Tell me about the 35 Lux AA ?

[Steven]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

12 minutes ago, mmradman said:

Have you considered Blurb, you can order one [1] book, it doesnt cost more per copy than ordering 200.

I have used it twice for friend wedings, first i would order one test copy to ensire it looked as expected and than followed by addtional copies.

looks excellent, and they deliver to france thanks. 

[John Robinson]

2 hours ago, Steven said:

Personally, I’m looking into creating a nice coffee table book with all my memories. I don’t think the home printer will help with that, and every decent website I’ve found so far has a minimum order or 200. 

[....]
 

I have used WhiteWall to make photo books (any quantity from 1).  Also do excellent exhibition-quality prints.  https://www.whitewall.com/eu Based in Berlin I think.

[Advertisement]

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

[Guest Nowhereman]

@Steven - One can write reams of pages on making prints and also on making books. Bottom line on printing for me is that it  depends on what you're after because making prints is a very different skill from making photographs. One can be a great photographer but a lousy printer. On the other hand, a great way to start learning photography is to take a B&W darkroom printing course, because it teaches you to appreciate what is a good print, within a fairly narrow framework — you're beyond that, unless you wanted to do it for fun. Still, I'm not interested in having hundreds of boxes of tiny prints, or even A3+ prints. I have enjoyed making 100 x 150 cm prints for an exhibition some years ago. I'd rather have books, though I may get back to making huge prints one day.

As for making books, that's also huge subjects. You can make one-off (or a few copies) of hand-crafted books, which can be a great satisfaction if you have that inclination. Otherwise, you can have books printed on-demand (Blurb-type books) that are printed on digital printers like the HP Indigo, which is the one most used in this industry. The quality of such books varies — the difficulty of the HP Indigo is to keep it in calibration when making a print run. In any case, whatever people say, it generally doesn't match the quality of offset printing — the quality that you would want for a coffee table book. The minimum economic run for offset printing is usually 200 books, and costs per book go down steeply for 500 and 1,000 books. Now, the printing industry is continuing to change under the impact of digital technology — and, eventually, there will be the same quality achieved by on-demand digital printing that we have with offset: but we aren't there yet.

Also, making books can be done by an individual, or it can be done, like cinema production, in a team. I started off by wanting to make a book myself, but ended up with a team that included a designer, a hand book binder, a lithographer and a print manager. They are Dutch and I call them the Hollander Dream Team, because they are well-known in the small world of art photography books that are usually self-published in editions is a small as 500. The issue, of course, is marketing, and one shouldn't underestimate the difficulty of selling an edition of 500 books in the world market. But, as a film producer, I'm sure you know the issues.
_______________________________________
Frog Leaping photobook and Instagram

[Steven]

15 minutes ago, Nowhereman said:

@Steven - One can write reams of pages on making prints and also on making books. Bottom line on printing for me is that it  depends on what you're after because making prints is a very different skill from making photographs. One can be a great photographer but a lousy printer. On the other hand, a great way to start learning photography is to take a B&W darkroom printing course, because it teaches you to appreciate what is a good print, within a fairly narrow framework — you're beyond that, unless you wanted to do it for fun. Still, I'm not interested in having hundreds of boxes of tiny prints, or even A3+ prints. I have enjoyed making 100 x 150 cm prints for an exhibition some years ago. I'd rather have books, though I may get back to making huge prints one day.

As for making books, that's also huge subjects. You can make one-off (or a few copies) of hand-crafted books, which can be a great satisfaction if you have that inclination. Otherwise, you can have books printed on-demand (Blurb-type books) that are printed on digital printers like the HP Indigo, which is the one most used in this industry. The quality of such books varies — the difficulty of the HP Indigo is to keep it in calibration when making a print run. In any case, whatever people say, it generally doesn't match the quality of offset printing — the quality that you would want for a coffee table book. The minimum economic run for offset printing is usually 200 books, and costs per book go down steeply for 500 and 1,000 books. Now, the printing industry is continuing to change under the impact of digital technology — and, eventually, there will be the same quality achieved by on-demand digital printing that we have with offset: but we aren't there yet.

