New 35 Summilux vs 35 Apo

[Kiwimac]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I’ve read many versus reviews but none with the latest version of the Lux with close focus. 
 

A number of the reviews lauded the close focus of the Apo as a reason to choose it but of course now the Lux had it too. 
 

I’ve an opportunity to change and I’m trying to decide if it’s really worth doing or whether the image differences are so esoteric I just won’t notice. 

[maxpower]

I think this video from mathphotographer was a very interesting comparison

 

[Kiwimac]

It was interesting. Thanks. 
 

On the face of it, Leica might be feeling that they made the new Summilux too good!

[Robert Blanko]

Some months ago, I planned buying the new Summilux 35 ASPH, but then I was also considering the 35 APO.

The article that finally convinced me that the bokeh of the 35 APO at f2 would be likely sufficient for me and that I don’t need the Lux was this one (it’s in German though): http://www.lichtknoten.com/webblog/?tag=apo-summicron-m-35-f-2-asph

But I have to admit that I never had a 35 Summilux to compare with my 35 APO.

[Jeff S]

FWIW, another video review comparison…

Jeff

[evikne]

Nice videos! For the first time I saw that the APO is noticeably smaller than the Summilux. Photos don't show it as clearly.

Edited July 4, 2023 by evikne

[RexGig0]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

In serious close-range shooting, the magnification factor is really important. If I am remembering the specifications correctly, this clearly favors the APO ‘Cron, of the two 35mm lenses being discussed here. Personally, I shoot serious macro and close-range with DSLR equipment, that allows me to shoot at 1:1 magnification, with one tandem combination of lenses that goes even further, but, if I wanted to travel with just an M camera body, and did not want to use adapted SLR lenses on that M camera body, yet wanted to shoot close-range images, the APO ‘Cron would have to be given serious consideration.

Of course, the 35mm APO ‘Cron would not be the only APO M lens suitable for close-range shooting. The images of the flowers, at MFD (Minimum Focusing Distance), in this article, shows that the APO Summicron-M 75mm ASPH, at 0.7m, is no slouch, when compared to the APO 35 ‘Cron at 0.3m. This article is at Jono Slack’s site:

 https://www.slack.co.uk/leica-apo-m-lenses.html

Jono Slack is a highly-respected member of this forum.

I am not forgetting the Macro-Elmar 90mm f/4 lens. I simply have no experience with it.

Edited to add: The character of background blur, and the ability to shoot at f/1.4, whether for light-gathering ability, or artistic reasons, are separate factors. I chose to address MFD, because it is often overlooked.

Edited July 4, 2023 by RexGig0

[Kiwimac]

Thanks all. Interesting. 
 

If I had to form an opinion at the moment, I’d say that (especially based on @jonoslack images in that article above) it would be that the Apo 50 has a very obvious character and the Apo 35 character is much subtler in comparison to the really very good indeed New Summilux. 
 

I’m going to look for a comparison with the 50 Apo and the new 50 Summilux…!

Edited July 4, 2023 by Kiwimac

[jakontil]

Interesting findings, i prefer the close focus on my 35 lux than on 50 focal length due to its versatility but YMMV 

the apo is quite interesting before i got my hands on the lux but i shoot mainly widest open, here comes the 1.4 separation 

[IkarusJohn]

I sold the 35 Summilux (FLE) as I found the bokeh too busy.  It was the smooth bokeh of the APO which pushed me in that direction.  Looking at the out of focus areas in the comparisons above, I still prefer the APO.

Edit - the Mathographer’s night shots show more coma at f/2.

Edited July 5, 2023 by IkarusJohn

[fil-m]

Both are great lenses, you would not be sad with any of them  

If you don't seek 1.4 for street shooting, the APO is a killer: compact, beautifully made, highly precise images yet with smooth bokeh

The 1.4 would be more versatile in terms of wider opening, and of course it is cheaper so could allow you to buy another lens like the Summaron 28.

Tough choice but personally I've settled with the APO as 35/2 is my ideal balance for everyday "street experience". When I am in the mood for "great separation" I'd take my Noct 50/1

There is no wrong choice in any case, just a matter of "balance" between the different parameters  

[otto.f]

23 hours ago, Kiwimac said:

A number of the reviews lauded the close focus of the Apo as a reason to choose it but of course now the Lux had it too. 

Yeah that was me. I compared the new Lux with the APO. Remark that the close focus of the Lux is not that close as the APO; its 0,40 vs. 0,30. This was one of the reasons that pulled me over to the APO, besides the amazing sharpness, being not clinical, that makes a real difference for cropping and makes the idea of one camera one lens possible for certain trips.

Edited July 5, 2023 by otto.f

[otto.f]

59 minutes ago, fil-m said:

There is no wrong choice in any case

True. Although these two lenses are really different, you can’t make the same images with them, talking about wide opening that is. The drawing of the Lux at 1.4 cannot be imitated by the APO. Sometimes I miss my Lux, but I’ve got much more plusses in return for it with the APO.

Edited July 5, 2023 by otto.f

[01af]

According to Leica Camera, the glass is the same in the two most-recent Summilux-M 35 mm Asph versions (with FLE). Only the barrel design and the focus mechanics have changed, to achieve a closer minimum focus distance. So any comparisons between the Apo-Summicron-M 35 mm Asph and the previous Summilux-M 35 mm Asph are still valid.

