Why is the Leica 35 Summilux Double ASPHERICAL (AA) so special

[insideline]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, Steven said:

I noticed something, while pixel peeping. I was not actually pixel peeping (I never do), just photoshopping little detail.

The AA seems to have a little bit of (vintage) glow in the highlights. Not like on the pre asph of course, it's much more subtle. Something my pre fle does not have. 

I define my 35 pre asph Lux as dreamy, and my pre fle as 3D pop. 

I guess the AA is a 3D pop lens, with a gentle touch of dreaminess... Maybe this is the beginning of an explanation to that thing we cannot pinpoint. 

I would post an example, but when I compress the image for the forum requirement, the highlight are pixelated and you cannot zoom in anymore.... 

I have waited to chime in here on the AA as I have enjoyed the different posts from old and new users of the AA. I purchased my Double Aspherical new in 1991 after receiving a call from my long time Leica dealer informing me that this was a special lens and he felt I would like it. I distinctly remember well when I viewed the first roll of developed film and was astonished how much superior this lens was over my old F2 Summicron. Over the years I shot many many rolls of film with it then with the M9, the M9 Monochrom which I felt was a special match, M240 and now M10 Monochrom which I enjoy the most of all. I did not purchase the Pre FLE as I did not feel there was a reason to, but I did buy the FLE twice, first soon after its launch and again this past year but I just never did bond with it as its out of focus seemed just unpleasant for a lack of a better explanation. The AA is a very sharp lens and offers a level of acuity combined with a lovely character that the FLE simply cannot match. Is it worth $20,000 in the market no, but neither is my (Dad's) original 1968 1.2 Noctilux worth what they are selling for, but both render with a character often lacking in the new APO lenses, and subjectively I enjoy more the feeling of character in my photographs. I do own the 50 APO and it is an amazing lens for the purity it renders but the AA possesses an overall sense of character the APO simply does not. Possibly this is what Steven has discovered during his new journey with these Leica 35mm lenses, and like Steven I will keep my amazing 28 Lux and not purchase the new 35 APO. 

[insideline]

1 hour ago, Steven said:

I adhere to every word you just said. Bravo 🙌 

I'll also add that some veterans members that I know are watching this thread but choose to stay on the sideline (probably because they're passed the point of trying to make non believers believe) feel exactly the same way as you and me about this..... 

If you ever come to Paris, I would love to lend you my pre FLE so you can shoot for a day with it, and tell us all what you think of it as a long term AA user. I think that it's the most similar to the AA. The AA is a little sharper, and has that subtle glow I mentionned earlier, which makes for an overall more natural ? organic ? image... 

Thank you Steven, but careful on your offer as my wife and I are hoping to come to Europe once this pandemic is over to visit Paris and Portugal, so it would be quite enjoyable to meet up exchange lenses (I'll loan you my AA copy so that you can check for any variances with your lens) and shoot for the day in lovely Paris.

I wanted to share with you and others that I appreciate your boldness to upload sample pictures for the rest of us to view as I just can't get myself to share my photographs online, age I suspect plus I prefer prints to computer files as to me large prints are the finest way to truly view a good photograph. 

[kokoshawnuff]

47 minutes ago, Steven said:

35AA shot right into the sun (in the top corner), where the pre asph would totally lose its mind. No big issue with flare. It gets a little softer of course, but it's desirable to me. 

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!

I imagine the FLE might similarly ‘loose its mind’ and get really ugly.
Subjective takes on rendering aside, after almost 10 years with the lens my main grievance with the FLE has always been how it handles light sources like the one in this photo.

[kokoshawnuff]

1 hour ago, Steven said:

Interesting. And, forum compression aside, how do you find the handling of the 35AA in this situation ? Light and bokeh... 

in terms of light, bokeh—general rendering, it’s beautiful. I can’t be sure, but I don’t believe the FLE would give the same flare, therefore it wouldn’t really be a fair aesthetic comparison—though I do think rendering wouldn’t be that different if the flare were the same. 

Edited April 20, 2021 by kokoshawnuff

[kokoshawnuff]

27 minutes ago, Steven said:

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/11dfE6mIVjdNr4HJX6yLZMWvP_kdmaUY9?usp=sharing

Last weekend, my kids with their great grandma, recorded with my 35AA + M10R

These are very nice, and I understand your gripe with the compression, but I do think one can get a good sense of rendering with the lower res jpg on the forum. Certainly micro contrast and detail get lost 

[Guest]

On 4/19/2021 at 11:19 PM, Steven said:

2. The Pre FLE, as a back up to my 35AA. I usually take it out when I know I'm going to beat the camera a little more, when it's raining, or when I walk around sketchy neighbourhoods.

