Summicron 35mm F2 ASPH - Advice Needed

[techpan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I currently own a summilux 35mm asph which I am very happy with and have been looking for a very compact lens to add to my lineup. I was considering the summicron 35mm asph as that lens. How does the image signature of the F2 Summicron ASPH differ from the F1.4 Summilux ASPH or do they give the same type of image from F2 onward?

[Advertisement]

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

[carstenw]

They are similar at identical apertures, but the 35 Cron Asph is more contrasty. If you prefer the softer look wide open of the 35 Lux Asph, you might want to consider the 35 Cron IV, another excellent lens, and about 2/3 the price of the 35 Cron Asph, both used.

[tbarker13]

I recently switched from a 35 asph to 35 cron IV. One of the reasons was that I wanted a very compact lens for travel. They don't get much more compact than that.

 

Though if you don't mind losing some speed, the CV 35 pancake II is a tiny lens that performs very well.

[GarethC]

I've heard many people talk about the softer "glow" of the Summilux wide open and the Cron IV, what does that mean exactly? It suggests a lack of sharpness and I am absolutely certain on these forums we can't say anything about a lack of sharpness for fear of being shunned

[tbarker13]

I have to say that I've never really understood the whole Leica glow thing. But I will say that there are a lot of photographers who aren't after photos with razor sharpness from edge to edge.

I recently sold the last of my asph lenses for just that reason. I would never dispute that they are wonderful pieces of glass capable of rendering amazing details. And for certain types of photography, I would imagine that they are hard to beat.

But not all types of photography.

Great photographers throughout the ages have captured beautiful images with lenses that might be considered substandard by today's measurements. (particularly when used wide open)

Some of the lenses I've been using recently include the canon 28/2.8, leica 35/3.5 summaron, 35 cron IV, 50 Lux (second version) and 75 lux. I'm sure that each of those has a technically better counterpart in today's world. But I still love the look of the photos I shoot with these lenses.

[GarethC]

I agree wholeheartedly Tim, bu tot go back to my original question, does that mean that this "glow" is really just softness justified by a big price tag?

[sean_reid]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've heard many people talk about the softer "glow" of the Summilux wide open and the Cron IV, what does that mean exactly? It suggests a lack of sharpness and I am absolutely certain on these forums we can't say anything about a lack of sharpness for fear of being shunned

 

Really...?

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[harmsr]

Glow?????

 

I would say that the Lux has smoother transitions from the plane of focus to OOF areas and is lower contrast than the Cron. Sharpness goes to the Cron, but it can be too contrasty depending on the light.

 

I did own a Lux, but sold it for a Cron a few months ago because of focus shift issues that happened in my typical uses for the lens on the M8. It had been to Germany and they did improve it significantly so that it was spot on at 1.4 and then after 5.6, but at 2.0 to 4.0/5.6 it did have focus shift that affected my photos.

 

The cron I have is adjusted so that it is almost front focused at 2.0. When stopping down it keeps the point of focus in the DOF range and works very well.

 

I do miss the 1.4 of the Lux and the different rendering, but was just bothered by the shift. For me the Cron, works better.

 

Best,

 

Ray

[j. borger]

Own the 35 cron asph and cron IV ..... i prefer the type IV by a mile especially for B&W!

[Theodor Heinrichsohn]

I currently own a summilux 35mm asph which I am very happy with and have been looking for a very compact lens to add to my lineup. I was considering the summicron 35mm asph as that lens. How does the image signature of the F2 Summicron ASPH differ from the F1.4 Summilux ASPH or do they give the same type of image from F2 onward?

 

I agree with all that previous posters have stated about the technical differences between the 35/1.4 asph., the 35/2 ashp. and the Version IV 35/2. I don't own the 35/1.4 asph. but have owned and use the 35/1.4 aspherical since its introduction. I gather the performamnce of the 2 35/1.4 aspherical types is very close.

 

To me what is referred to as "glow" is the way older Leitz lenses draw. My favourites are the 35/2 first versioon, the 50/2 second version and the 35/2 IV referred to in many posts. It does not follow that the old lenses are not "sharp", as my innumerable slides on K25 show, but that they tend to produce warmer images and have less contrast than modern aspherical types. In Japanese literature this is often referred to as "aji" which literally translates as "taste". You will usually notice this most when taking pictures in the early morning or late afternoon light, also against the light.

 

Whether you prefer the "glow" or the high contrast images depends mainly on what subjects you want to photograph. To illustrate: I used the Summicron 35/IV and the first version for slides in the Yangste Gorges, to better show the many pastel shades of the mountain ranges on both sides of the river fading more and more as the distance grew and like the 35/1.4 aspherical for its brilliant rendition of small details - stones, moss, etc - in Japanese Zen gardens.

 

The differences are visible on the M8 as well.

 

Teddy

[GarethC]

Thanks Teddy, great explanation. Really.

[sean_reid]

At last <G> I've added a fairly large section to the 35s review which deals with OOF rendering. Both the current leica 35s are in the set.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean