35mm: Summilux FLE or APO-Summicron?

[smkoush]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

4 hours ago, horosu said:

The one obvious advantage of the FLE over the APO at 1.4 is that it actually DOES 1.4...😇

..which is the reason I'm leaning in favor of the FLE. Indeed, the APO has a very gentle but crisp image with sharpness across the field, a very pleasant look, but I also use a film Leica as well, and the FLE is more versatile. I never found 0.7m a limiting factor in my photography, but 0.3m can surely be fun and is a clear advantage of the APO but not a deal breaker for what I need. 

[OSEGAL]

9 hours ago, smkoush said:

..which is the reason I'm leaning in favor of the FLE. Indeed, the APO has a very gentle but crisp image with sharpness across the field, a very pleasant look, but I also use a film Leica as well, and the FLE is more versatile. I never found 0.7m a limiting factor in my photography, but 0.3m can surely be fun and is a clear advantage of the APO but not a deal breaker for what I need. 

I own the FLE for a couple of monthes and I really like it. I was worried when reading about harsh oof, but now I can say it is the one lens to own to those who like the 35 pov. btw I also own  a good sample of the pre-asph v2 and I love it but at 1.4 it is not a lens for everyone.

here is a film frame -

m6

summilux 35 FLE

Fomapan 100

 

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!

[Advertisement]

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

[RexGig0]

When the 35mm APO was announced, I thought that 0.3 meters MFD would be a compelling feature, but, I no longer feel that to be so, for the shooting that I do with M cameras. I believe that I would be better-served by using a telephoto lens, such as 75mm or 90mm, from farther than 0.3 meters. If I would have to use the LCD, or an EVF, anyway, I could use a high-quality adapter, with a macro lens, made for another mount. 

Cost has become a much more-significant factor, since my previous post, in this discussion. I am retired from a career in public service, so, have less disposable, unless/until I start doing something that pays, or my larger retirement fund has a run of good fortune. 

So, of the two lenses being discussed, I would be more likely to acquire the Summilux FLE. In actual practice, I will probably keep using my Zeiss Distagon 35mm f/1.4 ZM lenses.

Edited August 30, 2022 by RexGig0

[wdahab]

I have loved having the 0.3 meter MFD, though I can see it as definitely unnecessary for many, especially film users. I feel, for me, it's a way to make the APO35 a more "universal" lens. I agree that there are lenses that can do certain parts of this better, but when I'm out and about I love that it's become a "use for everything" kind of lens. On M11 especially, the sharpness and bokeh at F2 is insane. Makes it so I'm now basically *only* carrying this lens for everyday use.

But yeah, at the end of the day, it's crazy how sharp and contrasty and good the APO35 is in the corners. I bought this because a) I could flip it if I didn't love it and b) if I did love it, it seemed like it'd be the only lens I needed for the next 20 years (since I love 35mm). Turns out I was very, very right. This lens is great, and I don't think I'll need another lens for a long long time.

[smkoush]

Continuing the comparison between the APO and FLE, here are two shots, identical exposures/settings, the first one with the FLE at f/2 and the second one with the APO at f/2. You can see the subtle difference in color saturation. These were not taken on a tripod, simply handheld. 

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!

[smkoush]

Regarding the macro capabilities of the APO, it seems the magnification of the APO at its minimum focusing distance (MFD) of 0.3m is the same as the 90mm Macro-Elmar-M at its MFD of 0.8m (without the adaptor). Even though the magnification is the same, the transition to out of focus in the APO is much faster (due to the larger aperture) resulting in a completely different image. Below are two images demonstrating this, the first one with the APO at f/2 and 0.3m and the second with the 90mm Macro-Elmar-M at f/4 and 0.8m. The APO produces a much more contrasty image.  

 

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 September 2, 2022 by smkoush

[smkoush]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

and for comparison here is the same scene shot with the FLE at f/2 and its MFD of 0.7m (showing the difference in scale provided by the APO).  

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!