Also, making books can be done by an individual, or it can be done, like cinema production, in a team. I started off by wanting to make a book myself, but ended up with a team that included a designer, a hand book binder, a lithographer and a print manager. They are Dutch and I call them the Hollander Dream Team, because they are well-known in the small world of art photography books that are usually self-published in editions is a small as 500. The issue, of course, is marketing, and one shouldn't underestimate the difficulty of selling an edition of 500 books in the world market. But, as a film producer, I'm sure you know the issues.
_______________________________________
Frog Leaping photobook and Instagram

Very informative post. Thanks for the advice. The journey just begun for me. 

[adan]

5 hours ago, mmradman said:

Have you considered Blurb, you can order one [1] book, it doesnt cost more per copy than ordering 200.

Actually, Blurb does offer significant volume discounts for orders larger than 10, but less than 100

Order 100 or more, and you can contact their sales department for an even larger discount.

https://support.blurb.com/hc/en-us/articles/207794616-Promo-codes-and-discounts

https://www.blurb.com/large-order-services

[Steven]

57 minutes ago, adan said:

Actually, Blurb does offer significant volume discounts for orders larger than 10, but less than 100

Order 100 or more, and you can contact their sales department for an even larger discount.

https://support.blurb.com/hc/en-us/articles/207794616-Promo-codes-and-discounts

https://www.blurb.com/large-order-services

The hard cover book from blurb looks much nicer than from whitewall. On Whitewall, it's attached with glue. 

[Dennis]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

9 hours ago, Lelmer said:

It's time to consider buying a printer 😊...I bought an Epson SC-P900 last year for the same reason.

How do you think is the pro and cons or home printing vs. order online? Cost, better quality, speed, durability? No idea. Taking photos that deserve to print is already enough. If I have to think about a printer, maintenance, inkjet for many prints, I think it could be too much for me to handle. Maybe a few large prints, but not many small ones.
What is your workflow with home printing? Thank you! I feel free to ask (and don't go off-topic) because Steven is interested too 🙂 Maybe

[Jeff S]

1 minute ago, Dennis said:

How do you think is the pro and cons or home printing vs. order online? Cost, better quality, speed, durability? No idea. Taking photos that deserve to print is already enough. If I have to think about a printer, maintenance, inkjet for many prints, I think it could be too much for me to handle. Maybe a few large prints, but not many small ones.
What is your workflow with home printing? Thank you! I feel free to ask (and don't go off-topic) because Steven is interested too 🙂 Maybe

The Digital Post Processing section of the forum already has loads of related discussions, even ones ongoing as I write this.

Jeff

[Lelmer]

30 minutes ago, Dennis said:

How do you think is the pro and cons or home printing vs. order online? Cost, better quality, speed, durability? No idea. Taking photos that deserve to print is already enough. If I have to think about a printer, maintenance, inkjet for many prints, I think it could be too much for me to handle. Maybe a few large prints, but not many small ones.
What is your workflow with home printing? Thank you! I feel free to ask (and don't go off-topic) because Steven is interested too 🙂 Maybe

As Jeff said, you'll find lots of valuable infos in the digital post processing section. I spent some time there before buying my printer 🙂

I am working with Capture One  for processing the RAW files and for printing. I personally enjoy printing as much as taking pictures.

[Dennis]

3 minutes ago, Lelmer said:

As Jeff said, you'll find lots of valuable infos in the digital post processing section.

 

48 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

The Digital Post Processing section of the forum already has loads of related discussions, even ones ongoing as I write this.

 

I will definitely take a look, thank you! 

[Steven]

Does anyone here have any experience with both the Pre FLE and the AA? The difference between the two exists, but the more I use them side by side, the more I see the pre fle as the "poor man's" 35AA ! 

I'm not trying to say that the Pre FLE is a cheap lens. I'm trying to say that it might be one of the Leica's most underrated lens ! 

[adan]

If you mean the 35 Summilux ASPH v.1 (before FLE added) compared to the 35 Summilux Aspherical (rare, two aspheric surfaces) - yeah.

I recounted my experience comparing both in 2002 or thereabouts, back at the start of this thread (post #6).

Which pretty much reflects the view of the late Erwin Puts in his Leica Lens Compendium, 2001, p.158.

