Leica Summicron-SL 35 f/2 ASPH VS NON APO for SL3

[daned]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Debating between the Leica Summicron-SL 35 f/2 ASPH non APO vs APO for the SL 3, any advantage for the APO. Also which is speedier in autofocus.

[Advertisement]

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

[Dr. G]

The advantage to the APO is superior image quality, contrast, microcontrast, sharpness and it's apochromatic nature.  It comes down to how much more you want to pay for that.  I have the 21, 35, 50 and 75 APO Summicron-SLs and I wouldn't think of trading them for the non-APO, ASPH 35 and 50.  

[LeicaR10]

Daned,   Dr. G's post is spot on with everything he wrote.  if you want to check out the rendering for many of the Leica lenses take a look at this free stie.  If using a VPN, I suggest you put it on pause to get access.   r/ Mark

Try:  www.onfotolife.com 

[daned]

Are they as fast focussing or the new non APO have an advantage there?

[tom0511]

I read somewhere the non-apos might focus faster, they are also lighter and smaller.(Size and weight would not be a reason for me to not use the APOs).

 

[Photoworks]

the non-apo is quite good, AF is much faster and significantly smaller, for a video I would prefer the asph.

The optical performance of the APO is amazing, it is a reference lens,

this is the 50 from Panasonic at 2.8

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!

 

and this is the 35 APO at 2.5

 

 

[WvE]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have both the 50 and the 35 SL Crons (non-Apo) and prefer them over the Apo's which are simply too expensive and too heavy for me. The AF of the Crons is also considerably better. Yes, the Apo's are better in respect of IQ, but for day-to-day use, I prefer the Crons (most people wouldn't notice if a picture is taken with an Apo or a Cron, it's all about the subject).

[keeping_a_balance]

6 hours ago, Photoworks said:

the non-apo is quite good, AF is much faster and significantly smaller, for a video I would prefer the asph.

The optical performance of the APO is amazing, it is a reference lens,

this is the 50 from Panasonic at 2.8

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!

 

and this is the 35 APO at 2.5

 

 

Great pictures. And your work in is always top notch.

I am however wondering, what is it in the APO image that makes it better vs the Panasonic 50 in these two images. 

Looking at these images on a screen I have trouble finding any flaws in either. and what makes the APO "reference" vs the very good Panasonic.  

Interested to see if anyone is able to find a difference.

 

[huwm]

1 hour ago, keeping_a_balance said:

Great pictures. And your work in is always top notch.

I am however wondering, what is it in the APO image that makes it better vs the Panasonic 50 in these two images. 

Looking at these images on a screen I have trouble finding any flaws in either. and what makes the APO "reference" vs the very good Panasonic.  

Interested to see if anyone is able to find a difference.

 

I try not to pixel peak and just look at the overall image.

To me the APO is 'better' as it conveys the sense of emotional engagement that you expect in a portrait rather than a snap

This may be due to other aspects of the shots of course

I have the 35APO having had the Sigma f2 and 1.4 and also the non APO Leica all of which were excellent but lacked 'it' whatever that is

[Dr. G]

2 hours ago, keeping_a_balance said:

Great pictures. And your work in is always top notch.

I am however wondering, what is it in the APO image that makes it better vs the Panasonic 50 in these two images. 

Looking at these images on a screen I have trouble finding any flaws in either. and what makes the APO "reference" vs the very good Panasonic.  

Interested to see if anyone is able to find a difference.

 

You just need to look at RAW files.  Here are two photos that show the detail and subject separation the APO 35 has.  Not the most artistic shots, and they’re downsized to 2048 on the long edge, but hopefully you can see what I’m talking about.  Make sure you click on them to view them as best as possible.

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!

Edited April 24, 2024 by Dr. G

[Dr. G]

Here’s another.

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!

