Leica Summicron 35mm version 2 questions

[ymc226]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I understand there is an optical difference in the version 2 vs version 3 though both are 6 elements.  One has an extra air interface between the elements.  How does this or any other difference differentiate the picture taking qualities between these two versions?

Looking to get a version 2 but there are both made in Germany vs Canada versions.  I learned on this forum that in terms of the version 4, the made in Germany had metal parts in lieu of plastic parts of the made in Canada versions making it more robust.  Is this the same case as in the version 2?

 

 

[Advertisement]

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

[a.noctilux]

Don't bother, every Summicron II or III are better made than canadian IV.

Very solidly built, no plastic to break.

In my experiences, the renderings of Summicron II/III are not very different.

So take one (II or III) that is available.

[adan]

As to plastic parts, that is more a question of year rather than location of manufacture. V. 2 1969-71, v.4 1980-96(?). No reason to expect a v.2 made in 1971 (in Canada, but by German expats) was built the same way as a v.4 made a decade later (after the near-death of the M system, so when Leica (everywhere) was seriously trying to cut costs.) it is true that once the failures of the v.4 began to appear, the materials were changed coincident (approximately) with the reversion of assembly to Germany.

As to the optical design.

1) some claim that that the "air lens" is fictional and just an artifact in drawing the lens diagrams, and that imaging is identical.

2) Erwin Puts described it as a real "gap," and that there are some perfomance differences between v.2 and v.3.

3) thumbnails of Puts performance descriptions:

v.2 compared to v.1 eight-element: more overall contrast at f/2 - fuzzier "in the field" (i.e. the outer parts of the picture near the corners) - corners never really get sharp at any aperture - hoever in the close range, the v.2 is distortion-free and stopped down to f/11, "could be used for repro work (document or artwork copying) - flare tendency is high.

v.3 compared to v.2: improvement in overall contrast (despite the "air gap") especially in the center - but in the outer parts of the picture, "performance drops significantly" - flare tendency is reduced - less vignetting - more distortion - differences are generally minor, however - the v.3 is a bit easier to handle due to increas in length and easier-to-grip aperture ring.

4) I've used the v.2/3/4 - the v.4 images significantly better. I found the v.3 to be a bit "dull and dreary" and the v.2 to be hard to get crispness from at f/2.0. Stopped down, I found the v.2 a bit more acceptable.

I guess that some would rather frame and exhibit the lens parts themselves rather than the photographs they produce. But an interesting idea for "conceptual art," I suppose - like framing one's dresses or tuxedos or underwear.  

Bottom line, Dr. Mandler of ELC designed all his 35mm Summicrons with photojournalists in mind. Compact and light as possible - put the person in the center - get increasing contrast and clarity in the center at f/2.0 with each generation - and ignore the corner performance (it will be OOF background anyway).

Wasn't until the 1997 ASPH version that even performance across the whole frame (a tad less in the center, a lot more towards the corners, a weight increase) became the driving paradigm.

[shirubadanieru]

There are pictures / information here that you might find useful:

 

[shirubadanieru]

2 hours ago, adan said:

As to plastic parts, that is more a question of year rather than location of manufacture. V. 2 1969-71, v.4 1980-96(?). No reason to expect a v.2 made in 1971 (in Canada, but by German expats) was built the same way as a v.4 made a decade later (after the near-death of the M system, so when Leica (everywhere) was seriously trying to cut costs.) it is true that once the failures of the v.4 began to appear, the materials were changed coincident (approximately) with the reversion of assembly to Germany.

As to the optical design.

1) some claim that that the "air lens" is fictional and just an artifact in drawing the lens diagrams, and that imaging is identical.

2) Erwin Puts described it as a real "gap," and that there are some perfomance differences between v.2 and v.3.

3) thumbnails of Puts performance descriptions:

v.2 compared to v.1 eight-element: more overall contrast at f/2 - fuzzier "in the field" (i.e. the outer parts of the picture near the corners) - corners never really get sharp at any aperture - hoever in the close range, the v.2 is distortion-free and stopped down to f/11, "could be used for repro work (document or artwork copying) - flare tendency is high.

v.3 compared to v.2: improvement in overall contrast (despite the "air gap") especially in the center - but in the outer parts of the picture, "performance drops significantly" - flare tendency is reduced - less vignetting - more distortion - differences are generally minor, however - the v.3 is a bit easier to handle due to increas in length and easier-to-grip aperture ring.

