I am curious to see side-by-side’s with original (which I own and love). The Noct 50/1.2 reboot I did not like near as much as the original. Reminded me of a modern CV lens where it has character, but the colors and contrast are very modern and to me that is where much of the magic is of old lenses rests.
Essentially, is this a really spendy CV 35/1.4 with Leica colors/contrast?
p.1 #3 · Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 Steel Rim lens
nehemiahphoto wrote:
I am curious to see side-by-side’s with original (which I own and love). The Noct 50/1.2 reboot I did not like near as much as the original. Reminded me of a modern CV lens where it has character, but the colors and contrast are very modern and to me that is where much of the magic is of old lenses rests.
Essentially, is this a really spendy CV 35/1.4 with Leica colors/contrast?
I'd also like to see how well it handles flare as that was my largest issue with the original. I really loved the rendering but the flare was out of control. I'm assuming the modern lens coatings should probably handle that but it'd be nice to know it handles flare and isn't just a really expensive CV 35/1.4
p.1 #4 · Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 Steel Rim lens
nehemiahphoto wrote:
I am curious to see side-by-side’s with original (which I own and love). The Noct 50/1.2 reboot I did not like near as much as the original. Reminded me of a modern CV lens where it has character, but the colors and contrast are very modern and to me that is where much of the magic is of old lenses rests.
Essentially, is this a really spendy CV 35/1.4 with Leica colors/contrast?
Do you have the 35/1.4 pre-asph v1?
Although same optical design, I shoot with the Canadian v2. I believe Leica re-issued the original version 1 'steel rim' with infinity lock.
Here is a sample from the 35/1.4 pre-apsh v2 wide open. I love the character and think the new lens will have similar look but different coating.
LEICA M10-RSummilux-M 1:1.4/35 lens35mmf/2.41/30s160 ISO0.0 EV
p.1 #5 · Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 Steel Rim lens
Leica says it still has the rainbow flare like the original since that's one of the reasons people like to use it. As for veiling flare, IDK, but the originals have a large amount at f/1.4.
Jono Slack's review of the new Steel Rim shows the classic glow at f/1.4 (flowers shot) and sharp by f/2.8 (still life).
p.1 #8 · Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 Steel Rim lens
My M10-R does not recognize the CV 35/1.4 II with the above 6-bit code which means, Leica M bodies will need a firmware update for the new lens to transmit the correct exif and get in-camera correction automatically.
p.1 #11 · Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 Steel Rim lens
Fred Miranda wrote:
Do you have the 35/1.4 pre-asph v1?
Although same optical design, I shoot with the Canadian v2. I believe Leica re-issued the original version 1 'steel rim' with infinity lock.
Here is a sample from the 35/1.4 pre-apsh v2 wide open. I love the character and think the new lens will have similar look but different coating.
I do have v2--I have had the chance to purhcase v1 multiple times, but the MFD is not worth the price differential to me--esp. as I often shoot mine on an a7x, where I have a helicoid adapter anyway. I've posted many photos on FM with mine. I think it's my favorite lens ever!
p.1 #12 · Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 Steel Rim lens
The original 35 1.4 1961 Steel Rim M3 with eyes focusses down to .65M which makes it one of the very best and versatile lenses Leica has ever made, plus in direct back to back testing I performed, the original Steel Rim also allowed a great deal more light in at 1.4 plus was the sharpest of all four of my copies and by a measure is finest constructed of all of them including the brass bodied late German Titanium 35 1.4 pre-asph.
p.1 #13 · Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 Steel Rim lens
Owners or both versions say the original steel rim version (v1) has better/different rendering than v2 because even though the optical design is the same, they claim there was a change in the glass type used.
Has anyone seen a comparison showing the difference in rendering side by side? There is a lot of talk but not really proof of this and we have to also consider higher copy variance for these older lenses. Also many copies probably have haze, fungus and other issues that must be considered as well.
p.1 #14 · Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 Steel Rim lens
Fred Miranda wrote:
Owners or both versions say the original steel rim version (v1) has better/different rendering than v2 because even though the optical design is the same, they claim there was a change in the glass type used.
Has anyone seen a comparison showing the difference in rendering side by side? There is a lot of talk but not really proof of this and we have to also consider higher copy variance for these older lenses. Also many copies probably have haze, fungus and other issues that must be considered as well.
Former Leica Forum member Steven owned every version and multiple copies of some. His favorite is the v2. I don't have the coin to try the original Steel Rim, but I agree it's most likely copy variance more than anything with lenses this old. Very few check their lenses for mild haze by using a strong LED light in a pitch dark room (being careful not to look right into the light!) and most of these have never had a CLA.
