35mm Summicron V4 -the final choice

[rcusick]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, dpitt said:

I think that is wishful thinking... Yes the Summilux pre-ASPH is soft wide open and gets better when stopped down, but it never will be exactly the same rendering as the Summicron. In fact, I am always confused when using it. Shots wide open seem to come from a different lens compared to F2.0 and smaller.

If you do not need dreamy look (at F1.4), halo and lots of character, then the Summicron will beat it (technically) at every stop.
The Summicron starts very sharp and contrasty (for a vintage lens) at F2.0 and only gets better when stopped down but stays in character. Unlike the Summilux which seems to transform into a different lens between F1.4 and F2.0, and then gets slowly better and better when stopped down.

So if you want to have a creamy look with almost modern rendering and tech specs then I think the Summicron is best. If you want a lens that plays with light and do not mind softness and a bit of inconsistency here and there, then maybe the Summilux is the one for you.
With today's high ISO performance, the need for F1.4 is not as high as it used to be. I would use the Summilux at F2.0 most of the time, to get more sharpness and contrast, so I sold mine and kept the Summicron.

I totally agree.  They are different lenses. I think it’s mostly down to the coating.  The cron has a more modern coating and thus has richer colors and more contrast.  I think the Summilux is a bit cooler in its rendering.  Just my 2 cents. 

[Advertisement]

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

[lct]

Unsure about coating, on German made copies at least. Both German 'Lux v2 and "KOB" are from 1987 or later and i haven't heard of different coatings being applied to them at Wetzlar but i may be wrong. As far as my German copies are concerned, the 'Lux v2 is as sharp if not sharper than the KOB at f/2.8 and on and it has also less color fringing so if prices were similar i'm not sure i would choose the KOB if not for its closer MFD and E39 filters. BTW both lenses can be used for close-ups on mirrorless cameras with close focus adapters if needed.

[lct]

47 minutes ago, Giacomo Busoni said:

At F4, none of these lenses have glow, and both render extremely differently. They both shine. Impossible to choose one over the other. 

Never seen glow at f/4 on any M lens so far but at that aperture, my German Lux from 1989 is a bit sharper on corners than my German "KOB" from 1987 and the Lux has also a bit less color fringing. I need to do side by side comparos to see significant differences though.

[pippy]

On 5/12/2024 at 2:00 PM, dpitt said:

...Yes the Summilux pre-ASPH is soft wide open and gets better when stopped down, but it never will be exactly the same rendering as the Summicron. In fact, I am always confused when using it. Shots wide open seem to come from a different lens compared to F2.0 and smaller...If you do not need dreamy look (at F1.4), halo and lots of character, then the Summicron will beat it (technically) at every stop.

I don't want to start a bunfight, Dirk, but Erwin Puts doesn't share your view;

"Stopping (the Summilux) down to 1:2.8, overall contrast quite markedly improves and from that aperture the performance characteristics are identical to the Summicron 1:2/35. Indeed so identical is the performance that one could get the impression that both lenses share the same basic computation......The Summilux, when compared to the Summicron version of its day showed a much lower contrast at wider apertures, but when stopped down had better performance in the field."

Philip.

[dpitt]

7 hours ago, pippy said:

I don't want to start a bunfight, Dirk, but Erwin Puts doesn't share your view;

"Stopping (the Summilux) down to 1:2.8, overall contrast quite markedly improves and from that aperture the performance characteristics are identical to the Summicron 1:2/35. Indeed so identical is the performance that one could get the impression that both lenses share the same basic computation......The Summilux, when compared to the Summicron version of its day showed a much lower contrast at wider apertures, but when stopped down had better performance in the field."

Philip.

Philip, no problem. Maybe I was a bit hard in favor of the Summicron.
I read in this that Puts largely agrees with me. Stopping down to F2.8 is 2 full stops down from wide open, and he states that there is a quite markedly improvement needed to catch up with the Summicron. So that means to me that the Summicron is better at F2.0 and at least as good (technically) at F2.8 . Puts confirms that it has much lower contrast at wider apertures.