4) I've used the v.2/3/4 - the v.4 images significantly better. I found the v.3 to be a bit "dull and dreary" and the v.2 to be hard to get crispness from at f/2.0. Stopped down, I found the v.2 a bit more acceptable.

I guess that some would rather frame and exhibit the lens parts themselves rather than the photographs they produce. But an interesting idea for "conceptual art," I suppose - like framing one's dresses or tuxedos or underwear.  

Bottom line, Dr. Mandler of ELC designed all his 35mm Summicrons with photojournalists in mind. Compact and light as possible - put the person in the center - get increasing contrast and clarity in the center at f/2.0 with each generation - and ignore the corner performance (it will be OOF background anyway).

Wasn't until the 1997 ASPH version that even performance across the whole frame (a tad less in the center, a lot more towards the corners, a weight increase) became the driving paradigm.

I also used them all and just to add my thoughts on top of Puts writings:

• V1 and V2 flare resistance is quite similar. I’d give a very slight advantage to the V2 here in terms of resistance, but the V1 flare is probably the most beautiful of all Leica lenses. V2 flare looks much better than V4 flare though.(if you don’t want flare in your pictures, just avoid all pre-asph lenses in general)
• V4 is sharper and has a great rendering, but I don’t find it to be superior to the previous Summicrons. My preference in terms of rendering for the summicron actually goes: 
•          V1 8 elements —> V2 6 elements —> V4 7 elements —> None as I hate the ASPH lol 
• Having zero distortion in a 35mm lens which I use both for street and portraits is important for me, so just for that I’d go with the V2 over the V3. If you’re a landscape photographer you might want to consider better field performance over lack of distortion though. Regardless, distortion should be fairly minimal. 

[a.noctilux]

Quest for 35mm is endless,

Happily we change over time

 

[ymc226]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

4 hours ago, a.noctilux said:

Don't bother, every Summicron II or III are better made than canadian IV.

Very solidly built, no plastic to break.

In my experiences, the renderings of Summicron II/III are not very different.

So take one (II or III) that is available.

 

3 hours ago, adan said:

As to plastic parts, that is more a question of year rather than location of manufacture. V. 2 1969-71, v.4 1980-96(?). No reason to expect a v.2 made in 1971 (in Canada, but by German expats) was built the same way as a v.4 made a decade later (after the near-death of the M system, so when Leica (everywhere) was seriously trying to cut costs.) it is true that once the failures of the v.4 began to appear, the materials were changed coincident (approximately) with the reversion of assembly to Germany.

As to the optical design.

1) some claim that that the "air lens" is fictional and just an artifact in drawing the lens diagrams, and that imaging is identical.

2) Erwin Puts described it as a real "gap," and that there are some perfomance differences between v.2 and v.3.

3) thumbnails of Puts performance descriptions:

v.2 compared to v.1 eight-element: more overall contrast at f/2 - fuzzier "in the field" (i.e. the outer parts of the picture near the corners) - corners never really get sharp at any aperture - hoever in the close range, the v.2 is distortion-free and stopped down to f/11, "could be used for repro work (document or artwork copying) - flare tendency is high.

v.3 compared to v.2: improvement in overall contrast (despite the "air gap") especially in the center - but in the outer parts of the picture, "performance drops significantly" - flare tendency is reduced - less vignetting - more distortion - differences are generally minor, however - the v.3 is a bit easier to handle due to increas in length and easier-to-grip aperture ring.

4) I've used the v.2/3/4 - the v.4 images significantly better. I found the v.3 to be a bit "dull and dreary" and the v.2 to be hard to get crispness from at f/2.0. Stopped down, I found the v.2 a bit more acceptable.

I guess that some would rather frame and exhibit the lens parts themselves rather than the photographs they produce. But an interesting idea for "conceptual art," I suppose - like framing one's dresses or tuxedos or underwear.  

