Would you buy both 28mm f1.4 and 35mm f1.4

[charlesphoto99]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

34 minutes ago, _tc said:

What years were the optical formulas of the 28, 35 and 50mm summicrons that are CURRENTLY on sale first released? Let's put aside APO since you said we want to have extra money and APO summicrons are more expensive than summiluxes.

28 and 35 version 2 were released in 2016. That said, my 28mm Summicron Version 1, which I purchased used for about $1200 in 2005, continues to make stunning images on my M10-R. 

[Eoin]

It really comes down to personal choice, likes and dislikes, size and if viewfinder obstruction bothers.

I personally like and use fast lenses for the ability to obscure backgrounds, their size does not bother me. I use Summilux 21 through to 90 with the exception of 75.
My style at the moment is up close and personal, I find the 24 Summilux to be my favourite on the M11-M and the 35 Summilux on the M10-R.
Lately I've had little use for the 28 or 50 but there will be a time when that focal & aperture range will suit whatever personal project I'm focusing on.

I'd respectfully suggest renting, borrowing or a meet-up with other Leica photographers would be perhaps the best way to evaluate what focal length and aperture range suits your style of photography. Asking here, while all valid answers may not necessarily be the correct answer for you. 

[IkarusJohn]

3 hours ago, Einst_Stein said:

I personally do not know how to use f1.4 on 50mm or longer. Low light? High ISO.  For gradual out of focus, I prefer f2.0 on 50mm or f2.8 on 90mm. I feel F1,4 on these focal length makes DOF too shallow for half size or above shoulder portraits, for example.  Getting f1.4 on these focal length is only to hope better lens performance when step down.

F1.4 on 28mm and 35mm feels different. At least, the DOF is usable, to me. 

Cropping 28mm for 35mm makes it easy to choose 28mm over 35mm, if ignoring the difference besides the angle of view.

I use aperture almost exclusively for depth of field.  It is rare for me to be bothered by high ISO.  It does happen, I guess.

It is also very rare for me to be using either a 50mm of 75mm wide open at minimum focusing distance.  I don’t see the point.  However, the 75 Summilux at f/1.4 the depth of field at 6 metres is 53cm, which is very useable - for a 50 Summilux, it’s over a metre …

Edited January 19 by IkarusJohn

[Ken Abrahams]

I have both 35 and 28 Leica 1.4 lenses and mainly use the 28 for my street work. The 35 is great however the 28 leaves more environmental details and which can  be cropped if need be. The 28 Summilux is a very fine lens however I also use the 21 Super Elmar lens on the street quite a bit. I started with the Summicron 35 Asph, I think it was my only lens in the beginning. Like many others the 35 suited my street work and for me became the standard lens to use on the street. I have four 35 mm lenses however the 28 1.4 has become my main working lens and from there I shift to down to the 21 for wider framing and up to the 50 or 90 M Apo's.

I will gear up for Street with the 28 1.4 and the apo M 90 f2 is also in the bag or attached to the second camera. It makes things much easier to have the second body with the lens change already mounted. I would never have the 35 1.4 and the 28 1.4 out on the same day but the 35 is still essential lens choice when required. If I was working a colour and black and white project requiring similar framing then I would use the 28 1.4 and the 35 1.4 on different cameras to achieve a close enough framing of mages. I wouldn't use the Summilux and the Summicron 35's because the look would be different when shooting wide open.        

[charlesphoto99]

1 hour ago, _tc said:

35 v2 has no changes. the formula is from 1996. 50mm is from 1979. 28mm is immaterially different, just a small layout optimization.

anyway I dont mean to imply anyone _needs_ f1.4 but I just think it's humorous to say that the f1.4 lenses are the remnants of the film era when it's the summiluxes that actually have real updates in the digital age.

Was the 28 Summilux update for digital to include MORE chromatic aberration (which seems to be the thing most complained about with this lens)? 😏 Anyway, considering the popularity of rereleases of 'flawed' or 'character' (depending on how you like to view them) pre-digital lenses for $$$, image quality is a thing of preference, not necessity. 

