Personality difference among different Summilux-M 35/1.4 and advice manuals, books, treatises and pdf

[Shepherdphotographer]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thank you all, you have been truly invaluable!!

[hansvons]

@Shepherdphotographer, I own the Summicron 35mm R and Summilux 50mm R for filmmaking. Indeed, there are similarities in character traits with R and M lenses. Treats like flare and curvature are similar, but as they are differently designed for different mounts and thus different flange focal lengths, they differ in character, most notably vignetting and corne performance.

Add to that the fact that all of these lenses were built with film in mind, and only M cameras have a fully optimised sensor for the short M mount flange focal distance, experiencing stronger vignetting and corner smearing is to be expected on mirrorless DSLRs, including the SL line despite Leica’s claims that they are designed to take  M lenses. They do, but not a good as M cameras. This is especially true for wide angle lenses, including 35mm.

That out of the way, coatings play a huge role on a lens’ character as well. They can vary  distinctly from sample to sample. This depends a lot on the build year regarding the formula. But equally important is a lens’ age, as coatings can degrade over time, and how it was treated. Often, owners back then didn't baby their lenses and/or cleaned the front lens coatings to death.

Considering all that, I’d try to get a prestine 90ies Summilux 35mm M V2. They show the classic 35 Summilux pre-ASPH personality/flaws and tons of character but are sharp enough to be used as an everyday workhorse. Lastly, the full M experience includes an M body. I’d look into that as well. 

 

[jaapv]

It is not so much the focal length that determines the performance of M wideangles on other cameras, but the position of the exit pupil and thus the angle of incidence on the sensor. Newer lenses after 2006 are more telecentric in design and less affected. 

[hansvons]

5 hours ago, jaapv said:

focal length

I wrote flange focal distance—a different beast. However, this corner/vignetting issue could also be attributed to the lenses' size–or both. From my practical experience, there's a distinctive difference between how the latest 35mm Summciron R (freshly CLA-ed) renders corners and my recently serviced 35mm Summicron ASPH. The R Summicron (a modern no-Gauss design like the M ASPH) renders corners better and vignettes less than the M sibling on my adapted SL2-S. This difference can't be seen in film pictures when both lenses use their original cameras (I have an M6 and an R6).

 

 

[Shepherdphotographer]

8 hours ago, hansvons said:

@Pastorefotografo, possiedo il Summicron 35mm R e il Summilux 50mm R per la produzione cinematografica. In effetti, ci sono somiglianze nei tratti caratteriali con gli obiettivi R e M. Trattamenti come flare e curvatura sono simili, ma poiché sono progettati in modo diverso per montature diverse e quindi diverse lunghezze focali della flangia, differiscono nel carattere, in particolare nella vignettatura e nelle prestazioni della curva.

Aggiungete a ciò il fatto che tutti questi obiettivi sono stati costruiti pensando alla pellicola e che solo le fotocamere M hanno un sensore completamente ottimizzato per la breve distanza focale della flangia di montaggio M, con una maggiore vignettatura e sbavature agli angoli che è prevedibile sulle DSLR mirrorless, inclusa la linea SL, nonostante Leica affermi che sono progettate per utilizzare obiettivi M. Lo fanno, ma non bene come le fotocamere M. Ciò è particolarmente vero per gli obiettivi grandangolari, incluso il 35 mm.

Detto questo, anche i rivestimenti giocano un ruolo enorme sul carattere di una lente. Possono variare notevolmente da campione a campione. Ciò dipende molto dall'anno di fabbricazione per quanto riguarda la formula. Ma altrettanto importante è l'età di una lente, poiché i rivestimenti possono degradarsi nel tempo, e il modo in cui sono stati trattati. Spesso, i proprietari di allora non trattavano le loro lenti con cura e/o non pulivano a morte i rivestimenti delle lenti anteriori.

Considerando tutto ciò, proverei a procurarmi una Summilux 35mm M V2 degli anni '90. Mostrano la personalità/i difetti classici della Summilux 35 pre-ASPH e un sacco di carattere, ma sono abbastanza nitide da essere usate come un cavallo da lavoro quotidiano. Infine, l'esperienza M completa include un corpo M. Ci penserei anch'io. 

 

Thanks, Gli Havson, for your input. I had read about this problem elsewhere: I considered a 35/1.4 M first version, since it is half the price of a 35/1.4 R, otherwise I would never have done it. An M body does not interest me, because I often use the 135mm and not rarely the 180mm, even if, for sure, the rangefinder experience would be very fascinating!

[costa43]

Outside of people’s opinions and the dedicated threads on here, Flickr is a good resource. If you punch in the lens you are researching/comparing, it usually comes up with high res examples. I’m a fan of the pre asph personally. It’s tiny so sits on the M perfectly, it has strong character wide open and is a beaut at f2, it then sharpens up nicely from f2.8 onward but it never seems too sharp to me.

I really do think that trial and error is the best way to find out what works best though, for you. With a little bit of patience and research, buying used Leica lenses and then selling them on again carries little to no risk of financial loss.  This means part of the fun is working your way through them all till you find ‘the one’.

