With the advent of the new Sony a7 cameras, new (and old) lens options pops up that I and many others probably never have considered before. In my case, I want a nice, fast 35 mm lens that is not too large. There are plenty of options but I find myself struggling to decide which route to go, even if we disregard the possible troubles with wides and their exit pupil position.
During the research, I came to think of a lens that is seldom discussed here. The Summilux-M 35/1.4 pre-aspherical.
The specs are very nice. Light, small, seemingly sharp stopped down and with a very special rendering wide open. A "glow" that shows mostly spherical aberration, but not too much CA or LCA, and with nice colors.
The prices aren't too bad either, at least not compared to the Summilux ASPH or even the Summicron ASPH.
What are your opinons on this lens? It can't be really hyped since no one seems to use it on the M9 and its relatives. What are the properties of its image rendering? Is the field flat (enough), et cetera? Is the Voigtländer 35/1.4 similar, or just "not there"?
Makten, I've shot the pre-ASPH only with film-cameras. In my opinion it's very soft wide open and kind of "creamy" from f/2 to f/4. It's a tiny lens and it's only weak point in the handling-department is the filter/sunshade-system. I've carried two sunshades, one with a 3-stops-ND inserted, the other one with yellow-filter. Changing the filters itself in the field/on the street is not much fun.
Focusing the old Summilux via the tab is a joy, buttery smooth and very fast with a bit of practice. Much more intuitive than cranking a focusing ring.
Sorry, I have just a couple of really mediocre scans and don't wanna share those ;-)
Btw, would love to try the old Summilux via adapter on my X-Pro, but it's on Fuji's "not-compatible-list" ;-(
i can try and dig up some crops for you of certain types of shots if you'd like, though i only used it on a NEX-7 not on FF. it does have the mid zone dip common to fast leicas (demonstrated later in that thread here).
sebboh- those are teh best images i've EVER seen from this lens, period. These help show what it must actually be capable of. 99% of what i've seen from it has been mush, completely undeserving the prices it usually commands.
For the price/performance ratio, I'll take the Voigtlander 35/1.4 over it any day- but it would be nice to have an actual summilux, without that pesky front chrome ring of the CV.
Those are some amazing photos - thank you for posting them! A few of them clearly demonstrate the drawing style of the lens as well, which makes them equally useful!
thanks guys, i somewhat regret posting those already. i don't own it, i just borrowed it and would like to buy one for myself at a low price.
i do think the lens has gotten a misguided reputation for being unsharp because it could only be used on rangefinders for so long. it has serious spherical aberration at large apertures (still visible at f/2.8), which gives it the signature "leica glow", but also gives it focus shift. my guess (pure conjecture btw) is that leica calibrated the lenses for precise focus at infinity and f/2.8 or so, which would mean that the rangefinder is not at accurate wide open at near distances.
georgms wrote:
Love the rendering of your f/1.4-shots! My copy showed a good bit more glow wide open.
My favorite 35. And if you can wait a month or so, there will be samples from it on the a7r, but I agree with sebboh, Martin. I would be surprised if you found the lens to your liking.
A little too much SA for my tastes. I think I prefer the asph m 35 lux better snd my RX1 35/2 and CY 35/1.4. But if you like dreamy glow then its your kind of lens.
wayne seltzer wrote:
A little too much SA for my tastes. I think I prefer the asph m 35 lux better snd my RX1 35/2. But if you like dreamy glow then its your kind of lens.
i don't have much need for a perfect lens, but to be fair, i had the choice between buying the 35 lux pre-asph and buying the rx1 and i bought the rx1.
i need to see how it performs on the a7(r) before i consider paying the current asking price for the lux.
wayne seltzer wrote:
A little too much SA for my tastes. I think I prefer the asph m 35 lux better snd my RX1 35/2 and CY 35/1.4. But if you like dreamy glow then its your kind of lens.
My feeling is that, if I want to lose the glow, I can stop it down, but I can't make the lux ASPH glow. That and I'm just not that demanding. It's a lens that makes me want to shoot with it, and that's enough for me.
freaklikeme wrote:
My feeling is that, if I want to lose the glow, I can stop it down, but I can't make the lux ASPH glow. That and I'm just not that demanding. It's a lens that makes me want to shoot with it, and that's enough for me.
Fair enough then.
Does this lens have the FC that I think the 35 lux asph has?
This pre asph version does not have FLE which they sdded to the new lux and it looks like this lens is not as sharp closeup than it is farther away distsnces and infinity.
That is one thing I like with the RX1 35/2, it is sharp up close and far away.
Looking at those samples it kind of reminds me of the 35/1.4 Minolta/Sony lens.
I remember looking into this lens a while back, I think when I was considering an M9 or similar. I think the one thing that really put me off was the potential for bad flare and glare on a digital sensor.
I honestly think I prefer older lenses with aberrations. The RX1 lens is just brutal.
wayne seltzer wrote:
Fair enough then.
Does this lens have the FC that I think the 35 lux asph has?
This pre asph version does not have FLE which they sdded to the new lux and it looks like this lens is not as sharp closeup than it is farther away distsnces and infinity.
That is one thing I like with the RX1 35/2, it is sharp up close and far away.
I haven't shot with the FLE, just the first ASPH, and the FC was about the same between it and the pre-ASPH. Actually, there's not really an objective measure where the APSH isn't equal or better. Sharpness, flare, CA, distortion, resolutiuon and vignetting are all technically in favor of the ASPH. More subjective measures (bokeh, color pallet, contrast, and the way the aberrations in the pre-A work with specific types of light) to me, favor the pre-A.
I like Richard's use of the word "brutal" above. That's how I feel about the ASPH. The Lux-R 35 is a nice compromise between the two, with the pallet of the ASPH and SA that's solidly between the two. That's my second favorite 35.
I love my Leica 35mm lux pre-ash. I used it exclusively with a nex3 during my trip to Paris last year; it was a joy due to the compactness of the kit. The two trips to Paris previously, I had dslr which were too heavy and intrusive. I must have a great copy because the IQ output is amazing at all aperture.
Please see my Paris 2012 set at Flickr for the samples.