Anyway, not to belabor too much, but my point was that with film there was no way to easily raise iso other than pushing 400 speed film to 1600, or shooting TMAX 3200 with golf ball size grain (which I kind of loved). Now, esp with the release of bodies with iso 200,000, the need for super high speed lenses isn't as vital 'to get the shot' as it was with film, except for effect, or in extreme situations, which is great, if you actually do those things and it's worth the extra $$ to you. I do prefer 1.4 lenses with an SLR as it gives one a brighter view.

But by all means anybody should get all the Summiluxes and Nokton's they want or can afford, as long as they are okay with the weight or viewfinder blockage or slim field of focus. But if money is tight, I think it's possibly more valid and practical to invest in several focal lengths at smaller speeds for more variation. 

[Einst_Stein]

3 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

I use aperture almost exclusively for depth of field.  It is rare for me to be bothered by high ISO.  It does happen, I guess.

It is also very rare for me to be using either a 50mm of 75mm wide open at minimum focusing distance.  I don’t see the point.  However, the 75 Summilux at f/1.4 the depth of field at 6 metres is 53cm, which is very useable - for a 50 Summilux, it’s over a metre …

I select aperture and leave ISO to camera. 

[BrettWayne]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yes. 

[M11 for me]

vor 19 Stunden schrieb charlesphoto99:

My landscape lenses are 135, 90, and 75, in that order from most to least used. For general purpose I like 28 or 50. For special close in applications, or for something epic, I use 18 or 24. 35 I've always found somewhat bland, but can be a great all arounder. Now, if I shoot a landscape with a 28 or wider, it seems to come off looking too much like an iPhone pic (funny how we become culturally adjusted/attuned to things like that). Of course YMMV. 

So you are far away from 28/35 (normally). I've just visited your awesome website, Charles. What you show there is far more professional to what I ever will be able to do (maybe I get a development boost sometimes). You show a fully different style of images. I think that I cannot compare my stuff with yours. 

[charlesphoto99]

1 hour ago, M11 for me said:

So you are far away from 28/35 (normally). I've just visited your awesome website, Charles. What you show there is far more professional to what I ever will be able to do (maybe I get a development boost sometimes). You show a fully different style of images. I think that I cannot compare my stuff with yours. 

Thank you so much, humbly. Most of my small club rock stuff was (and still) done with a 24mm (Nikon 24/f2, and now Leica 2.8 Elmarit Asph, a really great bargain in Leica lens). I would say I use a mix of everything, most of the pics of my kids with a 28. I traveled quite a bit in the film days with a 35 Lux asph version 1, but the focus shift at f/2.8/4 etc drove me crazy, and it mostly sat in a case after I got the M8. Traded it in for part of my current black paint M10-R, and picked up a little 35 2.5 Summarit instead. The current landscape/birds/planes project I'm working on is almost entirely done with the 135mm APO, a strange lens for most but one I have fallen in love with. 

[DadDadDaddyo]

I definitely want both options available. 35mm feels like a "somewhat wide medium focal length," while 28mm feels like a focal length that is "wide enough to be clearly wide angle, and therefore chosen for a reason."

I realize these are very non-definitive assertions, but from my perspective, that's the nature of the laws, conventions, guidelines, typical use patterns, etc., associated with deciding what lenses are for which purposes. 

Looking at my own work, I'm less likely to use 28mm outdoors than indoors. 28mm opens up an interior space to an extent without visibly distorting the geometry involved in a way that can't be ignored. 

Outdoors, in "landscape" settings, the 28mm brings with it the effect of making everything in the frame appear further away, which may or may not fit with my goals for a particular image. 

For my own tastes, as I've written before, I find that using a wide angle lens in a landscape photograph can result in the photograph seeming to be "about" fitting all that different stuff into the frame in way that makes sense, trying to accomplish in a single still frame what you'd use camera motion (a nice slow pan) to encompass in a video or film shot.

Wide shots are also tall shots. If you're using a field of view like that, you need to deal with it in all dimensions, and you have to arrange all the elements that have come into the frame as the inescapable result of pushing the horizon further away. 

At any event, there's a good reason for having both of these lenses around. There's a greater difference between 28mm and 35mm focal lengths that that 7mm difference might suggest; far more difference, for example, than there would be between 85mm and 92mm, were such options available. 

