In praise of the 35mm pre-FLE Summilux

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have realised that this is by far my most used lens (of any of the camera lenses that I own). As has been documented here on the LUF it has its problems however in practice I have to say I don't notice them. It has focus shift - dealt with on the FLE by the complexity of adding a rear moving element block to compensate for focus shift - but this is only at wider apertures, although not wide open. My copy is spot on wide open, and it doesn't seem to shift sufficiently, at wider apertures, to give me many problems - I can think of only a very few images taken at f/2-4 in which focus is not precisely where I wanted it to be - and these could just be due to operator error. Stopped down its fine too.

My pre-FLE effectively 'lives' on a camera body and is only removed when I do need to use a different focal length. I generally replace it as soon as I've taken shots with the other lens I've used. The odd thing is that I have never really thought about having a 'favourite' lens or focal length, but the 35mm on a Leica is really versatile in all sorts of situations. Of all my lenses its probably the most versatile - fast when I need it to be, superbly sharp and more than good enough for any situation I've encountered, and both small and light enough to balance well and compliment an M body. A cracking little lens - I was lucky and bought mine before prices became higher so all ways around its been a great investment. I can't see any reason to 'upgrade' it.

Edited March 1, 2020 by pgk
typo

[DwF]

Thanks for sharing your assessment here. I only spent about an hour with this pre-FLE as I saw one nearby for sale. The gentleman selling it agreed to meet at a coffee shop and was happy to let me have at it. My experience firing off many exposures that I brought home to look at on my computer, demonstrated to me that focus- shift issue was negligible at f2.8-4, and wide-open I was able to nail the focus. I didn't buy the lens because he was priced a bit high and it looked to need cleaning (dust toward rear element). I also felt that for the investment, I would still carry my 35mm Summicron more for size and handling. At some point if one of these pre-FLE Summilux' shows itself, I may pop for it.

David

[TheGodParticle/Hari]

Probably my favorite 35lux version as well. It’s cyan bias can be a bit annoying for skin tones, requiring a bit of color temperature correction. The balance of sharpness and out of focus area rendering is simply superb. The FLE is most likely the second favorite.  

 

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 March 1, 2020 by TheGodParticle/Hari

[TheGodParticle/Hari]

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]

(I guess we should clarify - do we mean pre-FLE, or pre-ASPH? Two very different animals. I'm assuming we mean ASPH-but-pre-FLE (i.e. ASPH v.1 - but not Aspherical), not the old Mandler pre-ASPH Summilux - which has its qualities, but is a no-go area for me - I need 0.7m close-focus. Period.)

This is probably as good a place as any to mention my own thoughts regarding focus shift in general.

I almost never experience focus shift (and did not with the 35 Summilux ASPH v.1), because I almost never use such a lens stopped down just a little. Either I need full aperture (for subject separation, or simply to get a higher shutter speed or lower ISO), or I want to stop down a lot for deep focus. f/2-f/2.8-f/4 with an f/1.4 lens are just pointless for me.

Especially with the f/1.4 quality of the Summilux ASPH. But also with 75 and 50 Summiluxes.

(I feel slightly differently about, say, the C/V 35 f/1.4 Nokton - but that is because for me it is an "f/2" lens, and I use it only at f/2 or at f/8 (or below), and I never notice its focus-shift either, since my copy happens to be RF-optimized for f/2. For me, it is a substitute for a Mandler Summicron, not a Summilux (ASPH, FLE, or otherwise)

Now, as it happens, I don't at the moment have a felt need for an f/1.4 35mm. f/2 handles my 35mm pictures, and I like the small size of the Voigtlander. .

If I did (and I may) the v.1 ASPH is the one I would get (again!). The absolute signature lens of the modern Leica era.

Edited March 2, 2020 by adan

[pgk]

Yes, the pre-FLE Aspheric Summilux lens is the one I use. Whilst I agree on the whole that its not a lens I use all that often only slightly stopped dow, I do on occasion do so and haven't found it causing problems. Focus shift must be there (or why would Leica update the design with a adjustable rear group? I can only guess that tolerance in the mechanics varies the focus shift and mine is at the 'sweet spot' of tolerances? FWIW I also have a pre-asherical lens (the Mandler design) and these two 35mm lenses really sum up the shift from conventional, optimised, spherical designs to modern, precise, aspherical designs. Mandlers were as good as it got with the glass types available when he designed lenses. Today's lenses have more choice in glass types and lens profiles (ashperical surfaces and this shows - but at the expenses of increased size. Mandlers 35mm Summilux was a gem - small, neat and complimented the film bodies beautifully. The aspherical designs are stunning performers and ergonomically excellent, but don't quite have the same crafted feel about them.

[padam]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Here is a recent take:

https://cosmotographer.com/2020/02/10/leica-summilux-m-35mm-f-1-4-asph-pre-fle/

I wish I could buy back mine, but then again, there are a lot of other options.

Edited March 2, 2020 by padam

[pgk]

I'm always fascinated by 'reviews' which are based on short term use of a lens. I've owned my pre-FLE for over 10 years and have shot 20~30k images using it. I'm now pretty comfortable with it and its use. In the past I wonder how many photographers were forever changing their gear? I suspect that lenses were kept longer as new designs took time to develop.