"Generally, (the 1994 1.4/35 ASPH) performs in an identical way as the 'Aspherical' version. There are a few very subtle differences: the ASPH version has slightly lower contrast on axis, but a more even performance in the field at apertures 1.4 and 2......The fingerprint differences are really very small, if measurable and I would not be put to the test to identify which lens is used when presented with some pictures."

[Steven]

10 hours ago, adan said:

If you mean the 35 Summilux ASPH v.1 (before FLE added) compared to the 35 Summilux Aspherical (rare, two aspheric surfaces) - yeah.

I recounted my experience comparing both in 2002 or thereabouts, back at the start of this thread (post #6).

Which pretty much reflects the view of the late Erwin Puts in his Leica Lens Compendium, 2001, p.158.

"Generally, (the 1994 1.4/35 ASPH) performs in an identical way as the 'Aspherical' version. There are a few very subtle differences: the ASPH version has slightly lower contrast on axis, but a more even performance in the field at apertures 1.4 and 2......The fingerprint differences are really very small, if measurable and I would not be put to the test to identify which lens is used when presented with some pictures."

Thank you. 

I must say that my three weeks experience with the two lenses match quite perfectly what you just wrote and quoted. I’m amazed how these two lenses look almost identical. The ASPH v1 has always been my favorite lens. It’s such an underrated piece of glass. And with the shift to EVF cameras, I would recommend anyone to buy it. 

The differences I can find so far are: 

-the AA, under some lighting conditions, is a little sharper than the pre fle. 
-the AA, under some lighting conditions, can produce a magic look very unique to it. It’s hard to find the words to describe it, but you recognize it when you see it. 
-the AA has noticeably less focus shift than the pre fle

I also prefer the ergos of the AA. It’s smaller, not my a large margin but still makes a difference. The aperture ring is the most delicious I’ve ever had the pleasure to turn. The focus ring has a strong resistance (probably due to the two Asphericla elements) that I enjoy as it gives more precision in video use while rack focusing. 
 

With all that being said, after three weeks of owning it, the 35AA has not yet become my favorite 35s of all time. The Pre Fle still holds that title for now. It’s hard to explain, but under the right lighting conditions, it creates more atmosphere than the 35AA. 
 

to be continued 

[Jeff S]

8 hours ago, Steven said:

Thank you. 

I must say that my three weeks experience with the two lenses match quite perfectly what you just wrote and quoted. I’m amazed how these two lenses look almost identical. The ASPH v1 has always been my favorite lens. It’s such an underrated piece of glass. And with the shift to EVF cameras, I would recommend anyone to buy it. 

The differences I can find so far are: 

-the AA, under some lighting conditions, is a little sharper than the pre fle. 
-the AA, under some lighting conditions, can produce a magic look very unique to it. It’s hard to find the words to describe it, but you recognize it when you see it. 
-the AA has noticeably less focus shift than the pre fle

I also prefer the ergos of the AA. It’s smaller, not my a large margin but still makes a difference. The aperture ring is the most delicious I’ve ever had the pleasure to turn. The focus ring has a strong resistance (probably due to the two Asphericla elements) that I enjoy as it gives more precision in video use while rack focusing. 
 

With all that being said, after three weeks of owning it, the 35AA has not yet become my favorite 35s of all time. The Pre Fle still holds that title for now. It’s hard to explain, but under the right lighting conditions, it creates more atmosphere than the 35AA. 
 

to be continued 

You haven’t been around these discussions long enough to experience that, before 2012-13, the 35 Summilux ASPH (pre-FLE) is what we talked about daily.  And compared it to the FLE for years thereafter, as well as to its predecessors, including the AA (albeit a bit less due to its rarity and resale prices). But now that the FLE has been around awhile, discussions regarding the pre-FLE are less common. So, it’s not a lens that’s been ignored, misunderstood or underrated, as much as it is like any other older generation lens that has been superseded.  And, every time that happens, the older generation lenses often get painted in a more positive light than just a few years earlier when we were talking about it, for example the complaints regarding the pre-FLE’s awkward hood, build quality, focus shift, etc.  For a lot of people here, the FLE answered all those problems and is a dream lens; for others it lacks magic or whatever. Until the next new one emerges....  