[84bravo]

On 1/19/2025 at 12:49 PM, charlesphoto99 said:

For the most part Summiluxes and Noktons are holdover from the film days (or if still shooting film now), when one would have 400 iso film in camera and then be presented with a low light situation. For the extra expense that one of them costs, if shooting M10 or M11, I would go for a Summicron or even Elmarit equivalent, and use the extra money to buy two lenses of different focal lengths. 

There's more to fast lenses than just letting in more light. The limited depth of field with a 1.4 wide lens has a specific look which some photographers find appealing. Now on the other hand if one is only concerned about low light photography you are correct, the newer cameras have incredible ISO range that can't be matched by film.

 

[charlesphoto99]

1 minute ago, 84bravo said:

There's more to fast lenses than just letting in more light. The limited depth of field with a 1.4 wide lens has a specific look which some photographers find appealing. Now on the other hand if one is only concerned about low light photography you are correct, the newer cameras have incredible ISO range that can't be matched by film.

 

Of course, which I mention. One just has to weigh how often one will actually use that for twice the price or more of an f2 version (and not complain about missing the focus). I've got two 50mm 'Luxes (late pre-asph and V1 asph) as it is. 

[Eoin]

I am reminded of my M8 days where missing focus was more a product of focus shift through the aperture range rather than wide open fast apertures. The Noctilux f/1.0 and 35 Summilux Asph pre FLE being the worst offenders for me.

I feel with Leica's more modern designs with tighter tolerances for digital and floating lens elements, coupled with aids such as live view, focus peaking and mountable EVF this is less of an issue for me now.

[Stevejack]

The 28mm framelines are tricky for me, especially with the Summilux. So I tend to use the visoflex with the 28mm + 24mm because it's more comfortable, but in 35mm I usually prefer the rangefinder.

I don't have a 35lux so can't comment on how much of the viewfinder is blocked but in terms of framelines alone, I would say yes it's worth having both just because of how much easier the 35mm is to use with the rangefinder. But that's a personal thing and most seem to have no trouble with the 28mm, I just can't seem to manage it. 

I probably wouldn't choose two modern lenses though... they are too similar in rendering and too close in focal length. I would probably choose an older design 35mm f/1.4 just to make a point of difference between them but again that's a personal thing.    The nice thing about lenses is if you're buying used, you can usually try them and sell them without much of a loss (if any). 

[mikeamosau]

Nope. But I did buy a 35mm and a 28! Ended up with the 35mm Summilux and a 28mm Summaron. Very different look, so does not feel like I’m doubling up much. 

[JoshuaR]

Wow, as a mainly 28 / 35 / 50 shooter I've really enjoyed this thread.

With 28mm, I've tried f/5.6, f/2.8, and f/2. I really like being able to get to f/2, mainly because I often use 28mm indoors, to photograph multiple people, and if I can get them on the same focal plane it's useful to pull them out of the background. So, for me, the 28mm Summicron v1 has become maybe my most-used lens. I don't think I'd go to f/1.4 because of size.

With 35mm, I like f/1.4 for similar reasons. My house is a mess, and when I photograph my family I sometimes like hiding it. (At other times, the mess adds to the picture!) Right now, my only 35mm lenses are the Steel Rim Reissue and LLL 8-e. The LLL goes to f/2 and the Steel Rim gets used mainly as an f/2 lens (I do go to f/1.7 and f/1.4, but for "special effects" reasons). So, when funds allow, I may re-acquire an FLE, which I regret selling.

For focal lengths wider than 28mm, I'm fine with slower lenses—I use the 24mm f/3.8 quite a lot and really enjoy it.

[KFo]

TL;DR It hasn't happened yet 😎

I've long considered the 28 f/1.4 Summilux and I have two 35 Summiluxes (summulixi?) a version 2 pre-ASPH and a fully modern 35 ASPH FLE from 2019 I believe.

So far I haven't got past the size of the 28 summilux, much less the price.  

For me generally 28 & 35 are very different.  I use them differently So I wouldn't likely feel like it was an overlap.  I also tend towards moderate aperture lenses f/2 - f2.8 max aperture for general use which does not justify picking up a fast 28 to me.

[Jürgen]

I like my combination of 28 Summilux and APO 35 Summicron 😀