Then he goes on saying that it has better performance in the field... Not sure what he means. After you have dealt with the focus shift issues over the first few stops, then it is a very good lens. I like the Summilux rendering for artistic reasons, so I would want a pre-ASPH Summilux 35 that behaves like the Summilux 50 pre-ASPH. The contrast and definition are much better wide open and also improve significantly when stopped down to F2.8, but I never had the impression my shots at F1.4 came from a different lens compared to shots at F2.8, like I have with the 35mm. As @Giacomo Busoni says it is an inconsistent lens. For some people that is an advantage because you buy 2 or even 3 lenses in one, not necessarily so for me.

The best Summilux that I have now is the Summilux 35 TL. I can hardly see a performance difference between F1.4 and F2.8, and I love its rendering at all apertures. Although it is a modern lens and quite different from vintage rendering, and technically it is more a 50mm because you have to use it in cropped mode. I am often surprised at how pleasing the results are on my SL (and TL2).

 

Edited May 15, 2024 by dpitt

[pippy]

2 hours ago, dpitt said:

...Stopping (the Summilux) down to F2.8 is 2 full stops down from wide open, and he states that there is a quite markedly improvement needed to catch up with the Summicron. So that means to me that the Summicron is better at F2.0 and at least as good (technically) at F2.8 . Puts confirms that it has much lower contrast at wider apertures...

...I like the Summilux rendering for artistic reasons, so I would want a pre-ASPH Summilux 35 that behaves like the Summilux 50 pre-ASPH...

...(the Summilux) is an inconsistent lens. For some people that is an advantage because you buy 2 or even 3 lenses in one, not necessarily so for me...

First-off and just to be perfectly clear on this; I have no dog in this fight and agree with what you have written here.

If anyone is interested in my musings here are a few of my own observations;

Although I don't have a Leitz pre-asph 35mm Summicron I do have the LLL reverse-engineered recreation of the 1958-'69(?) v1 (AKA "8 Element") whose rendering - as has already been shown in a few threads in the Forum - is exactly the same as the original. I also have a 1974 v2 Summilux and it was only after I had been out shooting with both of these lenses (on two bodies) on the same day that I found that, once the colour images had been converted to monochrome and printed (A3 / Baryta paper stock), I couldn't possibly tell - judging by the rendering - which photographs had been taken with which camera/lens pairing. This, I thought, was quite unusual not to say rather remarkable.

After this discovery I checked up on what some of the reputable Leitz lens reviewers had to say and it was only then that I came across the report - an extract from which I quoted - by Herr Puts. What he wrote, I admit, came as a slight surprise yet it also mirrored my own experience.

So I did a few tests in the studio and the results obtained confirmed matters for me. With my two examples it is impossible to notice any differences in their respective rendering from f2.8 down. As is well known the old Summilux lenses have their, ermmm, 'Artistic' foible when shot at f1.4 and, to a lesser extent, this is also apparent at f2.0. For some photographers, as you say, this is seen as an advantage. For other photographers - such as yourself - this quality is not desirable.

Of the two lenses I have no stand-out favourite; each has advantages over the other.

The Summilux - to state the obvious - has one extra stop to play with and it also has that slightly bonkers rendering when used at f1.4. When shooting with a Circ. Pola the Series VII / 12504 hood combination is a far simpler pairing to use than the POOTR with either the (dedicated) IROOA or the (better) 12585 on the '8 Element'.

The '8 Element' takes (the once-ubiquitous) E39 filters and, with the Monochrom, I use colour contrast filters almost all the time. Ergonomically it also has the 'Thumb-nail' type of Infinity-Lock which I happen to love. When fitted with the black-lacquer LLL 'IROOA' hood it is, admittedly, a Very Pretty Little Thing but in practice the 12585 has far less finder-blockage so I use one of those.