Jeff

[adan]

For nearly 20 years, the Summilux ASPH v.1 was the signature M lens. The "killer app." Used by David Alan Harvey amost exclusively for his projects on Cuba, Puerto Rico and other parts of the "Latin Diaspora" post-1995. If a lens puts one into the history books, it can't be all bad.

https://www.davidalanharvey.com/cuba3

https://www.davidalanharvey.com/dividie-soul

As most here know, I usually favor the 1980s Leitz Canada "Mandler" lenses, although I do have a 75 APO-Summicron for its unique close-up abilities. But the v.1 35mm Summilux ASPH is the one other "modern" Leica M-lens I might add - only drawback for me is the size (and the FLE is even fatter).

[Steven]

1 hour ago, Jeff S said:

You haven’t been around these discussions long enough to experience that, before 2012-13, the 35 Summilux ASPH (pre-FLE) is what we talked about daily.  And compared it to the FLE for years thereafter, as well as to its predecessors, including the AA (albeit a bit less due to its rarity and resale prices). But now that the FLE has been around awhile, discussions regarding the pre-FLE are less common. So, it’s not a lens that’s been ignored, misunderstood or underrated, as much as it is like any other older generation lens that has been superseded.  And, every time that happens, the older generation lenses often get painted in a more positive light than just a few years earlier when we were talking about it, for example the complaints regarding the pre-FLE’s awkward hood, build quality, focus shift, etc.  For a lot of people here, the FLE answered all those problems and is a dream lens; for others it lacks magic or whatever. Until the next new one emerges....  

Jeff

I suppose this makes a lot of sense. Thank you for enlightening me on this, Jeff. 

When I said it is underrated though, I don't mean that people ignore it or don't like it (even if it's true that it's often criticised for a focus shift issue that I've found negligible on both copies I've tried). By underrated, I take the price as an indication. A black copy sells for around 2,2K. A got silver one (said to have less, or no focus shift), which is as rare AFAIK as the 35AA (around 2k copies) for 3,7K just a few month ago. Considering renders in a very very similar way as the 35AA, I find it to be a big price difference. 

But anyway, it doesnt really matter. The point is: I LOVE MY PRE FLE. 

[Steven]

46 minutes ago, adan said:

For nearly 20 years, the Summilux ASPH v.1 was the signature M lens. The "killer app." Used by David Alan Harvey amost exclusively for his projects on Cuba, Puerto Rico and other parts of the "Latin Diaspora" post-1995. If a lens puts one into the history books, it can't be all bad.

https://www.davidalanharvey.com/cuba3

https://www.davidalanharvey.com/dividie-soul

As most here know, I usually favor the 1980s Leitz Canada "Mandler" lenses, although I do have a 75 APO-Summicron for its unique close-up abilities. But the v.1 35mm Summilux ASPH is the one other "modern" Leica M-lens I might add - only drawback for me is the size (and the FLE is even fatter).

Incredible photographer. Thanks for sharing. 

[Jeff S]

 

16 minutes ago, Steven said:

I suppose this makes a lot of sense. Thank you for enlightening me on this, Jeff. 

When I said it is underrated though, I don't mean that people ignore it or don't like it (even if it's true that it's often criticised for a focus shift issue that I've found negligible on both copies I've tried). By underrated, I take the price as an indication. A black copy sells for around 2,2K. A got silver one (said to have less, or no focus shift), which is as rare AFAIK as the 35AA (around 2k copies) for 3,7K just a few month ago. Considering renders in a very very similar way as the 35AA, I find it to be a big price difference. 

But anyway, it doesnt really matter. The point is: I LOVE MY PRE FLE. 

The AA is a price anomaly.  Most everything else is sane by comparison.  There are many fine flavor choices for all. I owned the pre-FLE years ago, and enjoyed it, just as I do my FLE now (and a Summicron and Summaron).   Whatever you like is what matters.

Jeff
 

 

Edited April 9, 2021 by Jeff S

[Steven]

33 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

Summicron

Which version, if I may ask ? 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Jeff S]

Just now, Steven said:

Which version, if I may ask ? 

35 Summicron ASPH, v.1 (the one Andy hates), along with the 35 FLE (the one you hate) and the 35 Summaron f2.8.  As I said, just need to please yourself.

Jeff