35mm summicron v2/3 or ASPH?

[Al Brown]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have tested the V3, V4 and V5 together & compared to each other.
The real difference between V3 and V5 is the render wide open and the edges, but in a blind test, unless enlarged really big AND wide open, you would be hard pressed to tell them apart.

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!

[Advertisement]

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

[Ouroboros]

3 hours ago, hansvons said:

 

I find the ASPH is not clinical at all. It does have plenty of character and soul. 

 

 

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!

 

 

I find the 35mm summicron asph neither clinical or ‘boring’ as is so often repeated by some here and I often wonder how many of those who insist on regurgitating this same old opinion have actually tried to use it without making a boring image.  
You have stated your case  for the 35mm summicron asph very well and I agree with you. 

 It’s interesting that I cannot recall anyone ever posting any images that would conclusively support their opinion about how the 35mm summicron asph is either clinical or boring.  
Until I do, I’ll just carry on with my belief that there are more boring camera owners around than boring lenses!

I’ve had my v1 asph for getting on for 20 years and have never felt the need to replace it with anything else.  Great little lens for travel, street, documentary,, environmental portraits etc or just taking it with me for a walk with no real plan in mind. 

 

[lct]

34 minutes ago, Ouroboros said:

Great little lens for travel, street, documentary,, environmental portraits etc or just taking it with me for a walk with no real plan in mind. 

The opposite of a character lens sort of. I used to call this an "objective" lens elsewhere. A lens i will use to show things as they are, more so than things or beings the way i see them. I always bring a lens like this with me but i take a character lens too, mainly for portraits. YMMV.

[lekitr]

On 7/10/2023 at 5:04 PM, tomshelby said:

 

 

Thank you for the help! I still have no clue of how much of sharpness loss I am looking at.. perhaps the best way is to try them out. 

I don't know about v2 nd v3. I had the v4 so called king of bokeh for 30 years as my only lens and now have the asph v1. . you have to compare perfectly exposed pictures, shot on tripod side bye side to see any difference from f4.  the v4 pre asph is also ultra compact.   That said a used one (obviously) trade for much higher price than the asph.  I think you should go for the asph.

[lekitr]

ok lets call it Mandler vs karb.  A matter of personal choices and mood.  Shot 35 horizontal and 50 vertical.....Mandler for legacy film (hp5 pan-f tri-x etc...) and Karb for modern film (t-max and Delta). Any mix that suits you.  oups I forgot the op shoot digital.  So TTL (m8, m9 and mono) as legacy and CMOS (M m10 M11 mono10 and mono11) as modern but I digress, hope you see the point.

[a.noctilux]

As side note, digital Leica M can give shortly the net result.

So trying out by user is the only valable way to know.

Maybe the two/three (or more) types can do if images are the most important?

[Besprosvet]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have the 35mm Summicron v3, mine is a bit worn and may need some CLA to perform even better (based on some shots, I suspect is a bit decentered). But still, I truly love it.

Resolution: At f2 is sharp enough in the center area, the focal plane is curved to the point that if your subject is at 2/3 meters in the center and focused, the far elements at the edges are going to look almost in focus. This is one of the reasons why modern optical schemes appear with less dof at the same aperture, even the 35 summarit 2.5 looks like it has less dof compared to the v3, despite being around half a stop "darker". I don't consider this a defect, instead, it's part of the character I love in this lens, and I like using f2 while being able to give more context in my shots. At the corners is also very fuzzy, but again, it adds depth to the images imo.

Vignetting: at f2 there's enough to be noticed (again, I like it). At 2.8 I already don't see it as an issue in everyday photography.

Colors: warm, contrasty but never harsh passages. I love love love them. They're so nice that if you cool down your WB they still look good, intense.

General rendering: All in all it has a a truly heritage 70's look, with an evident, beautiful, 3D rendering (German old school).

I also have the Voigtlander 35 1.4 Nokton II SC. Well, despite its evident vintage touch, it looks much more modern compared to the v3 Cron, its focal plane is flatter (less dof at comparable aperture, especially at f2 and f2.8), generally, it's kind of sharper and from f2 on, gentler bokeh. But its colors are colder and more dull, more "smeared", it has a bit less "micro contrast" and worse color separation, it also shows some kind of "veil" in the shadows. Much less 3D feel to the shots

On the good side, the Voigt has less global contrast so I prefer it on my Monochrom (especially at night), but that's it.

I'd love to post all the beautiful portraits I take to my daughter to show you how the v3 performs... but I can't. But I found a shot done with it at f2 that can give you a summary of what I mean, shot on my M (typ 240) a few weeks ago.

I got my v3 for 1100€, so kind of affordable (in Leica terms). If you want performance at f2, it's not for you, if you want a "two lenses in one": dreamy at f2 (and on a lesser degree at f2.8) and very good performance from f4, get it.

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!