G
Guest
I just have to say I put a 35 summilux-m ASPH on a M6ttl at the local used shop--- what an incredible piece of work.
CI Photocommunity
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
G
Guest
John,
If you need the extra speed, the 35mm Summilux-M ASPH is the only way for this focal length. And I agree with you that the Summilux is an incredible piece of work. Very well built and feel solid (especially the lenshood vs the Summicron). But at much "cheaper" price, the 35mm Summicron-M ASPH may be a better buy. It's a hard call.
Regards,
Chris
If you need the extra speed, the 35mm Summilux-M ASPH is the only way for this focal length. And I agree with you that the Summilux is an incredible piece of work. Very well built and feel solid (especially the lenshood vs the Summicron). But at much "cheaper" price, the 35mm Summicron-M ASPH may be a better buy. It's a hard call.
Regards,
Chris
L
lin84001
Anybody has the experience with the 1st version of Summilux 35/1.4 Asph? I'm talking about the one with two asph glasses.
C
Craig24
Jerry
I used this lens some time back but can’t find negs and prints to remind me about comparative performance with the current version, which I now use. And from memory there is not much difference in use. The current lens is only marginally lighter and I think they are pretty well the same size. I've had several 35s over the years and its hard to remember which one was used with which image.
Denis Laney “Leica Lens Practice†second ed. (1993) has this to say
“…Imaging performance at full app is superb. … brilliant contrast and exc. resolution of fine detail. The lens is almost completely free of coma, has good flatness of field… very slight barrel distortion is… negligible. Performance is enhanced by stopping down, and maintained throughout focussing range. …Vignetting removed by f4.â€
Hope this is of use to you.
Craig.
I used this lens some time back but can’t find negs and prints to remind me about comparative performance with the current version, which I now use. And from memory there is not much difference in use. The current lens is only marginally lighter and I think they are pretty well the same size. I've had several 35s over the years and its hard to remember which one was used with which image.
Denis Laney “Leica Lens Practice†second ed. (1993) has this to say
“…Imaging performance at full app is superb. … brilliant contrast and exc. resolution of fine detail. The lens is almost completely free of coma, has good flatness of field… very slight barrel distortion is… negligible. Performance is enhanced by stopping down, and maintained throughout focussing range. …Vignetting removed by f4.â€
Hope this is of use to you.
Craig.
D
dominique
Hello,
I am using the first realease of the ASPHERICAL 35/1.4 frequently. It is a superb lens, very sharp up to the corners, even wide opened.
Also it is a very pleasing to use lens. It is the only one I know, where you can choose to use the TAB or the ring to set the distance. On the current one there is only a tab.
To me the first release is better done, mechanically speaking, than the current one. Also with two aspherical surface, you obtain a better correction, but not by much. The current one is still a perfect lens.
Best regards
Dominqiue.
I am using the first realease of the ASPHERICAL 35/1.4 frequently. It is a superb lens, very sharp up to the corners, even wide opened.
Also it is a very pleasing to use lens. It is the only one I know, where you can choose to use the TAB or the ring to set the distance. On the current one there is only a tab.
To me the first release is better done, mechanically speaking, than the current one. Also with two aspherical surface, you obtain a better correction, but not by much. The current one is still a perfect lens.
Best regards
Dominqiue.
N
ninekit
As far as I know the first release's yield is very low as the aspherical elements are hand grounded, and thats why its also so expensive.
I have the pre-ASPH one, far from a perfect lens technically, but the characteristic glow and edge softness when used at full aperture pleased me very much.
I have the pre-ASPH one, far from a perfect lens technically, but the characteristic glow and edge softness when used at full aperture pleased me very much.
D
dominique
Hello Andy,
When I bought the aspherical 35 1.4, I sold my pre Asph 35 1.4, and I still regret it.
Although it is less good wide open than the Aspherical one, it is much more compact and very good at medium apertures (from f2.8). I would have used it as a compact lens on my M6, allowing 1.4 if really needed. The aspherical and asph 35 1.4 are at least twice as big as the previous one.
To me the pre asph summilux 35 is a bit soft at 1.4 and prone to flare, but at the medium apertures, it becomes very sharp, and due to its slight field curvature, it produces pictures which are very sharp at infinity, but also in the corners, at closer distance.
I should have kept the pre-Asph and got the aspherical one in addition, but the money did not allow it.
Best regards.
Dominique.
When I bought the aspherical 35 1.4, I sold my pre Asph 35 1.4, and I still regret it.
Although it is less good wide open than the Aspherical one, it is much more compact and very good at medium apertures (from f2.8). I would have used it as a compact lens on my M6, allowing 1.4 if really needed. The aspherical and asph 35 1.4 are at least twice as big as the previous one.
To me the pre asph summilux 35 is a bit soft at 1.4 and prone to flare, but at the medium apertures, it becomes very sharp, and due to its slight field curvature, it produces pictures which are very sharp at infinity, but also in the corners, at closer distance.
I should have kept the pre-Asph and got the aspherical one in addition, but the money did not allow it.
Best regards.
Dominique.
justforever
Active Member
I had the pre-ASPH and traded in for the Asph. I prefer full sharpness at all times. If I want a softer image I use a softar filter. The size and wheight advantage is less important than seeing sharpness at 1.4 when I want it. With the PRE I felt like my hands were tied at 1.4.
Of course you must decide for yourself and what YOU decide is what IS right for you. They're both great Lieca lenses.
Of course you must decide for yourself and what YOU decide is what IS right for you. They're both great Lieca lenses.
D
dominique
Hello Vinicio,
You are right. Quality at 1.4 is stunning and makes me forget about the size and price.
But I am also looking for a compact outfit, which I could take everywhere in my wallet... I wonder if the old pre-asph 35 mm is not better than the current 50 2.8 at 2.8 and other apertures, as a compact lens. To me both have roughly the same size. The 50 2.8 being even longer when extended.
Best regards.
Dominique.
You are right. Quality at 1.4 is stunning and makes me forget about the size and price.
But I am also looking for a compact outfit, which I could take everywhere in my wallet... I wonder if the old pre-asph 35 mm is not better than the current 50 2.8 at 2.8 and other apertures, as a compact lens. To me both have roughly the same size. The 50 2.8 being even longer when extended.
Best regards.
Dominique.