Bottom line, Dr. Mandler of ELC designed all his 35mm Summicrons with photojournalists in mind. Compact and light as possible - put the person in the center - get increasing contrast and clarity in the center at f/2.0 with each generation - and ignore the corner performance (it will be OOF background anyway).

Wasn't until the 1997 ASPH version that even performance across the whole frame (a tad less in the center, a lot more towards the corners, a weight increase) became the driving paradigm.

 

1 hour ago, shirubadanieru said:

I also used them all and just to add my thoughts on top of Puts writings:

• V1 and V2 flare resistance is quite similar. I’d give a very slight advantage to the V2 here in terms of resistance, but the V1 flare is probably the most beautiful of all Leica lenses. V2 flare looks much better than V4 flare though.(if you don’t want flare in your pictures, just avoid all pre-asph lenses in general)
• V4 is sharper and has a great rendering, but I don’t find it to be superior to the previous Summicrons. My preference in terms of rendering for the summicron actually goes: 
•          V1 8 elements —> V2 6 elements —> V4 7 elements —> None as I hate the ASPH lol 
• Having zero distortion in a 35mm lens which I use both for street and portraits is important for me, so just for that I’d go with the V2 over the V3. If you’re a landscape photographer you might want to consider better field performance over lack of distortion though. Regardless, distortion should be fairly minimal. 

Thank you all very much for all of your responses.  When I first started with Leica lenses, I choose only ASPH versions and appreciated the overall sharpness and micro contrast in comparison to Nikon AIS, D and S lenses which I came from.  However, in the last few years, I'm almost running the other way, much preferring the lower contrast and softer rendering, especially wide open of the pre-ASPH lenses.  My main subjects are family environmental portraits or street photography, not landscapes so I don't want or need sharpness across the field.  After trying a made in Germany V4 recently and much preferring it to the ASPH V1 and APO, I tried a V3 which was also preferable to the ASPH lenses.  That is why I also want to try a V2 but it may be too close to the V3.  

[shirubadanieru]

3 minutes ago, ymc226 said:

 

 

Thank you all very much for all of your responses.  When I first started with Leica lenses, I choose only ASPH versions and appreciated the overall sharpness and micro contrast in comparison to Nikon AIS, D and S lenses which I came from.  However, in the last few years, I'm almost running the other way, much preferring the lower contrast and softer rendering, especially wide open of the pre-ASPH lenses.  My main subjects are family environmental portraits or street photography, not landscapes so I don't want or need sharpness across the field.  After trying a made in Germany V4 recently and much preferring it to the ASPH V1 and APO, I tried a V3 which was also preferable to the ASPH lenses.  That is why I also want to try a V2 but it may be too close to the V3.  

Yes, it seems a lot of Leica users go through the same path as you ahah I also started with the ASPH V1 because I thought new = better. And oh boy, how wrong I was ahah I can't stand that lens now, and the Summicron V1~V4 are all wonderful. I do think that if you do have tried the V3, the V2 will be pretty much the same for you to notice any difference. 

[ymc226]

6 minutes ago, shirubadanieru said:

I do think that if you do have tried the V3, the V2 will be pretty much the same for you to notice any difference. 

Please don't tell me that . . . I need an excuse to try all of them. 😀

[shirubadanieru]

53 minutes ago, ymc226 said:

Please don't tell me that . . . I need an excuse to try all of them. 😀

If you haven't tried the V1, that's the one to try as you'd clearly see the difference. Of course, price is a bit prohibitive now so the Light Lens Lab remake might be a good way to do so.

[ymc226]

1 minute ago, shirubadanieru said:

If you haven't tried the V1, that's the one to try as you'd clearly see the difference. Of course, price is a bit prohibitive now so the Light Lens Lab remake might be a good way to do so.

I do indeed have the LLL version in black paint and was happy to see Al Brown's findings that it's rendering was close to the original.  I am following prices and they are high and for non mint copies which I have shied away from.  

[shirubadanieru]

11 minutes ago, ymc226 said:

I do indeed have the LLL version in black paint and was happy to see Al Brown's findings that it's rendering was close to the original.  I am following prices and they are high and for non mint copies which I have shied away from.  

I used to have the V1 and sold it, it's probably the lens I most regret selling since now prices have doubled. That being said, I feel the V2 is so close and (to me) I prefer it to the V4.

