atufte Posted October 11, 2007 Share #1 Posted October 11, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Just tried this lens today, and just love the characteristics of this lens.... :-) 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/35485-pre-asph-35-summilux-glow/?do=findComment&comment=374420'>More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 11, 2007 Posted October 11, 2007 Hi atufte, Take a look here Pre-Asph 35 Summilux Glow. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
luigi bertolotti Posted October 11, 2007 Share #2 Posted October 11, 2007 I know I wrote it other times... but REPEAT that it's a lens one can get in love with... And Alex ... the portrait is a fine, strong, original one; hadn't you to make any correction for the strong white light ? No halo or similar in the image ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
atufte Posted October 11, 2007 Author Share #3 Posted October 11, 2007 I know I wrote it other times... but REPEAT that it's a lens one can get in love with... And Alex ... the portrait is a fine, strong, original one; hadn't you to make any correction for the strong white light ? No halo or similar in the image ? Thanks, and no, there were no halo/flare whats so ever... And now to the big question, would you trade this lens for a type 4 35mm Summicron Pre-Asph....? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thai.charlie Posted October 11, 2007 Share #4 Posted October 11, 2007 And now to the big question, would you trade this lens for a type 4 35mm Summicron Pre-Asph....? That's very apples and oranges... both have very different characteristics wide open. IMO the pre-asph lux has more grit and glow... the type IV summicron has creaminess and glow. Depends on what you like. Anyone familiar with the work of Philip Blenkinsop from Agence Vu? His Leica work is mostly with the 35 Summilux pre-ASPH and it's got that grit. Works for him! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony C. Posted October 11, 2007 Share #5 Posted October 11, 2007 Those are lovely images, Alexander. Since the comparison has come up, here's a recent image from my 35mm 'cron version IV. I've only had it for a few days, so I don't have any B&W to share yet. Regards, Tony C. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted October 11, 2007 Share #6 Posted October 11, 2007 Thanks, and no, there were no halo/flare whats so ever... And now to the big question, would you trade this lens for a type 4 35mm Summicron Pre-Asph....? No, simply for sentiment : was my first 1,4... it's a very early item (1960, chrome... with is solid OLLUX hood...) : too nice to throw away. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
atufte Posted October 11, 2007 Author Share #7 Posted October 11, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) No, simply for sentiment : was my first 1,4... it's a very early item (1960, chrome... with is solid OLLUX hood...) : too nice to throw away. But it's the other way around, i own the Summicron have an offer to trade with the Summilux...shall i go lux or keep the cron....? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccc yyy Posted October 11, 2007 Share #8 Posted October 11, 2007 since getting the pre-asph lux, i had no desire to add a pre-asph cron. (actually i prefer the asph cron, but that's another thread.) love everything about this lux, except for the hood/filter/cap business. as with most lens decisions, it boils down to a personal preference/choice. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
j. borger Posted October 11, 2007 Share #9 Posted October 11, 2007 Difficult Alexander .. that lux was my favourite lens on the R-D1. I sold it because the corners flared a lot on the M8 (more than on the R-D1!!) and i got the Cron IV instead. That lux can realy blow out parts of the picture near the edges of the frame depending on the light ..... however i really regret selling it .. it has a wonderful signature, B&W tonalities are second to none ......... and wide open it has a dreamy character..... I would give that Lux a good try in difficult light first before trading ......... shoot against the light and look for brighter lighsources around the edges to see if you can live with how the lens handles those situations! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted October 12, 2007 Share #10 Posted October 12, 2007 Alex, thinking of the style of your pictures (not these 2 only... I made a tour...) I think you'll earn something making the exchange : you shot SUBJECTS and you do not seem a passionate of sharpness... and digital makes it so easy to adjust some of the little problems the Lux can have aometime at corners/edges. It's a personal consideration... but my advice is DO IT; verify the focusing if you plan to use it on M8. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted October 12, 2007 Share #11 Posted October 12, 2007 Thanks, and no, there were no halo/flare whats so ever...And now to the big question, would you trade this lens for a type 4 35mm Summicron Pre-Asph....? The light is too sharp IMHO. Did you sharpen your pic or does it come from a scanner, i wonder. Anyway i own both a late 35/1.4 and a 35/2 IV. My late Lux has not much glow if any but i don't know it very well yet as i've bought it recently. At f/2 it looks slightly sharper than the 35/2 but a bit less contrasty and its bokeh looks quite smooth as well. Doesn't seem to flare more than the 'cron so far, except af f/1.4 so my feeling right now is i can live well without the 'cron but i might change my mind with experience... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