The Apo-Summicron clearly is the better lens. It's sharper, smaller, has smoother bokeh, and an even shorter minimum focus distance—0.3 m as opposed to the Summilux's 0.4 m (current) or 0.7 m (previous version). Yet, even though the difference is pretty obvious in lens-testing mode, it's mostly insignificant in real-world picture-making. So, go for the Summilux if you actually need f/1.4 for hand-held low-light shooting. Go for the Apo-Summicron otherwise.

[Cobram]

16 hours ago, RexGig0 said:

In serious close-range shooting, the magnification factor is really important. If I am remembering the specifications correctly, this clearly favors the APO ‘Cron, of the two 35mm lenses being discussed here. Personally, I shoot serious macro and close-range with DSLR equipment, that allows me to shoot at 1:1 magnification, with one tandem combination of lenses that goes even further, but, if I wanted to travel with just an M camera body, and did not want to use adapted SLR lenses on that M camera body, yet wanted to shoot close-range images, the APO ‘Cron would have to be given serious consideration.

Of course, the 35mm APO ‘Cron would not be the only APO M lens suitable for close-range shooting. The images of the flowers, at MFD (Minimum Focusing Distance), in this article, shows that the APO Summicron-M 75mm ASPH, at 0.7m, is no slouch, when compared to the APO 35 ‘Cron at 0.3m. This article is at Jono Slack’s site:

 https://www.slack.co.uk/leica-apo-m-lenses.html

Jono Slack is a highly-respected member of this forum.

I am not forgetting the Macro-Elmar 90mm f/4 lens. I simply have no experience with it.

Edited to add: The character of background blur, and the ability to shoot at f/1.4, whether for light-gathering ability, or artistic reasons, are separate factors. I chose to address MFD, because it is often overlooked.

APO Cron 75 is indeed a useful "macro" lens but you need to use Live view. Focus shift is quite a problem (IMHO and related to my copy).

[jonoslack]

6 hours ago, Cobram said:

APO Cron 75 is indeed a useful "macro" lens but you need to use Live view. Focus shift is quite a problem (IMHO and related to my copy).

Hi There

This isn't a problem I've ever found, and I very rarely use the 75 APO with live view. Then lens has floating elements and really shouldn't show focus shift. Perhaps it needs adjusting? 

All the best

[Photoworks]

The Summilux always has the look of 1.4 glow wide open, This makes me often pick the LUX lenses. As you stop down you just have a bit of sharpness as the APO can deliver.

Close focus is not a macro lens. Lenses that are Macro are more suitable for macro work as they are corrected for that focus distance.
You can always add the macro adapter, but the reproduction is not going to be the same.

I have the close-up tubes for the Summicron Apo lenses SL, and to me, these lenses are not made for real close up, there is a huge drop in quality past the normal focusing distance that the lens can do.

[jonoslack]

30 minutes ago, Photoworks said:

The Summilux always has the look of 1.4 glow wide open, This makes me often pick the LUX lenses. As you stop down you just have a bit of sharpness as the APO can deliver.

Close focus is not a macro lens. Lenses that are Macro are more suitable for macro work as they are corrected for that focus distance.
You can always add the macro adapter, but the reproduction is not going to be the same.

I have the close-up tubes for the Summicron Apo lenses SL, and to me, these lenses are not made for real close up, there is a huge drop in quality past the normal focusing distance that the lens can do.

Whilst you are of course right in terms of traditional macro photography, macro lenses tend not to have very good bokeh, and for a certain type of close up photography that can be a real bonus!

This is with the 35 APO at f2

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!

 

Horses for courses!

All the best

Jono

[Jeff S]

10 hours ago, 01af said:

According to Leica Camera, the glass is the same in the two most-recent Summilux-M 35 mm Asph versions (with FLE). Only the barrel design and the focus mechanics have changed, to achieve a closer minimum focus distance. So any comparisons between the Apo-Summicron-M 35 mm Asph and the previous Summilux-M 35 mm Asph are still valid.

The Apo-Summicron clearly is the better lens. It's sharper, smaller, has smoother bokeh, and an even shorter minimum focus distance—0.3 m as opposed to the Summilux's 0.4 m (current) or 0.7 m (previous version). Yet, even though the difference is pretty obvious in lens-testing mode, it's mostly insignificant in real-world picture-making. So, go for the Summilux if you actually need f/1.4 for hand-held low-light shooting. Go for the Apo-Summicron otherwise.

And a minor change from 9 to 11 aperture blades, which of course might only matter stopped down.  Nothing that will tempt me to switch from the prior version.

Jeff

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Smudgerer]

I trialed both the Summilux 35 FLE and the Summicron 35 APO for a week or so and frankly I couldn't see the worth of spending nearly another €3K for the APO, with the possible exception of liking it's slightly small size and weight, ( but I do really like the retractable hood on the FLE ). As most of the use for my lenses now are with film M's the value of the extra stops with the Summilux made the decision a no-brainer. My testing on film and digital showed very little if any real world difference in image quality between either lens when the starting point was f2. The nitpicking about bokeh is a meaningless exercise for me, I tend to look at the parts of an image that is actually in focus..............when I nail it that is.