Unexpected 35mm F1.4 Asph FLE v 35mm F2 Asph comparison

[lincoln_m]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'll show a comparison between my 35 F1.4 Asph FLE and the 35 F2 Asph on the Leica M10 for real 3d subjects (garden patio). The data sheet shows MTF charts for wide open but also F2.8 and F5.6. so I'll show shots for f2.8 and f5.6 for both lenses. It'll have to be separate posts because of the photo size limit for each post.

The Summilux FLE is only very slightly sharper but I've noticed that the focal plane on the summilux was a little behind the rangefinder focus point (so the DoF might be a bit better) while it was a little infront of the summicron's focus point (so the DoF might be a little worse?).

The 35 summilux Asph FLE full scene taken at f2.8 with a focus at about 3m on the twig at the front of the fire pit.

I'm pleasantly surprised at how the background out of focus areas are still visible and are quite pleasing although they are obviously soft after >5m away. I'll use my lenses with wider apertures in future.

Adobe Lightroom adjustments on all images

Profile Leica M10

WB Temp 4711K, Tint +7

Blacks +20

Texture +20

Clarity +20

Tone curve 64/54, 192/192. to give a slight S curve

Effects - Grain Amount 30, Size 10, Roughness 50  (I add a little grain to remind me of fine grain Provia shots but it probably makes the file sizes bigger! Oh well

 

I hope the Forum will allow me to add the 35 Summicron shot in the next post?

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!

[lincoln_m]

Now the 35 summicron Asph version taken with the same conditions/focus (handheld at 1/500th f2.8 again) although with a slight pan to the left, unfortunately.

 

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!

[lincoln_m]

Top Right zoom-in of the same f2.8 shots 35 summilux Asph FLE first. Background bokeh seems pleasing.

 

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!

[lincoln_m]

35 summicron Asph same shot top-right zoom-in at f2.8 again. 

The unintended pan left makes it difficult to compare the corner's sharpness , sat by comparing the green garden wire on the fence because they are in different places on the MTF curves. The Summicron is in the far edges >18mm while the Summilux (previous shot) is probably at 12mm-18mm region on the MTF chart.

The background bokeh (behind the fence) on this summicron shot is a little harsher than on the Summilux FLE but it's only minor difference and perhaps not necessarily worth the 2x price tag for the Summilux. 

It's best to view these images at 100% (instead of a fit to screen) on your computer to counteract the slightly different pixel resolution of my crops between these images.

I have the same images take at f5.6 of which the data sheet shows the Summilux MTF to be better on paper but it's not possible for me to notice any difference between lenses for the same subject and f-stop on these real world shots. I bought the Summilux FLE on the basis of the f5.6 MTF curves for best resolution for my landscape shots but now I compare them on medium distance subjects the difference is insignificant. There is more difference in focus point, DoF and lighting that one might experience so worrying that "I should have used the Summilux for a certain shot" is probably overridden by a good or bad composition that can happen with any camera digital/film, lens combo.

MTF charts are fine for photos of walls but real world images are 3d with depth of focus and subject and I shouldn't worry especially when lusting after the likes of 35 Apo-Asph summicron lenses that won't improve my photography but taking more images might get me a few more good ones?

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!

[lincoln_m]

Both images were at f2.8. The unexpected bit was that I was expecting a bigger difference between lenses especially as the Summilux is 2x the price of the Summicron. Obviously I can't take an image with the Summicron at F1.4 so a comparison on a real 3d subject with the Summilux at f1.4 and the Summicron at F2 isn't really comparable. The data sheets show MTF for F2.8 so that seems to be a good comparison point.

Mainly for others who might not have both lenses and are thinking of getting one or the other I'd think such a comparison is worth more than just looking at the data sheet MTF charts?

[pedaes]

No point buying a f1.4 lens to use at f5.6. The magnitude of design and element complexity is of a significant order to achieve a f1.4 lens, which explains price differential.

[TomB_tx]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Starting in the 1960s Leica Reps have told me the only reason to spend more for a Summilux over a Summicron would be if you (thought you) needed the f1.4 speed. Otherwise stay with a Summicron. I've taken that advise ever since. for over 40 years my only M lenses were 35 & 50 Summicron and 90 (fat) TeleElmarit. Only after I retired in 2009 did I begin to experiment with faster lenses. and still prefer the smaller f2 versions.

[bdjackson]

11 hours ago, pedaes said:

No point buying a f1.4 lens to use at f5.6. The magnitude of design and element complexity is of a significant order to achieve a f1.4 lens, which explains price differential.

I never understood this point of view, if my intention for an image called for a deeper depth of field of course I would shoot it at f5.6 of f8 or f16 regardless of the maximum aperture of the lens. 

[pedaes]

3 hours ago, bdjackson said:

if my intention for an image called for a deeper depth of field of course I would shoot it at f5.6 of f8

So would I and probably everyone else who owns a f1.4 lens. But if you never use f1.4....?

[pippy]

3 hours ago, bdjackson said:

I never understood this point of view...

The point is that if one never shoots at f1.4 there is no reason to pay twice the price of a Summicron to acquire a Summilux.

Philip.

[swatch]

19 hours ago, lincoln_m said:

Both images were at f2.8. The unexpected bit was that I was expecting a bigger difference between lenses especially as the Summilux is 2x the price of the Summicron. Obviously I can't take an image with the Summicron at F1.4 so a comparison on a real 3d subject with the Summilux at f1.4 and the Summicron at F2 isn't really comparable. The data sheets show MTF for F2.8 so that seems to be a good comparison point.

Mainly for others who might not have both lenses and are thinking of getting one or the other I'd think such a comparison is worth more than just looking at the data sheet MTF charts?

Leica is very good at the art of price setting, doesn’t Leica?

Better check the photos in respective image thread in LUF as MTF chart …. too complicated as lens perform differently at mfd and at infinity.