atufte Posted October 12, 2007 Author Share #12 Posted October 12, 2007 The light is too sharp IMHO. Did you sharpen your pic or does it come from a scanner, i wonder. Anyway i own both a late 35/1.4 and a 35/2 IV. My late Lux has not much glow if any but i don't know it very well yet as i've bought it recently. At f/2 it looks slightly sharper than the 35/2 but a bit less contrasty and its bokeh looks quite smooth as well. Doesn't seem to flare more than the 'cron so far, except af f/1.4 so my feeling right now is i can live well without the 'cron but i might change my mind with experience... It's not from a scanner, but from the M8, and i have to pay 190$ in between for trading with my Cron with the Lux, i'ts not much but i'm still not sure what to do... does this seem to be the right price for trading a Type 4 35 Cron with a Type 2 35 Lux...? Thanks again.. :-) (And this images are just test images, nothing fancy i know :-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
grantray Posted October 12, 2007 Share #13 Posted October 12, 2007 I have the Summilux and I've shot with that Summicron. The Summilux allows for a lot of creative variance due the different characteristics of the lens at 1.4, 2.0, 2.8, and 5.6. Especially with portraiture. And even more so if you do a lot of pushing with your DNG files. (I do.) If you have the 12504 hood, then getting a series-7 ir-cut filter from B&W is no problem. I'll never get rid of my Summilux. -grant Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidigital Posted October 12, 2007 Share #14 Posted October 12, 2007 What is the serial number cut-off point for the pre-ASPH version of this lens? Is there only one version? Thanks for any help. Kurt Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbarker13 Posted October 12, 2007 Share #15 Posted October 12, 2007 I'm starting to give some thought to this lens. Right now, I'm using a 35 summicron IV paired with a 75 lux. Most of what I do is b&w. I'm wondering how useable the lux is wide open. I don't need (or even want) absolute sharpness. I seen it written that the titanium version might be the best in terms of performance. I wonder if that is true. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted October 12, 2007 Share #16 Posted October 12, 2007 Late 35/1.4 (from 3,4**,*** to 3,6**,*** AFAIK but ask Jack Flesher or Sparkie to be sure) behave like the late Lux 50/1.4 with a bit less sharpness and contrast, but also more flare mainly at full aperture. If you do much BW i would take the Lux if i were you, otherwise remember that Leica don't code the Lux so its up to you to check if you risk some cyan shift with it and an IR-cut filter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted October 12, 2007 Share #17 Posted October 12, 2007 Two 100% crops with very little sharpening. (R-D1, late 35/1.4 pre-asph, f/1.4 & 5.6, 200 iso, Epson's raw converter, low setting of Fred Miranda's Nikon CS Pro) http://tinyurl.com/rv7w/EPSN3383_cropweb100-after.jpg http://tinyurl.com/rv7w/EPSN3447-aftercropweb.jpg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted October 12, 2007 Share #18 Posted October 12, 2007 Looks like the first link does not work. Try this one (f/1.4, 100% crop): http://tinyurl.com/rv7w/EPSN3383_aftercropweb.jpg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidigital Posted October 12, 2007 Share #19 Posted October 12, 2007 Thanks for the crops and #s, LCT. I'm going to try to find this lens to give it a try-out. I love my ASPH version to death. But, I'm curious to experiment with the pre-ASPH version to understand the differences. Kurt Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack_Flesher Posted October 12, 2007 Share #20 Posted October 12, 2007 The 35 pre-Lux is an awesome lens ---- however so is the version IV Cron, so deciding betwixt them is tough (FWIW, I kept the ver IV, but really love the look of the Pre-Lux.) The main differences I note are: 1) as Grant already indicated, there is more spread of charachter across the apertures form 1.4 through 4; 2) The bokeh characteristics of the Lux at distance. As re item 2, the IV Cron is cream front to back at all apertures. By contrast, the bokeh on the Pre-Lux can get pretty ugly at rear distance in certain higher-contrast situations (kind of like the Noct). Here are two shots from the pre-Lux showing what I mean. First is wide-open mid range --- gorgeous foreground and immeditely behind the PoF, but a bit further back and you can see some clumpiness start to creep in the highlights: Now here is one focused a bit further away and at f2. Again, gorgeous fore and immediate background, but here the far background gets plain ugly IMO: It was a tough decision for me, but I kept the version IV. Mainly because I don't use the 35 focal much to begin with, and when I do I want to render really great bokeh all the time --- and IMO the 35 version IV Cron delivers on that better than just about any other Leica M lens... Cheers, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.