Maybe you should add weddings to that list.

[Danner]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 4/18/2021 at 2:40 PM, Al Brown said:

It is not priced to understand but to worship.

Signature-line material right there 😂

[01af]

vor 14 Stunden schrieb Steven:

35AA wide open, I like how it paints [...]

Yes, it paints wonderfully indeed, and that picture does have a touch of magic to it. But that's just due to the wide aperture and the lovely light. Had it been taken with the Summilux-M 35 mm Asph FLE, it would look basically the same ... okay, maybe with a tad more global contrast.

From what I see—in other people's pictures here and elsewhere as well as in my own pictures—the Summilux-M 35 mm Aspherical is in no way special or magical. As I said before, its rendition not identical but very close to the Summilux-M 35 mm Asph FLE's. The Aspherical's main characteristics, compared to the FLE, are:

• slightly wider field-of-view (focal length shorter by approx. 0.3 mm)
• slighty lower global contrast
• slightly better flare resistance
• colour rendition leaning to the greenish/cyan side by a very small margin

All these differences can only be noticed upon close inspection in direct comparison. They won't jump right out at you in any casual single picture, and they certainly don't make any lens 'special.' The similarities of the Aspherical and the FLE are way more significant than their minor differences. Their bokehs also are virtually the same—when shooting the same scene with both lenses, you can find areas in the picture where the one has the slightly nicer out-of-focus rendition and areas where the other has a tiny advantage. None can best the other is this regard.

So, it is a great lens which was ahead of its time. But the notion of the 35 mm Aspherical being particularly special and desirable (apart from collectors of rare items) is just an internet hype, fueled by threads like this one, and maybe wishful thinking from those who paid way too much for it.

[insideline]

8 hours ago, 01af said:

Yes, it paints wonderfully indeed, and that picture does have a touch of magic to it. But that's just due to the wide aperture and the lovely light. Had it been taken with the Summilux-M 35 mm Asph FLE, it would look basically the same ... okay, maybe with a tad more global contrast.

From what I see—in other people's pictures here and elsewhere as well as in my own pictures—the Summilux-M 35 mm Aspherical is in no way special or magical. As I said before, its rendition not identical but very close to the Summilux-M 35 mm Asph FLE's. The Aspherical's main characteristics, compared to the FLE, are:

• slightly wider field-of-view (focal length shorter by approx. 0.3 mm)
• slighty lower global contrast
• slightly better flare resistance
• colour rendition leaning to the greenish/cyan side by a very small margin

All these differences can only be noticed upon close inspection in direct comparison. They won't jump right out at you in any casual single picture, and they certainly don't make any lens 'special.' The similarities of the Aspherical and the FLE are way more significant than their minor differences. Their bokehs also are virtually the same—when shooting the same scene with both lenses, you can find areas in the picture where the one has the slightly nicer out-of-focus rendition and areas where the other has a tiny advantage. None can best the other is this regard.

So, it is a great lens which was ahead of its time. But the notion of the 35 mm Aspherical being particularly special and desirable (apart from collectors of rare items) is just an internet hype, fueled by threads like this one, and maybe wishful thinking from those who paid way too much for it.

Not to be confrontational in any way at all as that simply takes the fun out of all this, but have you had an opportunity to shoot with the Double Aspherical for a length of time? As I shared earlier on I bought my copy brand new in 1991 (actually I own two copies) and have used the first copy extensively for now 30 years and I have purchased the FLE twice now and I just could not get on with it as I found the out of focus rendering to be abrupt and for the lack of a more articulate word unpleasant, so this past year I sold my last copy of the FLE. I wanted to buy another 35 1.4 to use for when I was traveling in less safe environments or out in rugged areas where damage to the AA was a strong possibility so after reading Steven's experience with the Pre-FLE Asph I will now look for one of these. 

[01af]

vor 13 Minuten schrieb insideline:

Not to be confrontational in any way at all ... 

Except you are

.

vor 13 Minuten schrieb insideline:

... but have you had an opportunity to shoot with the [Summiux-M 35 mm] Aspherical for a length of time?