[Dr. G]

FWIW, I’ve found that the APO lenses (all APO lenses, in general) excel ant black and white photography, even when converting from color.  Because of the way the color channels are aligned on the sensor at optimized distance, black and white images have a certain realism to them.  This is especially true if you like high contrast, high detail black and white.

[Dr. G]

Here’s one at a more “normal” distance.

 

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!

[Photoworks]

3 hours ago, keeping_a_balance said:

Great pictures. And your work in is always top notch.

I am however wondering, what is it in the APO image that makes it better vs the Panasonic 50 in these two images. 

Looking at these images on a screen I have trouble finding any flaws in either. and what makes the APO "reference" vs the very good Panasonic.  

Interested to see if anyone is able to find a difference.

 

there are differences, if you view them at 100%

You will find more differences in different lighting situations. Especially with the backlight, the APO retains all the contrast and details.

But sharper and more details are not always the way to go. I often use the noctilux instead of the 75 SL APO just because it is too sharp on portraits

[Dr. G]

26 minutes ago, Photoworks said:

there are differences, if you view them at 100%

You will find more differences in different lighting situations. Especially with the backlight, the APO retains all the contrast and details.

But sharper and more details are not always the way to go. I often use the noctilux instead of the 75 SL APO just because it is too sharp on portraits

That's exactly why I have both the APO 50 and the Summilux-SL.

[tom0511]

vor 4 Stunden schrieb keeping_a_balance:

Great pictures. And your work in is always top notch.

I am however wondering, what is it in the APO image that makes it better vs the Panasonic 50 in these two images. 

Looking at these images on a screen I have trouble finding any flaws in either. and what makes the APO "reference" vs the very good Panasonic.  

Interested to see if anyone is able to find a difference.

 

I prefer in this example clearly the apo image but I dont think it has anything to do with the lens

[huwm]

21 hours ago, tom0511 said:

I prefer in this example clearly the apo image but I dont think it has anything to do with the lens

indeed 

there is a lot more to a successful shoot than the equipment used but I suspect the APO is adding ‘something’ here

[LanceR]

I very recently visited a Leica store for this exact comparison.  My experience is that they are generous in allowing people to go outside and shoot with the cameras and lenses.  I tested a number of type of shots using my personal SL3 with both lenses and also did some focus testing.  I reviewed the results at home.

There is not doubt that the APO produces the better images, like for like.  It is sharper corner to corner, has improved micro contrast, etc. (all the things people say)

However, I found the ASPH Summicron more practical.  It is smaller, lighter, and faster focusing.

Candidly, the focussing difference between the two was significant for me.  The APO was quite a bit slower to focus, at least for my tastes / experiences, and it also hunted a bit when I used it.  I do not mean it is unusable, but definitely slower with some hunting.

I guess I would say, "I was more surprised at how much "better" the ASPH lens was at focusing than I was surprised at how much "better" the APO images were."

For me, it was an easy choice.  35mm is my travel / reportage lens.  At times, the shot I want unfolds quickly.  Overall, I prefer smaller, lighter with faster focus for that use case.  I also do not mind traveling with a lens that cost 1/3 the money in the event something unfortunate occurs.

If my use case for 35mm involved subjects that were mostly still, the best image quality available was a priority, and I did not need to carry it for weeks on end, I would likely choose the APO.

It comes down to your use cases and what sacrifices you are willing to make.  (including price)  What subjects do you shoot, what do you with your photos, to what extent is the absolute best image quality a priority, and how mobile you expect to be?  (or at least your tolerances for size and weight)

The great news is that neither one is a bad choice!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Kristofferpaulsen]

I picked up the non apo, and i gotta say it’s great. Apparently the non apo is focus by barrel rather wire in MF, so that could be something. I’ve got 50 lux and 90 cron already, and honestly i couldnt ask for anything more of this lens. It’s so light and little, i’ve actually hardly used my q2 since i got it. A few examples.. 

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!

[Luke_Miller]

Demonstrating once again that it is how the lens performs in one's hands, rather than on test charts.