All in all, my favorite 35mm is still the summilux pre-asph, and I would say that this lens from f2 onwards is fairly similar in performance to the V1/V2 summicron. Only downside is that it only focuses to 1 meter and can't take filters without the hood. Still, rendering wise it's truly a 2-in-1 lens, and it's my main 35mm both on digital and film. 

[adan]

I'd add one other factor - only the v.4 and the ASPH are officially supported by Leica for 6-bit-coding and in-camera menus for digital.

The v.1/2/3 with their thicker flanges were orphaned in that regard - Leica was not going to restart production of 1950s-70s lens mounts just to update those older lenses with 6-bit coding.

Not a factor with film, or Monochrom-digital pictures - and the M10/M11 sensors are a bit kinder to the 35s than the CCD sensors were.

Plus the 35mm v.4 menu choice works for all the 35 Summicrons - just inconvenient (for me) to have to menu-dive with every lens change.

[ymc226]

6 hours ago, shirubadanieru said:

All in all, my favorite 35mm is still the summilux pre-asph, and I would say that this lens from f2 onwards is fairly similar in performance to the V1/V2 summicron. Only downside is that it only focuses to 1 meter and can't take filters without the hood. Still, rendering wise it's truly a 2-in-1 lens, and it's my main 35mm both on digital and film. 

Yes, I agree the Summilux pre-ASPH is wonderful except for the minimum focus distance. I just got this recently and am using it as well. Totally ignoring my ASPH lenses for now. 

[a.noctilux]

On 2/7/2022 at 9:16 AM, ymc226 said:

Yes, I agree the Summilux pre-ASPH is wonderful except for the minimum focus distance. I just got this recently and am using it as well. Totally ignoring my ASPH lenses for now. 

@ymc226

I wonder how many in percent of your pictures on M taken under 1m ?

Strange this excuse of 1m mfd for using pre-asph. Summilux-M 35mm.

this 1m mfd and lack of filter thread never bother me ...

 

I did a big blunder selling my pre-asph. titan Lux 35 when I purchased the asph. titan Lux 35.

All is good now I have the plain black anodized pre-asph Summilux 35 and plain black 35 asph. Lux...

...if not seen, yet, have a look here 😉

[ymc226]

16 minutes ago, a.noctilux said:

@ymc226

I wonder how many in percent of your pictures on M taken under 1m ?

Strange this excuse of 1m mfd for using pre-asph. Summilux-M 35mm.

this 1m mfd and lack of filter thread never bother me ...

 

I did a big blunder selling my pre-asph. titan Lux 35 when I purchased the asph. titan Lux 35.

All is good now I have the plain black anodized pre-asph Summilux 35 and plain black 35 asph. Lux...

...if not seen, yet, have a look here 😉

Probably not many of my photos are close ups but I like to take environmental portraits with the subject taking up a fair amount of the photo. This was how I shot the 21 SEM but now it seems too sharp. 

[a.noctilux]

In my use 35mm is very different than 21mm or even 28mm or whatelse.

When I use my 21mm S-A, I appreciate the unique 40cm mfd, guessing focus/framing or LV.

This never prevents me to appreciate the 35mm Summilux pre-asph. with it's 1m mfd.

 

I have no idea if you would like the Lux 35 pre-asph otherwise.

Why not give it a try without fear of ...if you want to of course, nothing obligatory.

[ymc226]

7 hours ago, a.noctilux said:

In my use 35mm is very different than 21mm or even 28mm or whatelse.

When I use my 21mm S-A, I appreciate the unique 40cm mfd, guessing focus/framing or LV.

This never prevents me to appreciate the 35mm Summilux pre-asph. with it's 1m mfd.

 

I have no idea if you would like the Lux 35 pre-asph otherwise.

Why not give it a try without fear of ...if you want to of course, nothing obligatory.

Thank you,

I agree that the 35 perspective is very different from the 21 and even the 28.  The 28 was my favorite for a while but the 35 is growing on me since I got the V4 35 Cron.  The photos wide open seem much preferred to my eye aesthetically.  