All that taken into account when shooting with a 35mm lens I almost always(*) use the Summilux on the M-D (colour body) and the '8 Element' on the Monochrom. As the M-D has a lower base ISO in comparison with the Monochrom (200 /320) the extra stop of the Summilux can come in handy. The E39 filter thread of the LLL allows me to use a wider selection of colour contrast filters as, at the moment, with my Series VII I only have Yellow and Orange from which to choose. The higher base ISO of the MM also helps compensate for resultant light-loss when using these things.

That's about it. If one of them has certain attributes which makes it a better choice for any particular person then I can understand why that would be the case. Regardless of which is selected; they are both Superb Performers and results obtained from using either of them are unlikely to be a disappointment for the majority of photographers.

Philip.

* EDIT : I've just noticed that, at this very moment, the M-D has the '8 Element' with 12504 / Circ. Pola attached. "A change is as good as a rest"?......😸......

Edited May 15, 2024 by pippy

[dpitt]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

@pippy Thanks for discussing the differences you see between the Summilux pre-ASPH and the LLL 8-element.
I did have a goggled version of the original 8-element Summicron 35, and I still have a Summilux pre-ASPH v2 and a Summicron 35 v3.

I agree with you that the one stop advantage can still be an advantage, as on my M9. Although with the M10 and up, I see that this advantage becomes very relative because adding one stop with higher ISO is very convenient. The same for my SL and TL2.

There is definitely a difference between the 8-element Summicron 35 v1 and the v3,v4 
The last 2 versions have richer colors and more creamy look IMO. When Puts mentions the contemporary Summicron, I think he is referring to v3, possibly v4.

Maybe that explains the small differences we all see/not see at F2.8 and up. Both v3 and v4 are of slightly later design and are closer (not quite) to the Summicron 50 v4/v5 in rendering compared to the Summicron 35 v1.
I must admit they are very close when stopped down, differences are minimal. Both are excellent lenses, even phenomenal if you consider the design is more than 50 years old now. And all this in a very light and tiny package.

Edited May 15, 2024 by dpitt

[Stephen.s1]

Uhhh..  What's KOB?

Kindly Old Bugger?

 

[lct]

18 minutes ago, Stephen.s1 said:

Uhhh..  What's KOB?

Kindly Old Bugger?

I must be a KOB with a KOB then 😄

[evikne]

1 hour ago, Stephen.s1 said:

Uhhh..  What's KOB?

Kindly Old Bugger?

If it was meant seriously, it stands for King Of Bokeh. But I prefer just “v4”. 

[pippy]

2 hours ago, dpitt said:

Thanks for discussing the differences you see between the Summilux pre-ASPH and the LLL 8-element. I did have a goggled version of the original 8-element Summicron 35, and I still have a Summilux pre-ASPH v2 and a Summicron 35 v3.

There is definitely a difference between the 8-element Summicron 35 v1 and the v3,v4......The last 2 versions have richer colors and more creamy look IMO. When Puts mentions the contemporary Summicron, I think he is referring to v3, possibly v4.

I must admit they are very close when stopped down, differences are minimal. Both are excellent lenses, even phenomenal if you consider the design is more than 50 years old now.

Thanks for the above post, Dirk; interesting reading.

As the v1 Summicron and v1 / v2 Summilux were both in production during the years 1960-'69 I had probably assumed that he meant the 8-Element but, of course, the v1 / v2 Summilux optical design lasted from 1960 right up to 1995/'96 so production of that lens would have covered all four versions of the Summicron!......😸......

I don't have access to a v4 although, as it happens, my brother has owned one since the mid-1980s. I must see if I can have a go when next we meet!

On a tangential point (and touching on a subject mentioned in post #28 regarding use of contrast filters) which I only just discovered when checking production-dates I came across something of which I was previously completely unaware. On Ken Rockwell's site he states, when discussing the 35mm Summilux, that Series VII filters include "Yellow - 13 006; Yellow-Green - 13 007; Orange - 13 008; UVa - 13 009; Red - Not Made"......which probably explains why I haven't found a red one for sale! Heigh-Ho; I'll now switch my attention to 3rd Party manufacturers.

And yes; to go back to Mr. Rockwell. He has posted a comparison-test between examples of all four versions of the 35 Summicron. To cut to the chase in his summing up statement he concludes;

"These lenses are so good that diffraction starts to take hold even at moderate apertures, so each one has its peak performance at a different large aperture. Depending on the aperture you choose, one or another might be slightly sharper under test range conditions. You'll never see any of this in actual pictures, and on film under test range conditions, they all look spectacular at every aperture."

Sounds like a pretty fair assessment to me......😸......

Philip.

Edited May 15, 2024 by pippy

[costa43]

I always thought the Summilux v2 was more comparable to the v2/v3 Summicrons, it’s good to hear it holds its own with the v4 from f2.8. I’m very happy with my copy, I just wished it focused down to 0.7. I think mine gets to around 0.85 which is a little restricting at times. 

[roelandinho]

I sold my 35 mm Summilux v2 and kept the 35 mm Summicron v4 because it focuses closer, renders richer color, and is even a bit more compact and lighter than the Summilux. On top of that the engravings are in the modern square font (German version of the lens), matching my cameras. Other than differences in color rendering, both lenses are very, very similar at the same aperture setting. 

This lens is just so nice to use due to the weight and size, and at the same time it's sharp enough, fast enough and renders beautifully. 

[dpitt]

16 hours ago, pippy said:

Thanks for the above post, Dirk; interesting reading.

As the v1 Summicron and v1 / v2 Summilux were both in production during the years 1960-'69 I had probably assumed that he meant the 8-Element but, of course, the v1 / v2 Summilux optical design lasted from 1960 right up to 1995/'96 so production of that lens would have covered all four versions of the Summicron!......😸......

I don't have access to a v4 although, as it happens, my brother has owned one since the mid-1980s. I must see if I can have a go when next we meet!

....

And yes; to go back to Mr. Rockwell. He has posted a comparison-test between examples of all four versions of the 35 Summicron. To cut to the chase in his summing up statement he concludes;

"These lenses are so good that diffraction starts to take hold even at moderate apertures, so each one has its peak performance at a different large aperture. Depending on the aperture you choose, one or another might be slightly sharper under test range conditions. You'll never see any of this in actual pictures, and on film under test range conditions, they all look spectacular at every aperture."

Sounds like a pretty fair assessment to me......😸......

Philip.

I briefly had a Summicron v4, compared it to my v3 and found not much difference. Then sold the v4 because it fetched more money and was in better cosmetic condition than my v3. I don't mind a small scratch or dent as long as it does not compromise performance.

Thanks for the reference to Ken Rockwell's test!

I had the v1 (8-element) version for longer.  It was a goggled version and I did not like the extra weight and hassle that comes with it. So it was sitting on the shelf more than the v3. When I compared it, I noticed the richer colors and the less contrast, little bit cooler rendering, more blue than red like the later Leica glass often has. I eventually sold it because it did not get much use. If it had been a non-goggled version, maybe I would have kept it.

I did not know the technical reason behind the differences I saw, but Ken Rockwell mentions this:
 

Quote

The other lenses have similar color rendition, however the B&W-optimized coatings of this version give it a very slightly more cyan cast than the others.

So that explains what I notice when using glass from the 50s and 60s compared to more modern designs. I have seen it in the Summicron 35 v1, Summicron 50 v1 collapsible, Summicron 50 Rigid, Summicron 50 DR, Summicron 90. All not later than mid 60s. In particular greens are more vibrant and overall they have a cooler look than the later lenses that seem to have a more reddish tint, starting from late 60s, all the way to the present. If anything the modern ASPH lenses even have more warmth than the lenses from the 70s.

Lenses designed before the 50s are somewhat in the middle for my eyes, even when they are coated. Maybe they used a different glass for the cyan look too. Or perhaps, they never used these coatings on the older designs. Like the Elmar 50 3.5 LTM , Summar 50 and Summaron and 35 have different (more neutral? ) colors to me.

Funny enough, all Summilux 35 samples that I have seen, fall out of this cyan look. Maybe they were the first to use the newer more red coatings. 

This color signature divides the Summicron 35 versions more IMO than anything else. With the Summicron 35v1 in the older cyan tint and all the later versions having more red, including the Summilux 35.
I wonder how the LLL compares to the original 8-element 35 Summicron on that point. Any Summilux 35 that I saw was slightly cooler but still on the red side of the spectrum. How is the color of your LLL 8-element 35mm?

 

 

Edited May 16, 2024 by dpitt

[roelandinho]

13 minutes ago, dpitt said:

If anything the modern ASPH lenses even have more warmth than the lenses from the 70s.

The aspherical versions (of the 35 mm Summicron and Summilux) render more (too much?) magenta compared to the pre-asph versions. 

[pippy]

2 hours ago, dpitt said:

...This color signature divides the Summicron 35 versions more IMO than anything else. With the Summicron 35v1 in the older cyan tint and all the later versions having more red, including the Summilux 35.......I wonder how the LLL compares to the original 8-element 35 Summicron on that point. Any Summilux 35 that I saw was slightly cooler but still on the red side of the spectrum. How is the color of your LLL 8-element 35mm?......

The simple answer to my experience with the colour-profile of the LLL is I haven't a clue!

My only 'Colour' digi-M body is an M-D Typ-262. With this camera (as I'm sure you already know) there is no possibility to set white-balance nor any desired colour-temperature; the camera will do what it thinks is correct and that's and end of matters. As such any subtle differences which might be due to the use of different coatings could, therefore, be masked by the inbuilt image-collecting software 'correcting' for white-balance as it deems to be appropriate.

However!...

What Mr. Rockwell says - and what you have described in terms of older coatings leaning more to the cooler end of the Kelvin spectrum - could make a lot of sense. As well as the Summilux and LLL '8-E' I have a 1954 35mm Summaron and I have noticed, in the past, that in a back-to-back test it rendered distinctly cooler than my v4 Summicron which dates to 1985 and would presumably 'benefit' from the newer coatings.

There was a bit of a discussion here several months back which considered how coatings of different colours might affect the final 'Warmth or Coolness' in the final image. Many members showed photographs of lenses with coatings which showed reflected-highlights covering a wide range from those with a distinctly cool 'blue-indigo' coating through 'magenta-emerald' to 'amber-chestnut' and so on. Bear in mind that because these coatings reflect these wavelengths the light being transmitted through these coatings will have lost some percentage of these light-wavelengths therefore a 'Blue' coating might be expected to result in a warmer final image and an 'Amber' coating might result in the transmitted information being towards the cooler end of the spectrum.

Not much could be proven scientifically because, of course, different glass compounds have, themselves, different light wavelength transmission properties but, for what it is worth, here is a pair of shots (taken just for fun ages ago so very much not under 'Lab Conditions!) showing my own 1974 v2 Summilux and the LLL '8 Element' recreation. Note the apparent similarity of coating colour;

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!

There's absolutely no point in me doing a back-to-back lens-comparison between these two lenses because the Camera itself could skew the results but when Al brown did his comparison test with the LLL and an original v1 Summicron he found the colour rendering to be pretty much identical. As LLL were trying their hardest to make this the reality this should come as no surprise.

In case you have not already seen it you might enjoy having a read-through of this thread; the similarities are (IMO) rather extraordinary;

https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/326477-summicron-352-8-element-vs-light-lens-lab-352-a-direct-comparison/#comment-4312043

Philip.

Edited May 16, 2024 by pippy

[01af]

Am 10.5.2024 um 19:05 schrieb MrBan:

... and the bokeh here looks great, although this is subjective of course. It seems to have a nice character.

Huh!? The bokeh looks terrible. However, the culprit seems to be the post-processing, not the lens.

.

Am 11.5.2024 um 10:18 schrieb MrBan:

These are post-processed DNGs. [...] Here is an untouched out-of-camera JPEG for comparison. [...]

Ah. Much better!

Adobe Camera Raw and Lightroom, for example, prefer over-saturated colours and apply excessive sharpening in their default settings. I guess most other image-processing applications will do the same, more or less.

[wizard]

vor 59 Minuten schrieb pippy:

and what you have described in terms of older coatings leaning more to the cooler end of the Kelvin spectrum - could make a lot of sense.

I beg to differ. I own and use a mint Summicron 35 v1 (goggled version for M3) as well as a late German made Summicron 35 v4. Back when I used slide film most of the time (usually Provia 100F), I noted that the 35 v4 renders colors visibly cooler (more blueish) than my 35 v1. So notable was the difference that I decided to use a 1.5x skylight filter permanently on the v4 to bring its color rendition more or less in line with my other Leica lenses. With the v1, no such measures are required. Rather, using a skylight filter on the v1 resulted in an overly warm color rendition. All my comments are, of course, based on using the same film (Provia 100F in my case), and I do appreciate that different films will likely lead to different results.

In my view, while lens coatings may possibly be used to fine-tune color rendition of a given lens, different glass compositions account for the majority of differences in color rendition between lenses. In other words, I do not believe that it is generally possible to judge the color rendition of a lens based on the color of its coatings. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[pippy]

25 minutes ago, wizard said:

I beg to differ. I own and use a mint Summicron 35 v1 (goggled version for M3) as well as a late German made Summicron 35 v4. Back when I used slide film most of the time (usually Provia 100F), I noted that the 35 v4 renders colors visibly cooler (more blueish) than my 35 v1. So notable was the difference that I decided to use a 1.5x skylight filter permanently on the v4 to bring its color rendition more or less in line with my other Leica lenses. With the v1, no such measures are required. Rather, using a skylight filter on the v1 resulted in an overly warm color rendition. All my comments are, of course, based on using the same film (Provia 100F in my case), and I do appreciate that different films will likely lead to different results.

In my view, while lens coatings may possibly be used to fine-tune color rendition of a given lens, different glass compositions account for the majority of differences in color rendition between lenses. In other words, I do not believe that it is generally possible to judge the color rendition of a lens based on the color of its coatings. 

Thanks for that reply detailing your own personal experiences, Wizard, as it does help to show that different people have seen different results produced when using similar equipment. And yes; the point about light-transmission through glass elements with different chemical characteristics is quite well understood and, indeed, was discussed in the 'Lens Coating' thread. It is also why I wrote "Not much could be proven scientifically because, of course, different glass compounds have, themselves, different light wavelength transmission properties" in post #38.

These days (as explained above) I have no way of conducting a tightly-controlled studio-based test which is a bit of a shame. Back when I had my M9-P, however, I did do such a test where I compared a number of lenses old-and-new(er). Amongst their number were the '54 35mm Summaron and '85 50mm Summicron (as mentioned) as well as a '61 50mm Elmar; a 1953 50mm f1.5 Summarit; a 40mm f1.4 Voigtlander Nokton and a 50mm f1.1 7Artisan. The 'warmest' of the bunch was the 7Artisan. From memory the 50 Summicron and 40 Nokton were near-as-much identical. The others (Summaron; ; Elmar; Summarit) were also near-identical and 'cooler' than the others.

I'm not sure whether I will have kept these results but I'll have a look.

For me much of this 'colour-variation' is wholly academic as even those images I shoot on the 'Colour Body' are, ultimately, almost certain to be printed as monochrome photographs.

Don't tell anyone but I don't normally like colour photographs all that much.......😸......

Philip.

Edited May 16, 2024 by pippy

[wizard]

vor 26 Minuten schrieb pippy:

And yes; the point about light-transmission through glass elements with different chemical characteristics is quite well understood

I certainly had no intention to imply that you had not understood that point, so my apologies if my comments transpired otherwise. Rather, I simply wanted to very clearly make the point that glass compositions are likely to have a much more pronounced effect on color rendition than glass coatings. All of which, of course, is largely irrelevant for black and white shooters 🙂.