Do my posts sound as if I hadn't? I bought mine four years ago. Does that count as 'a length of time?'

[Capuccino-Muffin]

 I own two AA. It is a magical lens, absolutely no doubt about it.  Magisterial in its finesse of images.

Magisterial also as an object. Double hand ground aspherical elements in such a small and high quality package. If Leica or any other company had to issue a lens with the same specifications and requiring a soecialized highly skilled workforce, the lens would have to cost 20-30k.

 Do you appreciate drinking out of crystal glass over regular glass? Marble flooring over home-depot tiles? Granite counters over laminated counters? Exotic wood over pine wood? Brass doorknobs over aluminum doorknobs? If you could afford your wife to wear Louboutins over any regular shoes?

This all may sound silly but it is a reality: this lens is special through and through.

[insideline]

1 minute ago, 01af said:

Except you are

.

Do my posts sound as if I hadn't? I bought mine four years ago. Does that count as 'a length of time?'

Well I tried my very best to be as careful and cautious in my wording as I knew how, so I am sorry of I offended you in any way. I am on the older side of life so I may not be the best with these on line forums but I was simply actually asking if you had had some experience with this lens and nice to hear you have. As far as subjective opinions are concerned I still would not purchase an FLE lens again as after almost a decade of comparing I do not feel it renders as nicely as the AA does, but isn't that the fun of photography as it is ours to enjoy on our own and in any manner we wish. 

[pedaes]

46 minutes ago, Capuccino-Muffin said:

 I own two AA. 

Why do you need /want two?

[IkarusJohn]

Nothing wrong with subconscious preferences.

As for hand ground lens elements, I’m not so sure this is a good thing. Romantic, yes.  But we’re not talking Cuban cigars hand rolled on a woman’s thigh here.  Back in the day, car panels were handbeaten and hand fitted.  Then the Japanese started using robots and the rest of the world had to follow.  These days, the shut lines on a new car are perfect (above a certain value, for sure), and they don’t leak as they used to.  My father’s cars were traded after 3 years.  My car is coming on for 8 years old, and runs like new and looks like new with over 100,000 km on the clock.

I like the idea that lens elements are precisely ground, made from precise glass formulae and otherwise made with as few “hand assembled” input as possible.  The accuracy of the rangefinder on my M10-D is testament to that.

Edited April 21, 2021 by IkarusJohn

[pippy]

On 4/18/2021 at 1:28 AM, M10Alpine said:

Hi tell me about this lene and what makes it so special ? ...... At around 20k I like to understand the lens better...

Have you worked your way through this little lot yet?

https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/317023-tell-me-about-the-35-lux-aa/

Philip.

[autograph]

 

[M10Alpine]

Thanks for all contributions, fantastic thread. Now its of course impossible to resist trying to find one, under 19.500€

[Ko.Fe.]

IMO. Two SOOC photos at previous page shows this lens isn't any special @f1.4.  Just slightly less odd bokeh.  

[a.noctilux]

On 4/23/2021 at 9:07 AM, M10Alpine said:

Thanks for all contributions, fantastic thread. Now its of course impossible to resist trying to find one, under 19.500€

@M10Alpine

had you found one Summilux-M 35 AA ?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Mowgli]

On 4/19/2021 at 1:27 PM, Steven said:

I see a HUGEEEE difference. Not in the side by side brick wall or tree shot, but in real life continuous use. The pre FLE creates a much more pleasant atmosphere to my eye. I hate the FLE. It is the only Leica made 35 SUMMILUX that I do not own. The Pre Fle is my favourite one. I still love it more than the AA for most uses. 

Before you tell me I'm crazy, please note that some very esteemed long time members of this forum think the same way than me. Or I think the same way than them. Let me know if you need to talk to witnesses. 

Inspired by reading about the comparison of the three Aspheric 35 Luxes, I am particularly interested in the Pre-FLE. The Pre-FLE was built from about 1993 to 2005. What is interesting about this production period is that towards the end, i.e. around 2001 or 2002, the use of leaded glass was banned in the EU. Leica was also affected by this. I suspect that special types of glass were used in the fast Summiluxes in particular, perhaps also lead-containing glass. My question to you is this: Can anyone confirm a change in image quality between early and late batches of the pre-FLE in question here? When could the changeover to ECO-friendly glass be dated (SN>39...?). 

I am looking forward to hearing your suggestions.