Guide me to choose the best 35mm lens.

[Kamyar]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello everyone. 
i shoot black and withe only with m10 M. 
i have one 35 mm corn aph v5. 
I have an important question.  Do I need a 35 lux fle ?

 How much better is fle than my own lens?

thanks. 
kamyar

 

[Jean-Michel]

 Nope. Your 35 Summicron is more than fine.
A second 35 mm is a want, not a need. 
 

[Advertisement]

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

[rramesh]

Just look at the photos you have been taking. Do you absolutely miss something that would require a new tool? If not, you don’t need anything else. 

[pgk]

If you are going to use it at f/1.4 then go for it. If you aren't then don't.

[Narsuitus]

When I started shooting 35mm film, my first 35mm lens was f/2. I used it for decades. It was great except for the times when I needed one more stop of light.

Since I often shoot under dim lighting conditions, I eventually purchased a faster 35mm lens. I now shoot with a 35mm f/1.4 on my M6 and M10.

[SiggiGun]

The main interest, if any, in FLE is the better near focus sharpness. 

[Ccoppola82]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have plenty of 35mm lenses including an FLE. If you NEED 1.4 and plan to use it OFTEN, maybe the FLE is worthwhile...maybe.  I live in an overcast area and my work causes me to shoot at 1.4 a lot because I don’t get much daylight shooting. Tbh it isn’t my favorite lens.  The images it makes are fantastic, but I am spoiled by the size of the pre asph crons and the 35 pre asph lux that I just grabbed for a steal.  So I think the honest answer really needs to come from yourself.  If you plan to only shoot 1.4 occasionally, I would just grab a nokton v2 and not lose any sleep over it while saving $4500

[Kamyar]

28 minutes ago, Narsuitus said:

When I started shooting 35mm film, my first 35mm lens was f/2. I used it for decades. It was great except for the times when I needed one more stop of light.

Since I often shoot under dim lighting conditions, I eventually purchased a faster 35mm lens. I now shoot with a 35mm f/1.4 on my M6 and M10.

What's different? Just one stop 2 to 1.4 ? Our sharper? Better quality?

[Kamyar]

20 minutes ago, Ccoppola82 said:

I have plenty of 35mm lenses including an FLE. If you NEED 1.4 and plan to use it OFTEN, maybe the FLE is worthwhile...maybe.  I live in an overcast area and my work causes me to shoot at 1.4 a lot because I don’t get much daylight shooting. Tbh it isn’t my favorite lens.  The images it makes are fantastic, but I am spoiled by the size of the pre asph crons and the 35 pre asph lux that I just grabbed for a steal.  So I think the honest answer really needs to come from yourself.  If you plan to only shoot 1.4 occasionally, I would just grab a nokton v2 and not lose any sleep over it while saving $4500

One of the reasons I was curious and encouraged to buy fle is the price offered by a friend.  He has last version FLE and brand new that he offered me $ 2750.

[jdlaing]

Take it.

[Guest Nowhereman]

Kamyar -  I don't think the FLE has any advantage at f/2 and smaller apertures over your lens. At f/1.4, it has no focus shift which is the purpose of the floating element, I believe. However, some people don't like its bokeh at f/1.4: I feel the bokeh at this aperture is particularly ugly when focussing closeup, up to, say, 3 meters when shooting into the light and in sidelight. I much prefer my Summicron 35v4.

If you're really interested, there is a current thread comparing various 35mm lenses, including the Summilux 35 pre-ASPH, the Summilux 35 ASPH and the Summilux 35 Aspherical, a lens that now cost $20K+ and which many feel is the best of all in terms of bokeh, priced for its rarity.
________________________
Frog Leaping photobook

Edited May 9, 2021 by Nowhereman

[M11 for me]

well, at 2'750 I would go for it.

And of course I was impressed by your work. Its great what you show on your site.

Edited May 9, 2021 by M10 for me

[Ccoppola82]

2750 take it. Even if you get rid of it you aren’t going to lose at that price 

[Jeff S]

3 minutes ago, Kamyar said:

One of the reasons I was curious and encouraged to buy fle is the price offered by a friend.  He has last version FLE and brand new that he offered me $ 2750.

A $6k new lens for $2750?  I’d take it to try even if I didn’t like it, given its resale value.

I own the 35 FLE and the 35 Summicron ASPH v.1.  The latter has some mild focus shift, a marginally greater propensity to flare in certain conditions, and a more pinkish tonality than the FLE.  I’ll probably sell one of them at some point, as I don’t need both, but wanted to try the FLE after a long time with the Summicron.  The obvious difference is the speed, which comes at a cost in size and ergonomics. Both are perfectly capable of producing superb files and prints for my needs.

Jeff

[Jeff S]

41 minutes ago, Nowhereman said:

At f/1.4, it has no focus shift which is the purpose of the floating element, I believe. 

That’s a secondary benefit; primarily improved performance at close focus distance (through reduction of spherical aberration)...

Jeff

Edited May 9, 2021 by Jeff S

[Kamyar]

1 hour ago, M10 for me said:

well, at 2'750 I would go for it.

And of course I was impressed by your work. Its great what you show on your site.

Thanks 🥂

[lct]

Not sure what you mean by asph v5 but i have no experience with the current 'cron, only 35/2 asph v1. My FLE is a bit sharper at f/2 so i would take it if you shoot often at f/1.4 and f/2. FLE has a bit less flare too but none is flare free actually. Focus shift is not an issue for me on either lens but some 'crons have got focus shift problems besides my v1 apparently. As for close focus, i hardly see significant differences i must say. BTW both can go down to about 0.35m if you happen to use them on a Techart AF adapter (Sony body). The 'cron is a bit more compact and lighter (256g vs 324g with hood) but you know this already i guess.

[Kamyar]

24 minutes ago, lct said:

Not sure what you mean by asph v5 but i have no experience with the current 'cron, only 35/2 asph v1. My FLE is a bit sharper at f/2 so i would take it if you shoot often at f/1.4 and f/2. FLE has a bit less flare too but none is flare free actually. Focus shift is not an issue for me on either lens but some 'crons have got focus shift problems besides my v1 apparently. As for close focus, i hardly see significant differences i must say. BTW both can go down to about 0.35m if you happen to use them on a Techart AF adapter (Sony body). The 'cron is a bit more compact and lighter (256g vs 324g with hood) but you know this already i guess.

Yes. I know fle is heavy . This is my lens ( 35 corn )

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!

[Narsuitus]

2 hours ago, Kamyar said:

What's different? Just one stop 2 to 1.4 ? Our sharper? Better quality?

For me, the twice as much light gathering was the difference that mattered to me. Plus, the image quality at  f/1.4 was usable. I avoided lenses that were faster than f/1.4 because the images they produced when shot wide-open were not sharp enough for my taste.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[lct]

26 minutes ago, Kamyar said:

Yes. I know fle is heavy . This is my lens ( 35 corn )

Mine too (35/2 asph v1) but it is anodized black. Your silver asph v1 should weigh about 340g according to Leica specs and should then be a bit more heavy than the anodized black FLE (324g).