 base ISO so ND filters are no longer required for f/1.4 in daylight.

You might check out the Breakthrough Technology ND filters. They do not seem to alter the colors at all.

[insideline]

2 hours ago, fotografr said:

You might check out the Breakthrough Technology ND filters. They do not seem to alter the colors at all.

Completely agree Brent these are the only filters I use now. 

[ELAN]

2 hours ago, fotografr said:

You might check out the Breakthrough Technology ND filters. They do not seem to alter the colors at all.

Thanks.  I have some Breakthrough filters, and while they are certainly better than the other brands, I find they still alter the colors slightly.

I use ND filters less and less in recent years, not only because of skewed colors and excess vignetting wide open, but because I find it cumbersome to mount and unmount NDs as I move between the outdoors and indoors.  Peter Karbe keeps advising us to use his fabulous lenses wide open, well, perhaps he can persuade Leica to build an M that can actually shoot his lenses wide open without hobbling them with ND filters.

[RMF]

I’ve recently have gone with Breakthrough ND’s as well. The one thing to note is that the outside diameter of their filters have knurling around the outside rim of the filter which can cause issues fitting lens hood over them; as an example I’m unable to fit the OEM lens hood of my 28 lux over my Breakthrough ND filter when screwed into the front of the lens.

 

[epand56]

I observed very attentively the pictures of this post and this confirmed to me the huge craziness of this Leica world. I can't see any difference between this lens and my poor, cheap Summilux 35/1.4 Asph. Of course not at all those 20,000 k of quality difference or "magic" (as someone call it). Any of this pictures looks like if it was taken with my poor cheap lens. I understand that it's rare, then i suppose its 25,000 k difference in value is due to this. To me all the rest, "more magic", "no focus shift" and so on are just craps. I mean: a semi-auto Colt M1911A1 USGI of the US Army of the WWII period is worth around 2,500 dollars. The M1911/A1 "Transition" model, quite rare because made in very few samples, is worth over 10,000. But it shoots the same way the other does. So, if you want a gun for shooting, buy the first, if you want one for collection buy the second. The same is with this lens, to me. 

Edited April 23, 2021 by epand56

[Ko.Fe.]

24 minutes ago, epand56 said:

I observed very attentively the pictures of this post and this confirmed to me the huge craziness of this Leica world. I can't see any difference between this lens and my poor, cheap Summilux 35/1.4 Asph. Of course not at all those 20,000 k of quality difference or "magic" (as someone call it). Any of this pictures looks like if it was taken with my poor cheap lens. I understand that it's rare, then i suppose its 25,000 k difference in value is due to this. To me all the rest, "more magic", "no focus shift" and so on are just craps. I mean: a semi-auto Colt M1911A1 USGI of the US Army of the WWII period is worth around 2,500 dollars. The M1911/A1 "Transition" model, quite rare because made in very few samples, is worth over 10,000. But it shoots the same way the other does. So, if you want a gun for shooting, buy the first, if you want one for collection buy the second. The same is with this lens, to me. 

I just went trough five pages here. Very good thread. Will give it highest rating. After seen it I'm still convinced about my 35 1.4 and 35 2.5 been more practical combo. Film and digital.

[pgk]

37 minutes ago, epand56 said:

I observed very attentively the pictures of this post and this confirmed to me the huge craziness of this Leica world. I can't see any difference between this lens and my poor, cheap Summilux 35/1.4 Asph. Of course not at all those 20,000 k of quality difference or "magic" (as someone call it). Any of this pictures looks like if it was taken with my poor cheap lens. I understand that it's rare, then i suppose its 25,000 k difference in value is due to this. To me all the rest, "more magic", "no focus shift" and so on are just craps. I mean: a semi-auto Colt M1911A1 USGI of the US Army of the WWII period is worth around 2,500 dollars. The M1911/A1 "Transition" model, quite rare because made in very few samples, is worth over 10,000. But it shoots the same way the other does. So, if you want a gun for shooting, buy the first, if you want one for collection buy the second. The same is with this lens, to me. 

Quote from Ermin Puts: "

The current Summilux-M ASPH from 1994 (with one aspherical surface) has been preceded by the Summilux-M Aspherical with two aspherical surfaces (from 1990).

The performance of this first version is almost identical to the second ver- sion. The MTF graphs show small dif- ferences that should not be studied too closely. In the center the first version shows slightly higher contrast, but in the field the second version has an ad- vantage. I doubt if these theoretical differences are perceptible."

You also have to ask why Leica decided to change the design from a lens with 2 aspheric surfaces to another with 1? Cost? Well, yes but also because they came upwith another good design with advantages. I'm not belittling the AA I just think that the differences will be, as Puts says, virtually imperceptible. Its rarity causes the high value placed on it.