[evikne]

I have had the 35mm Summilux FLE, then 35mm Summicron pre-ASPH v.4 and most recently the 35mm Summilux pre-ASPH v.2. But now I've started to consider the FLE again, because I miss the 0.7m close focus and a lens that is actually usable wide open. But maybe I now should consider the pre-FLE instead. It seems to be a great middle ground between old and new that I haven't been really aware of, and maybe that's exactly what I'm looking for.

[CosmoM3]

1 hour ago, evikne said:

I have had the 35mm Summilux FLE, then 35mm Summicron pre-ASPH v.4 and most recently the 35mm Summilux pre-ASPH v.2. But now I've started to consider the FLE again, because I miss the 0.7m close focus and a lens that is actually usable wide open. But maybe I now should consider the pre-FLE instead. It seems to be a great middle ground between old and new that I haven't been really aware of, and maybe that's exactly what I'm looking for.

I've always thought that the Pre-FLE was quite useable wide open. It is quite a great lens! I wish I had the lens a little longer before I picked up the FLE for a more in-depth review.

[Stein K S]

I am also one of those being so happy with the pre-FLE! Dontˋ think I miss the FLE in any way... even if I never tested it 🤪

But I also like to think that the pre-FLE asph is closer to the famous AA... and my asking to you guys is if you have experiences (even if it has been debated before) With what the differences are between the two. I would like to believe that they are rather close how silly it might be.

[Stein K S]

Hi all

I got the feeling that my comment about the AA could have killed the continuation of this thread about this marvelous lens. And that would really be a shame. So I feel like making an attempt to rewamp this thread by stating my appraisal to this lens again as follows:

 

I find this 35 Lux pre-FLE to represent the absolute most versatile M lenses of all. First, to me 35mm is the obvious ¨one-to-go¨ lens. In addition this lens provides 1,4 in as small a package&size as they get. And on top this lens offers the most outstanding blend of sharpness and what I call neutral or transparent... not being too harsh. Add the very very nice bokeh... What else is there to wish for?

 

Now... if that do not bring up further pros & cons... 😉?

[evikne]

Except from the floating element, the new FLE model should be optically identical to the previous version. So how can it be that the pre-FLE shows a more gentle, Mandler-like rendering? Shouldn't the floating element only improve focus shift and close range performance? And how prominent is the difference in rendering between these two lenses? I haven't seen many direct comparisons. 

[01af]

Am 1.3.2020 um 13:50 schrieb pgk:

... focus shift — dealt with on the FLE by the complexity of adding a rear moving-element block to compensate for focus shift ...

That's a common misconception about floating elements. They don't compensate for aperture-related focus shift. Instead, they reduce spherical aberration at focus distances shorter than infinity. Indirectly, this also reduces aperture-related focus shift which is caused by spherical aberration.

The strong point of the non-FLE Summilux-M 35 mm Asph is the exceptionally fine bokeh. As far as I can tell, it's nicer than the FLE's and also nicer than the Aspherical's.

[easy_action]

4 hours ago, evikne said:

Except from the floating element, the new FLE model should be optically identical to the previous version.

I once owned both versions for a time, and the coating(s) on the front elements were very clearly different colours.

I wonder if this may also be responsible for perceived image differences between the two?

[lct]

5 hours ago, evikne said:

Except from the floating element, the new FLE model should be optically identical to the previous version. So how can it be that the pre-FLE shows a more gentle, Mandler-like rendering?

It did not in my admittedly short experience with the pre-FLE and i did not find any significant difference in OoF rendition either but i may be wrong.

[pgk]

On 3/13/2020 at 6:50 PM, 01af said:

That's a common misconception about floating elements. They don't compensate for aperture-related focus shift. Instead, they reduce spherical aberration at focus distances shorter than infinity. Indirectly, this also reduces aperture-related focus shift which is caused by spherical aberration.

I didn't check when I typed this, but I seem to remember that the two lenses (pre-FLE and FLE) are very similar except for the floating rear element which, as you correctly state, is  mechanical/optical solution usually used to improve close range performance. But, as you also state, this has the indirect effect of reducing the focus shift which was the complaint about the pre-FLE. So my guess is that it was a simple and quite effective fix .....

[TheGodParticle/Hari]

32 minutes ago, Steven said:

If the AA heard you ! How dare you ! 

It’s still the same family 😅 😁

[CHP]

On 3/13/2020 at 2:49 PM, evikne said:

Except from the floating element, the new FLE model should be optically identical to the previous version. So how can it be that the pre-FLE shows a more gentle, Mandler-like rendering? Shouldn't the floating element only improve focus shift and close range performance? And how prominent is the difference in rendering between these two lenses? I haven't seen many direct comparisons. 

Have you found an explanation?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[evikne]

1 hour ago, CHP said:

Have you found an explanation?

I'm afraid not. I think I read something once that explained it a bit, but I've forgotten what and where. I still think there is quite a big difference between these two lenses, which must be due to something.