I am liking the vintage character only now.  Now have the V1 and V2 50 Lux, V2 35 Lux, V3 and V4 35 Cron, 50 rigid Cron, 35 Summaron 2.8 and V4 25 Elmarit to try out.  I also got the 1.2 50 Noc and 28 Summaron 5.6 re-issues so will use them all with my digital M's.  No more film as I moved to California and with the water shortage, cannot see myself developing film anymore.  Donated all my darkroom equipment to my son's high school which had a photography course that taught both analog and digital.  Had a wonderful time developing film and paper with enlargers but the amount of water used to wash both were tremendous.  No problem when I lived in New Jersey however since there was no water supply issue there.

I always back track so will not get rid of any of my ASPH lenses as sharp and clinical may be something I go back to eventually.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[shirubadanieru]

4 hours ago, ymc226 said:

Thank you,

I agree that the 35 perspective is very different from the 21 and even the 28.  The 28 was my favorite for a while but the 35 is growing on me since I got the V4 35 Cron.  The photos wide open seem much preferred to my eye aesthetically.  

I am liking the vintage character only now.  Now have the V1 and V2 50 Lux, V2 35 Lux, V3 and V4 35 Cron, 50 rigid Cron, 35 Summaron 2.8 and V4 25 Elmarit to try out.  I also got the 1.2 50 Noc and 28 Summaron 5.6 re-issues so will use them all with my digital M's.  No more film as I moved to California and with the water shortage, cannot see myself developing film anymore.  Donated all my darkroom equipment to my son's high school which had a photography course that taught both analog and digital.  Had a wonderful time developing film and paper with enlargers but the amount of water used to wash both were tremendous.  No problem when I lived in New Jersey however since there was no water supply issue there.

I always back track so will not get rid of any of my ASPH lenses as sharp and clinical may be something I go back to eventually.

That's a lot of lenses you have there ahah I did try them all and I can share my thoughts with you in case you find them useful.

V1 and V2 50 Lux --> V1 has zero distortion but glows / is less sharp wide open than the V2. V2 has slight distortion but that helps it get that dreamy look too (similar to the noctilux by the way that has way more distortion than the Lux). Design wise, the chrome version of the lux 50 is the best design ever (both V1 and early V2 share the same design). V1 is heavier and a tiny bit bigger though. All in all..hard to pick one, but I can definitely say you do not need both of them, as they are too similar (if condition is mint I can maybe buy one from you in the future ahah I kind of miss it)
V2 35 Lux --> my favorite 35mm lens. Unique glow and bokeh, from f2.8 as sharp as asph lenses. Still have one and plan to keep it forever.
V3 and V4 35 Cron --> too close to keep two. My favorite is still the V1/V2 cron, but again too close to call. The cron 35/50 is always the most reliable lens you can get, and they are so small / light and offer just a perfect balance between ease of use and rendering. If you have the lux, you can keep the cron as backup, although the cron has its benefits (0.7m & can fit filters).
50 rigid Cron --> my favorite 50mm lens. Perfect balance between being sharp and still offering a beautiful rendering. Lens body design (tied with the lux50) is also the best Leica has ever made. Focus throw and ease of use again, cron always beats the summilux, and it's just perfect. Still have one and plan to keep it forever. Only downside is 1m focus but oh well, not a big deal with the 50mm VS the 35mm in which 0.7m does make a bigger difference. 
35 Summaron 2.8 --> great lens, but if you have lux and cron pre-asph I'd have trouble finding the time / occasion to use it. I actually find it's the most 'boring' pre-asph 35mm, in a good sense that is. It produces great results from 2.8, but nothing that truly sets it apart like the lux or v1 cron. The biggest benefit is that you get great rendering from f2.8 and its much cheaper than the V1 cron, while keeping the same great built quality.
 

Edited February 22, 2022 by shirubadanieru

[vanGeist]

Am 7.2.2022 um 03:34 schrieb adan:

The v.1/2/3 with their thicker flanges were orphaned in that regard - Leica was not going to restart production of 1950s-70s lens mounts just to update those older lenses with 6-bit coding.

(...)

Plus the 35mm v.4 menu choice works for all the 35 Summicrons - just inconvenient (for me) to have to menu-dive with every lens change.

You can code the old 35 Summicron lenses with a permanent marker yourself. Works like a charm.