Any difference optically between Summilux 35 Classic (Pre ASPH) versions?

[yura]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello!

Can't find anywhere information about difference between Summilux 35 Classic versions.

There are so much mechanically different versions, such as ver 1, ver 2, with googles ..steel rim..infinity lock - same names for one versions - people likes to give names*)

BUT! main question: are there any OPTICAL difference? As I see people love version one, but nothing about version two? As I think all of this is about price for collectors? Ver 1 is more rare and therefore have higher price and therefore people love it? But is it produces same image?

does somebody have tried both versions and can say the truth? I tried Canadian and German ver 2 and they are TOTALLY identical, but the prices are sooo different) this is funny.

 

and one more question: what kind of hood can I attach to Summilux 35 classic but not the original one? I want Square hood. Can I attach from Summicron 35? Thank you

[Hans Harro]

53 minutes ago, yura said:

 

 main question: are there any OPTICAL difference?

 

 

Hi.
I think the different mechanical versions of the 35mm pre-ASPH-Summilux have all the same, identical optical design.
This is what you find, when you look at the article 'Leica M-Lenses , Their soul and secrets' by Erwin Puts from 2002.
The article written by Erwin Puts lists three optical designs of the 35mm Summilux:
 - 35mm pre-ASPH-Summilux (introduced in ???)
 - 35mm Summilux Aspherical (introduced in 1990 , with two aspherical surfaces)
 - 35mm Summilux-ASPH (introduced in 1994 ,  with one aspherical surface)

I think the optical design of the 35mm Summilux-ASPH from 1994 is identical to the current optical design.
Just the mecanical version of the current Summilux-M is different.

I would suggest the different versions of the 35mm pre-ASPH-Summilux are things that only collectors care about.

I hope this helps.

Hans Harro

 

 

 

[jaapv]

29 minutes ago, Hans Harro said:

I think the optical design of the 35mm Summilux-ASPH from 1994 is identical to the current optical design.
Just the mecanical version of the current Summilux-M is different.

There is a big difference between a lens with a floating element and one without.

[pgk]

At some point in the production of the pre-asph 35mm Summilux there was a slight change in the glass formation but even Elcan don't have records of when this was, nor do they seem to think that it affected performance in any way as it was probably just due to glass availability and the adjustments to suit this. I've seen nothing to convince me that there is any change of any significance.

As the lens is designed to take a rotating hood it would require a clamp on rectangular one to hold in place.

Edited July 8, 2021 by pgk

[jaapv]

The lens remained unchanged from 1961-1993 except for some improved coating. in 1990 the Summilux 35 aspherical was introduced, in1993 both versions were replaced by the SX 35 ASPH, which was redesigned into the SX 35 ASPH FLE to reduce focus shift.

[evikne]

I am a user, not a collector, so I usually just go for the newest version (talking about pre-ASPH lenses, which the question was about). They are often the most readily available, and I doubt they are worse than their predecessors. It is natural that the development goes forward.

[pippy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As has been said the lens in question, optically-speaking, remained the same throughout it's long life.

Just in case the OP hasn't seen the review of this lens by good old Mr. Rockwell I'll post his link;

https://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/35mm-f14.htm

Philip.

[pgk]

1 hour ago, jaapv said:

The lens remained unchanged from 1961-1993 .....

Well, almost. To quote from a paper written by lens designers at Elcan: "Considering ....the 35mm f/1.4 Summilux. LaF21 replaced three elements, marked as ‘LeT29’ in the original design, at some point. We have been unable to clearly identify the latter." So there was a change of glass used, but it clearly had little, if any, effect or this would have been obvious by now and it clearly isn't because nobody has posted clearly delineated images from early and later lenses.

[jaapv]

I  was basing this on Erwin Puts, Leica Lens Compendium. He specifically mentions that the design was not changed (but omits anything on the formula of the glass ) It is quite possible that the glass was changed, which should not change the design if the specifications are identical.

 

1 hour ago, pgk said:

Well, almost. To quote from a paper written by lens designers at Elcan: "Considering ....the 35mm f/1.4 Summilux. LaF21 replaced three elements, marked as ‘LeT29’ in the original design, at some point. We have been unable to clearly identify the latter." So there was a change of glass used, but it clearly had little, if any, effect or this would have been obvious by now and it clearly isn't because nobody has posted clearly delineated images from early and later lenses.

 

[a.noctilux]

This lovely lens Summilux 35mm pre-asph. is not easy to 'choose'.

I have used some units old/older/last titanium coated/still have one 'Germany' now.

