sbelyaev Posted December 20, 2008 Share #1 Posted December 20, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) I compared there 35mm lenses. Summarit 35/2.5, Summicron 35/2 v4 and Summicron 35/2 asph (not in this order). Pls, draw your own conclusion (those who are interested). I'll match the cops with the lenses tonight. You may see 100% crops here: Summarit 35, summicron 35 IV, Summicron 35asph - a set on Flickr Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 20, 2008 Posted December 20, 2008 Hi sbelyaev, Take a look here 35mm lenses. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
carstenw Posted December 20, 2008 Share #2 Posted December 20, 2008 Here is a link to a previous comparison I did here in the forum, for completeness sake: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/29964-35-lux-asph-vs-35-cron.html I am curious what conclusions you have made from your test? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbelyaev Posted December 20, 2008 Author Share #3 Posted December 20, 2008 I've had Summicron 35/2 asph for some time and was somewhat dissatisfied with it performance. There was nothing wrong with it. The pictures were reasonably sharp, but it wouldn't deliver anything above a good NIkon or Contax zoom lens (except for size). Recently I got a new Summarit and a good sample of Summicron 35/2 v4. The first picture was taken with Summarit, the second with Cron ASPH and the third with Cron v4. f5.6 In my opinion, v4 is a far better lens. Summarit and cron asph delivered very similar results @f5.6 (actually I feel that summarit pictures were slightly better). I took some pictutes with the lenses @2.8 (summatit was practically wide opened). Even at f2.8 cron v4 was a better performer. Summicron asph was second, Summarit performed not too much worse than cron asph. It is possible that there is something wrong with my cron asph, although it is hard to imagine that a $2000 lens would not be properly tested before it left the factory. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbelyaev Posted December 20, 2008 Author Share #4 Posted December 20, 2008 The same lenses @ f2.8 (Summarit 35, Cron 35 asph, cron 35 v4) Flickr Photo Download: Summarit 35" "Summicron 35 asph" "Summicron 35 v4" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NZDavid Posted December 20, 2008 Share #5 Posted December 20, 2008 Sorry, I can't see a great deal of benefit in this test. I've found the 35/2 'cron ASPH is a stunning lens, especially at resolving fine detail wide open in low light. OOF areas may be harsher than the older lenses. Really it boils down to personal taste: How do you define "better"? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 21, 2008 Share #6 Posted December 21, 2008 What I can see is that all are backfocussed, as the grass in the background is the sharpest part. The Summicron asph seems to be the least forgiving, which is logical, as it is the best resolving lens of the set. I would suggest that if you cannot see a difference between a zoom lens and a Summicron 35 asph there is something very much wrong with the Summicron. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbelyaev Posted December 21, 2008 Author Share #7 Posted December 21, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) For those who are interested. There is no backfocus. The results are very consistent. As we see, real life is full of surprises. A less expensive lens performs as good as a three time more expensive lens. An old lens is sharper than new ones. Why? I have no idea. Lenses @5.6 (better layout) Flickr Photo Download: f5.6 Lenses @ 2.8 (better layout) Flickr Photo Download: f2.8 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
derek_stanton Posted December 27, 2008 Share #8 Posted December 27, 2008 Something seems very wrong. The first two lenses aren't focused on the tree. Even the blades of grass next to and in front of the tree are not focused. They are better on the v4 lens shots. As to your question, if you've tested the lens under stringent conditions, including NOT focusing and then recomposing, and shooting a FLAT target, i would suggest sending the lens to Leica for service/repair. I once bought a new 50mm Summilux-ASPH, and immediately, out of the box, it was softer than three other lenses, including a $30 Jupiter-3. Leica sent it back to me, only 'slightly repaired.' I sent it back to them. They apparently gave up and sent me a new replacement. The replacement was the best 50 i'd ever owned. Sometimes, there's just something wrong with the lens. It DOES happen to Leica, just like everyone else. If you send it back, though, be prepared to wait a few months to half a year to get it back.... And, yes, the 35-Cron ASPH should be much better than just about any zoom. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBA Posted December 27, 2008 Share #9 Posted December 27, 2008 The 35 Summicron Asph is the first M lens I got and is a consistently spectacular performer, with breath-taking sharpness, contrast, color rendition, etc. It is a flawless lens. Last spring, I rented a 50 Summilux Asph from Leica and shot over half a dozen rolls of film under all sorts of conditions. Not a single photo using that lens was in focus, including hyperfocal shots at f16. Considering how people rave about this lens, the only conclusion I could draw was that the poor performance was due to either sample variation or damage done by a previous renter. If it performed so poorly as a rule, Leica never could have sold a single one, expecially at the price. My guess is that you've got a bum lens. It happens. The only thing you should be preferring among these lenses is signature. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
derek_stanton Posted December 30, 2008 Share #10 Posted December 30, 2008 Last spring, I rented a 50 Summilux Asph from Leica and shot over half a dozen rolls of film under all sorts of conditions. Not a single photo using that lens was in focus, including hyperfocal shots at f16. Considering how people rave about this lens, the only conclusion I could draw was that the poor performance was due to either sample variation or damage done by a previous renter. Sounds like you somehow got the 50-ASPH that i returned to Leica. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
abrewer Posted December 30, 2008 Share #11 Posted December 30, 2008 Honestly, all your shots look oversharpened from here Somehow I don't think a picture of an oak tree trunk in broad daylight does much justice to any of the 3 lenses under comparison IMO Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.