[roelandinho]

15 minutes ago, pgk said:You also have to ask why Leica decided to change the design from a lens with 2 aspheric surfaces to another with 1? Cost? Well, yes but also because they came upwith another good design with advantages. I'm not belittling the AA I just think that the differences will be, as Puts says, virtually imperceptible. Its rarity causes the high value placed on it.

I’m thinking the two hand ground aspheric surfaces are difficult to produce and would lead to a large sample variation. The newer design is a lot more efficient to produce with about equal image quality. 

[UliWer]

12 minutes ago, Steven said:

Say what you want about...

...metaphysics of lenses. 

It's just glass, optics and physics. Keep it simple.  It doesn't change the world, or the light which falls on the world nor does it change the eye or the brain of the person who takes the photo.

 

[Guest Nowhereman]

5 hours ago, pgk said:

Quote from Ermin Puts: "

...The MTF graphs show small dif- ferences that should not be studied too closely. In the center the first version shows slightly higher contrast, but in the field the second version has an ad- vantage. I doubt if these theoretical differences are perceptible."

...I'm not belittling the AA I just think that the differences will be, as Puts says, virtually imperceptible. Its rarity causes the high value placed on it.

Erwin Puts generally judged lenses on their technical aspects. For example, years ago, there was a long discussion and between a writer in the LHSA magazine on the Summicron 50 v3 and v4 (if I recall correctly) versus the DR Summicron, which tested less well on quantifiable aspects but whose rendition the LHSA guy preferred, and which I favor as well.

From the images that @Steven has posted, the differences between the AA  and the pre-FLE don't look minor for someone interested at the rendition at f/1.4 and with backlight and strong sidelight, under which conditions I find the FLE (i.e., the current Summilux) particularly unappealing.
_______________________________________
Frog Leaping photobook and Instagram

Edited April 23, 2021 by Nowhereman

[Casey Jefferson]

Don't knock it until you try it 🙂

If you think you don't need it, it's fine, but to shove your opinions down the throats of other who has way more credibility, is at times ridiculous.

As a human being, I just want to applaude to anyone who find happiness in life, even more to those who also bring happiness to others too.

Cheers

[pgk]

11 hours ago, Nowhereman said:

Erwin Puts generally judged lenses on their technical aspects. For example, years ago, there was a long discussion and between a writer in the LHSA magazine on the Summicron 50 v3 and v4 (if I recall correctly) versus the DR Summicron, which tested less well on quantifiable aspects but whose rendition the LHSA guy preferred, and which I favor as well.

From the images that @Steven has posted, the differences between the AA  and the pre-FLE don't look minor for someone interested at the rendition at f/1.4 and with backlight and strong sidelight, under which conditions I find the FLE (i.e., the current Summilux) particularly unappealing.
_______________________________________
Frog Leaping photobook and Instagram

As I said, the rarity value has priced this lens accordingly. Do I see any significant difference in images (even under conditions which accentuate them) worth paying so much for? No. I have no problem with people's preferences, but whenever I see words like 'magic' applied to nuances I am very wary of the reality. Again I ask, why did Leica change a succesful design when molded aspheric elements were becoming cheaper? I have the original spherical design Summilux and a pre-FLE. Both work surprisingly well much of the time with the most significant differences being quite obvious wide open. Even so most viewers (even fairly image savvy types) would struggle to tell us exactly what those differences are I'm afraid (I have been known to ask!). The most image savvy person I know does occasionally ask me which lens has been used, but then he deals with cinematography and is well into nuance. FWIW I do find Puts to have been very accurate in his statements about lens characteristics. Enjoy your lenses.

[jaapv]

16 hours ago, roelandinho said:

I’m thinking the two hand ground aspheric surfaces are difficult to produce and would lead to a large sample variation. The newer design is a lot more efficient to produce with about equal image quality. 

The limitation of sample variation was exactly the reason that this lens was  so expensive and rare, and had only a short production run.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Guest Nowhereman]

1 hour ago, pgk said:

As I said, the rarity value has priced this lens accordingly...Again I ask, why did Leica change a succesful design when molded aspheric elements were becoming cheaper?...

Of course the AA price reflects its rarity rather than its quality, and I would not buy it at its current price. However, 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, and with the high risk of sample variation as @jaapv points out? I would guess its because it was at one of the times the company was production-driven rather than marketing-driven. The AA was produced in 1990-94, but I don't know where those years fit in terms of Leica's management travails.

My own issue is a narrow one with the current FLE itself in that I often find the bokeh unpleasant at f/1.4 when shot into the light or with strong sidelight, such as when focused into for an environmental portrait at about 1-2 meters. I bought the lens, used in mint condition, in Paris for $2,400 equivalent, ex-VAT, at a time when the exchange rate was favorable to the dollar. If I sell it not sure what I would get, if anything, My other 35 is the Summciron 35v4.
_______________________________________
Frog Leaping photobook and Instagram

Edited April 24, 2021 by Nowhereman