 

Edited November 25, 2024 by costa43

[Shepherdphotographer]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I add that anyway with the Leica R lenses (I own a lot of them and I love them!), the rangefinder wouldn't work

[Shepherdphotographer]

@Costa43

1) I totally agree with you that the best system is to try/resell/try, until you find the one that best suits your sensitivity and needs. As I wrote before, I own a nice set of Leica R lenses (those that I don't have or don't need as focal length, because they are foreign to my way of seeing, thinking and composing and to the results I want to obtain) and I'm in love with them; I would never switch to an M body, because mounting them the rangefinder wouldn't work and I would never abandon them, although I am fascinated by M lenses. I noticed that the first model of Summilux-M 35/1.4 generally costs half of a Summilux-R 35/1.4 and for this reason I started to look into them.....

2) Flickr, it's true, is an excellent source, but only for the quantity of photos, not for their quality....... There are truly awful photos taken with excellent Leica M lenses........ Truly unwatchable!! For quality, better the specific forums, with galleries for each lens, when there are any....... Some time ago in Italy a great forum was born, it was truly exceptional, serious, well done, then over time it went bad and became a social network, a bar thing, a piece of junk, but there still some old photos of valid example in the galleries can still be found.......

Thank you!

[Shepherdphotographer]

I found a model with serial number 299.... at a good price, even if it is very used; I cannot show the photo, for copyright reasons, but in the description it is written that it has a 10-blade diaphragm, mounts E41 filters and has a minimum focusing distance of 1 meter........ Could you tell me which version it is, please? In order to be able to associate the descriptions with the model......

Edited November 25, 2024 by Shepherdphotographer

[Shepherdphotographer]

In the meantime I'll try to look for it myself.......

[Shepherdphotographer]

4 minutes ago, Al Brown said:

Secondo il numero di serie si tratta del Summilux 35/1.4 pre-asph II del 1979 circa.

Perfect!!! Following Ernst's advice, I went to the topic he indicated on page 1 of this discussion and I saw several photos taken with this model whose colors I really like!!

[lct]

E41 were filters for Summilux 35/1.4 serial numbers up to 2166700. From serial numbers 2166701 and onwards, filters were Series VII AFAIK.

[Shepherdphotographer]

1 minute ago, lct said:

E41 erano filtri per i numeri di serie Summilux 35/1.4 fino a 2166700. Dai numeri di serie 2166701 in poi, i filtri erano Serie VII AFAIK.

Oh yes, the seller specified separately series VII for serial number higher than 2166700, sorry

[jaeger]

The major characteristic is focus shift. 

[Shepherdphotographer]

Il 25/11/2024 alle 09:07, hansvons ha detto:

@Pastorefotografo, possiedo il Summicron 35mm R e il Summilux 50mm R per la produzione cinematografica. In effetti, ci sono somiglianze nei tratti caratteriali con gli obiettivi R e M. Trattamenti come flare e curvatura sono simili, ma poiché sono progettati in modo diverso per montature diverse e quindi diverse lunghezze focali della flangia, differiscono nel carattere, in particolare nella vignettatura e nelle prestazioni della curva.

Aggiungete a ciò il fatto che tutti questi obiettivi sono stati progettati pensando alla pellicola e che solo le fotocamere M hanno un sensore completamente ottimizzato per la breve distanza focale della flangia di montaggio M, con una maggiore vignettatura e sbavature agli angoli che è prevedibile sulle DSLR mirrorless, inclusa la linea SL, nonostante Leica affermi che sono progettati per utilizzare obiettivi M. Lo fanno, ma non bene come le fotocamere M. Ciò è particolarmente vero per gli obiettivi grandangolari, incluso il 35 mm.

Detto questo, anche i rivestimenti giocano un ruolo enorme sul carattere di una lente. Possono variare notevolmente da campione a campione. Ciò dipende molto dall'anno di fabbricazione per quanto riguarda la formula. Ma altrettanto importante è l'età di una lente, poiché i rivestimenti possono degradarsi nel tempo, e il modo in cui sono stati trattati. Spesso, i proprietari di allora non trattavano le loro lenti con cura e/o non pulivano a morte i rivestimenti delle lenti anteriori.

Considerando tutto ciò, proverei a procurarmi un Summilux 35mm M V2 degli anni '90. Mostrano la personalità/i difetti classici della Summilux 35 pre-ASPH e un sacco di carattere, ma sono abbastanza nitide da essere usate come un cavallo da lavoro quotidiano. Infine, l'esperienza M completa include un corpo M. Ci penserei anch'io. 

 

Would you advise me to make an effort, then, and buy a Lux 35/1.4 R, instead of a Lux 35/1.4 M, since I intend to use the lens on the SL and SL2? What performance problems, exactly? Exactly the ones you listed (vignetting, smudging at the edges)? Thanks.

[hansvons]

1 hour ago, Shepherdphotographer said:

Would you advise me to make an effort, then, and buy a Lux 35/1.4 R, instead of a Lux 35/1.4 M,

If you can find one in good condition, go for it. I don't need the f/1.4 (too dreamy and soft) and would prefer the latest version of the 35mm Summicron f/2 R. It's way cheaper (from a Leica perspective) and is a brilliant lens in its own right. But these are also hard to find in excellent condition because the filmmaking community hoovers them up like dust (they started with the Summiluxes ...). I have one in good condition and recently serviced it for 500 EUR (not cheap if you want to have the lens adequately collimated, which can be done to a certain extent with the R primes). It wasn't exactly a bargain and took a few months of research (I buy only from trusted dealers).