The characteristic I find most appealing about the pre-ASPH versions is that at f/1.4, while there is a glow, the point of focus is still very sharp. It's not "soft" at f/1.4 in the same way as most lenses we consider soft are wide open at close distances. If someone's not seeing the sharpness in conjunction with the glow, it's likely the lens needs a CLA.
p.1 #15 · Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 Steel Rim lens
insideline wrote:
The original 35 1.4 1961 Steel Rim M3 with eyes focusses down to .65M which makes it one of the very best and versatile lenses Leica has ever made, plus in direct back to back testing I performed, the original Steel Rim also allowed a great deal more light in at 1.4 plus was the sharpest of all four of my copies and by a measure is finest constructed of all of them including the brass bodied late German Titanium 35 1.4 pre-asph.
Are there not two versions of the Steel Rim, one that had goggles and one that didn't? Did they both focus to 0.65 or just the goggles version?
Edit: never mind – the goggles were for the M3 version and non-goggles for M2, rather than being for close focus.
p.1 #16 · Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 Steel Rim lens
highdesertmesa wrote:
Former Leica Forum member Steven owned every version and multiple copies of some. His favorite is the v2. I don't have the coin to try the original Steel Rim, but I agree it's most likely copy variance more than anything with lenses this old. Very few check their lenses for mild haze by using a strong LED light in a pitch dark room (being careful not to look right into the light!) and most of these have never had a CLA.
The characteristic I find most appealing about the pre-ASPH versions is that at f/1.4, while there is a glow, the point of focus is still very sharp. It's not "soft" at f/1.4 in the same way as most lenses we consider soft are wide open at close distances. If someone's not seeing the sharpness in conjunction with the glow, it's likely the lens needs a CLA....Show more →
Aside from the original M3 Steel Rim with Goggles, I think that any minor rendering difference reported between the serial numbers are probably due to copy variation. If one comes across a 'pre-asph' that is well centered and the glass is clear, that's the best 'pre-asph'.
Of course, if one pays the exorbitant price for a rare steel rim copy, it's understandable to think the rendering is more magical than other versions! -- having said that I do acknowledge there could be a small difference in color/contrast due to glass material changes.
That's likely the reason we don't see side-by-side comparisons from the production batches. It would very difficult to spot any difference in real images, especially when comparing good copies of different versions.
The re-issued version (v3) will probably have slightly higher contrast compared to older versions due to the use of different glass/coating but this is still unknown and I'm curious to see such comparisons.
p.1 #17 · Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 Steel Rim lens
Fred Miranda wrote:
Owners or both versions say the original steel rim version (v1) has better/different rendering than v2 because even though the optical design is the same, they claim there was a change in the glass type used.
Has anyone seen a comparison showing the difference in rendering side by side? There is a lot of talk but not really proof of this and we have to also consider higher copy variance for these older lenses. Also many copies probably have haze, fungus and other issues that must be considered as well.
I can't speak to this directly, but if you (or someone here) has the "50 Years Leica" book, it would probably specify that. And I highly suspect that v1 does use different glass, though how meaningful the difference is might be more on a confirmation bias/placebo.
The same thing happened with v1 versus v2-4 of the Noct 50/1. And that book does state v1 uses different glass than later Noct versions.
p.1 #18 · Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 Steel Rim lens
Fred Miranda wrote:
Aside from the original M3 Steel Rim with Goggles, I think that any minor rendering difference reported between the serial numbers are probably due to copy variation. If one comes across a 'pre-asph' that is well centered and the glass is clear, that's the best 'pre-asph'.
Of course, if one pays the exorbitant price for a rare steel rim copy, it's understandable to think the rendering is more magical than other versions! -- having said that I do acknowledge there could be a small difference in color/contrast due to glass material changes.
That's likely the reason we don't see side-by-side comparisons from the production batches. It would very difficult to spot any difference in real images, especially when comparing good copies of different versions.
The re-issued version (v3) will probably have slightly higher contrast compared to older versions due to the use of different glass/coating but this is still unknown and I'm curious to see such comparisons....Show more →
If it follows the 28 Summaron, then I would indeed expect improved contrast from the coatings. But unlike the 28 Summaron, which does not flare quite like the original, the marketing for the v3 Steel Rim talks a lot to retaining the original's flare characteristics. We'll have to see if that's just marketing-speak.
p.1 #19 · Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 Steel Rim lens
This seems to be a consensus among several people spoke to about the Noct 50/1.2 re-issue. I would guess this is the same thing with this 35 lux re-issue:
-- having said that I do acknowledge there could be a small difference in color/contrast due to glass material changes.