I can say that depending on age and use(d) or not, the behavior can be different mainly wide open to f/2.8 as flarey/blob/glow/etc.

In my experience, I think the best pre-asph Summilux-M 35mm is the Titanium coated which I sold after having and used the asph. homonym.

HOOD is 12504 of course !

I fancy also square hood 😉.

I've tried to adapt the 12524 from 35 Summicron, but some vignetting remained, needing to cut the 'prong' of the hood and filing the four corners and something to

make the hood stay in the groove, not easy !

 

[lct]

7 hours ago, yura said:

BUT! main question: are there any OPTICAL difference? As I see people love version one, but nothing about version two? As I think all of this is about price for collectors? Ver 1 is more rare and therefore have higher price and therefore people love it? But is it produces same image?

V1 has more flare than v2 which looks somewhat more contrasty for this reason i guess. My experience is limited to the German v2 version though.
Excerpt from Marco Cavina (free translation):
« As history teaches us, the original Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 was in production from 1961 to 1995 without any major modifications or upgrades to the optical core being officially heralded, although variations in the anti-reflection coatings are evident and even small nuances in the chromatic cast or in the trend of spherical aberration in later models suggest that the glasses originally envisaged have given way to modern variants that had in the meantime replaced them, thus also requiring some adjustments to the purely geometric part, exploited to optimize certain characteristics ».

Edited July 8, 2021 by lct

[yura]

39 minutes ago, Steven said:

You didn't look too hard ! This has been discussed at length over a couple of threads. We debated on this very precisely a couple weeks ago. I would suggest you look for the Summilux 35 Pre Asph various threads and read them all. You should have all the answers you need. 

But if you are lazy, the short answer is yes, they are all different. 

To me the nicest one is the V1 (Steel Rim, silver and black) and the early V2 (Black with infinity lock in brass, serial 221 or earlier). The regular V2 are not to my taste, in terms of rendering, for the exception of the titanium version, if you can't afford a V1. 

Don't listen to anyone telling you that they are all the same. They are the same people that say that the 35 Pre Fle and FLE render the same, or that the 35AA is equal to the FLE. The pre asph all have the same general signature, but when you look carefully they are different.

No I am not lazy. I have studied everything. But everywhere the sane as you say. People just saying: they are different. This is it))) and the more rare - the better))) I think this is funny, because titanium is sane as black! Totally same. I have seen that with my own eyes. Only paint is different, this isn not the real titanium, so people thinking that if it is more expensive - it is better))) funny)))

 

so, that’s why I am asking a real difference! Real. With comparisons. As i can show that the canadian and german the same. Because I own them. I can compare not by reading posts, but with own experience. 
 

and one more: about asph, aspherical and fle - they are different. Yes! But! Who can really say which is which? Nobody. Or one of 1000. And a lot of blind tests made even here and prove this. 
 

so I am not lazy, but I am not the guy who call everybody lazy who don’t believe just in words and who want a real experience. 

[yura]

2 hours ago, lct said:

V1 has more flare than v2 which looks somewhat more contrasty for this reason i guess. My experience is limited to the German v2 version though.
Excerpt from Marco Cavina (free translation):
« As history teaches us, the original Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 was in production from 1961 to 1995 without any major modifications or upgrades to the optical core being officially heralded, although variations in the anti-reflection coatings are evident and even small nuances in the chromatic cast or in the trend of spherical aberration in later models suggest that the glasses originally envisaged have given way to modern variants that had in the meantime replaced them, thus also requiring some adjustments to the purely geometric part, exploited to optimize certain characteristics ».

Thank you very much for your answer. This is true about flares. So now I believe in same optics, but some improves (?) of coating. Hope somebody will compare here with examples. 

[yura]

6 hours ago, a.noctilux said:

This lovely lens Summilux 35mm pre-asph. is not easy to 'choose'.

I have used some units old/older/last titanium coated/still have one 'Germany' now.

I can say that depending on age and use(d) or not, the behavior can be different mainly wide open to f/2.8 as flarey/blob/glow/etc.

In my experience, I think the best pre-asph Summilux-M 35mm is the Titanium coated which I sold after having and used the asph. homonym.

HOOD is 12504 of course !

I fancy also square hood 😉.

I've tried to adapt the 12524 from 35 Summicron, but some vignetting remained, needing to cut the 'prong' of the hood and filing the four corners and something to

make the hood stay in the groove, not easy !

 

Thank you for sharing a “hood” experience

[yura]

6 hours ago, pippy said:

As has been said the lens in question, optically-speaking, remained the same throughout it's long life.

Just in case the OP hasn't seen the review of this lens by good old Mr. Rockwell I'll post his link;

https://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/35mm-f14.htm

Philip.