[horosu]

On 9/2/2022 at 4:55 AM, smkoush said:

Regarding the macro capabilities of the APO, it seems the magnification of the APO at its minimum focusing distance (MFD) of 0.3m is the same as the 90mm Macro-Elmar-M at its MFD of 0.8m (without the adaptor). Even though the magnification is the same, the transition to out of focus in the APO is much faster (due to the larger aperture) resulting in a completely different image. Below are two images demonstrating this, the first one with the APO at f/2 and 0.3m and the second with the 90mm Macro-Elmar-M at f/4 and 0.8m. The APO produces a much more contrasty image.  

 

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!

While the magnification of the APO might be impressive, the only real world use of it would be in photographing our dinner plates or the items we put up for sale. Or maybe plants and insects.

The laws of perspective apply sadly also to a 7000EUR + lens: a nimble 90mm lens would produce a much more pleasing and natural portrait of a person.

[lct]

On 9/2/2022 at 3:55 AM, smkoush said:

Regarding the macro capabilities of the APO, it seems the magnification of the APO at its minimum focusing distance (MFD) of 0.3m is the same as the 90mm Macro-Elmar-M at its MFD of 0.8m (without the adaptor). [...]

Sure but f/2 would be of little use due to the thin DoF (0.01m). In that kind of pictures i would need a wider DoF, hence smaller apertures, whereas lenses like Macro-Elmar 90/4 or Ultron 35/2 asph can go down to about 0.4m (0.2m for the Ultron) when paired with a Leica macro adapter. The 35/2 apo doesn't need an adapter though. Same kind of advantage as the S-A 21/3.4 with its 0.4m MFD. However the 35/2 apo is significantly larger let alone its price so i'm not sure GAS will be strong enough for me. YMMV.

[jakontil]

On 9/3/2022 at 5:29 PM, horosu said:

While the magnification of the APO might be impressive, the only real world use of it would be in photographing our dinner plates or the items we put up for sale. Or maybe plants and insects.

The laws of perspective apply sadly also to a 7000EUR + lens: a nimble 90mm lens would produce a much more pleasing and natural portrait of a person.

Exactly why i thought getting apo was a better choice.. but yeah fle got the edge for being wider aperture 

[flintenschuetze]

Welldone comparism

[tom0511]

Am 3.9.2022 um 12:29 schrieb horosu:

While the magnification of the APO might be impressive, the only real world use of it would be in photographing our dinner plates or the items we put up for sale. Or maybe plants and insects.

The laws of perspective apply sadly also to a 7000EUR + lens: a nimble 90mm lens would produce a much more pleasing and natural portrait of a person.

You are right in one way. But it jusr adds flexibility to the 35apo.

I have  used the short distance on a hike for plants, one might take an image just of the eyes of a person, or just any detail in daily shooting except faces (distorsion as you say).

with 60mp you also have some capabilities to crop. So I feel 35mm has become close toma standard lens on my M than it was in earlier times.

 

[01af]

F/1.4 sure is a nice thing ... but the Apo-Summicron-M 35 mm Asph clearly is the better lens (smaller, too). So when there's no need for f/1.4 then Apo-Summicron for me, please.

[M11 for me]

Am 17.10.2022 um 19:38 schrieb 01af:

F/1.4 sure is a nice thing ... but the Apo-Summicron-M 35 mm Asph clearly is the better lens (smaller, too). So when there's no need for f/1.4 then Apo-Summicron for me, please.

Do you have examples please? To my knowledge your statement is not true when you accept apertures of f/2.8 or smaller.

[lct]

I have no experience with either lens but Leica MTF diagrams look self explanatory.

[Bigdukeron]

Good discussion, and one always has to look at one's own photography.

I feel that total sharpness doesn't matter as much to me as I thought after reading all those reviews, mainly because I shoot from the hip and rarely from a tripod. Once you use the tripod you can buy sharpness by stopping down. Good video above showing 2.8 is enough for most cases. I have the new FLE2 and was very surprised how sharp (in my eyes) the soft (reviews) open 1.4 is. Absolutely good enough for me.

As a result I will now sell my 50mm 2.0 Apo and will stop my Noctilux 1.2 down when needed. 

 

So good advice here between the Hasselblad lines :)) Thx!