Thank you. I know this article well. That’s why I am interesting to find truth. Because information are different. And you know how many “legends” people love to. I want to identify where is the truth and where is just a myth. 

[yura]

7 hours ago, evikne said:

I am a user, not a collector, so I usually just go for the newest version (talking about pre-ASPH lenses, which the question was about). They are often the most readily available, and I doubt they are worse than their predecessors. It is natural that the development goes forward.

Thank you. I sold ASPH version for pre asph  few years ago and did not regret even one minute. 

[evikne]

35 minutes ago, yura said:

Thank you. I sold ASPH version for pre asph  few years ago and did not regret even one minute. 

I have both the pre-ASPH v2 and FLE, but I will try this summer vacation to use only the pre-ASPH. If I don't miss the FLE, I will probably sell it, because I want to keep my number of lenses to a minumum. 

Regarding the differences between the pre-ASPH versions, I think that they are probably so small that varying light conditions, post processing etc. will make a much bigger difference anyway. And as you stop down, the differences will be even smaller. And I am not a pixel peeper; I think that the content of a photo is much more important. So I am completely happy with the cheapest version I could get (it was still expensive enough).

Edited July 8, 2021 by evikne

[yura]

12 minutes ago, evikne said:

I have both the pre-ASPH v2 and FLE, but I will try this summer vacation to use only the pre-ASPH. If I don't miss the FLE, I will probably sell it, because I want to keep my number of lenses to a minumum. 

Regarding the differences of the pre-ASPH versions, I think that they are probably so small that varying light conditions, post processing etc. will make a much bigger difference anyway. And as you stop down, the differences will be even smaller. And I am not a pixel peeper; I think that the content of a photo is much more important. So I am completely happy with the cheapest version I could get (it was still expensive enough).

Thank you for your answer. 
I am not a collector too. I am photographer. I mean this is my job and photographing brings me money, so I count money:)

thats why I chose the pre asph - it is small!! It is light! It has vintage signature wide open - this is what really meed me when shooting digital. But if I need sharpness and contrast - just close to 2.0-2.8 and this is it))

asph version was good but just good nothing more. There are so much good lenses, some cheaper, some not, some from leica, some not)). But there are not so many affordable lenses I really love like schneider xenon 0,95 or switar 26 1.1 (with creamiest bokeh ever) or this pre asph 35 lux - love these lenses. Not from collectors point - more expensive=better , not! From a photographer’s point - where lenses like instruments. From this point I am asking here a real difference. Thank you. 

[a.noctilux]

59 minutes ago, yura said:

Thank you for sharing a “hood” experience

Yura, you are welcome.

I think if you have one ( for butching ! ) 12524/12526 hood, you can make a very effective hood if not pretty 😉

Here on MP pic of some years ago, the MP is not mine anymore, so the serial number is a concern (sorry for the huge watermark)

 

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!

top view and front view

as said, the cutting 'prong' on the hood is first thing to do, then a hole in the hood for less VF blockage,

in use some vignetting can occur, hence the filing on four corners

the white line is for quick look if it's turning out of line

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[yura]

7 hours ago, Steven said:

Read post #5, #12 and #14 of the thread I posted above. In another thread, we went more in depth but I cant find it right now. 

I am lazy. 

talking about the lenses made before 1980's one of the main differences between them should be explained by the human factor. all the lenses was made by human's hands. so all of them are different. if you are interesting in making cinemas, you should know how good DOPs (especially Kubrick - not really DOP, but anyway) choose the lenses foe making movies; 10 examples of the same lens, trying all of them and chose only one with the better to his taste performance. 

as I see - the early versions of lux (steel rim) - had a little better sharpness in center wide open. about flares - don't know. judging such old lenses is a hard work because all the performance can be shifted by time/tear/wear/etc. but you know all the photos I have seen here on anywhere else - they made by different people with different experience, so experience of photographer may fool because some use advantages of the lens and can show a great results, some not. that's why there are so many nuances to tell. 

Unfortunately collectors are not always = great photographers, not even an ordinary photographers))) so ones have a great lenses, others are good photographers))))

unfortunately I can compare only early canadian version and late german - that's what I have. I am not a collector and trying to chose one lens for myself. understanding that better to sell canadian - because german may cost more in future (if I decide to sell it,hope never)))) and that's why this question bothering me, question of real cost not only because of collector's interests.

and I cat truly say that canadian 1969 and german 1988 are the same. canadian is a little worse optically so it may have little more disadvantages (less sharp/less contrast etc), but not seen in real life.