p.6 #1 · Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 Steel Rim lens
@Matt Kerby,
Since you have both copies, and from your test it appears that your v2 is slightly sharper and more contrasty than the new SR, could you please do a side by side on a tripod making sure the focus is perfect for both lenses? I'm not saying that's not the case with your test but just to make sure because that's not what I would expect from these lenses. (Although I've never tried a latter German v2 copy)
p.6 #2 · Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 Steel Rim lens
Fred Miranda wrote:
@Matt Kerby,
Since you have both copies, and from your test it appears that your v2 is slightly sharper and more contrasty than the new SR, could you please do a side by side on a tripod making sure the focus is perfect for both lenses? I'm not saying that's not the case with your test but just to make sure because that's not what I would expect from these lenses. (Although I've never tried a latter German v2 copy)
It's very likely that my focus isn't 100% perfect. I just snap, snap snapped these after i saw your post asking who owned both BUT.....My 1992 is a very contrasty (in the center) and stopped down all over.
If I have time tomorrow, I can oblige
p.6 #3 · Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 Steel Rim lens
Matt Kerby wrote:
It's very likely that my focus isn't 100% perfect. I just snap, snap snapped these after i saw your post asking who owned both BUT.....My 1992 is a very contrasty (in the center) and stopped down all over.
If I have time tomorrow, I can oblige
Thanks Matt,
I've seen tests from your SR and it's a perfectly centered copy so this could be enlightening for many of us. I usually shoot from a tripod using LV with peeking when doing these tests. I know it's boring. :-)
I have read that the latest German version was sharper and more contrasty but never actually saw this in a side by side comparison.
Fred
I am seeing some differences in bokeh ball size and I think slight variations in exposure (or the lens have slightly different t-stops). Are you setting a set shutter speed and controlling ISO? And is there any contrast or post being added to these photos? Are they camera JPGS?
Very interesting comparison. Curious to see very controlled results. And thanks much for posting!
p.6 #5 · Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 Steel Rim lens
Like I said, these were just handheld guestimate snapshots in aperture priority with auto ISO converted to JPEG's in LR. I added some sharpening and lowered the highlights a little. Nothing else.
The bokeh balls between the SR and v2 May very well be different sizes because they're not positioned exactly in the same spot.
I'll do a more controlled test tomorrow (if I have time, likely)
p.6 #7 · Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 Steel Rim lens
@Fred Miranda Looks like the SR v1 does have more contrast than my 1992 German model. I used a tripod with my m10r, 2 sec timer, iso 100. Took 3 or 4 shots of each and picked the best. I have to say...they are pretty close.
p.6 #8 · Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 Steel Rim lens
Matt Kerby wrote:
@Fred Miranda Looks like the SR v1 does have more contrast than my 1992 German model. I used a tripod with my m10r, 2 sec timer, iso 100. Took 3 or 4 shots of each and picked the best. I have to say...they are pretty close.
Yes, this is what I expected. They are very close but the SR yields slightly higher contrast and it makes sense. We could perhaps say the reissued 35/1.4 SR renders similarly to the latest v2 copies despite being 'inspired' by the looks and haptics of the original SR. The v2 copies I had were slightly lower in contrast compared the two versions tested here.
Being lower in contrast is not necessarily a bad thing though and many actually prefer the flatter look depending on the subject.
p.6 #9 · Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 Steel Rim lens
Matt Kerby wrote:
@Fred Miranda@ Looks like the SR v1 does have more contrast than my 1992 German model. I used a tripod with my m10r, 2 sec timer, iso 100. Took 3 or 4 shots of each and picked the best. I have to say...they are pretty close.
p.6 #10 · Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 Steel Rim lens
Leaves me in a bit of a bind, they're so close...Thinking I don't need both. I'll put the v2 in the safe for now I guess. I need to spend more time with the SR, going to Kona in a couple weeks, will be a perfect spot to test it out. I'll try to post some non test shots soon
p.6 #11 · Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 Steel Rim lens
To my eyes, the actual focal lengths differ, and essentially I would pick the one that best fits the frame-lines or personal preference. Looks like the Steel Rim images above all look to have a slightly narrower field of view.
p.6 #12 · Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 Steel Rim lens
hmzimelka wrote:
To my eyes, the actual focal lengths differ, and essentially I would pick the one that best fits the frame-lines or personal preference. Looks like the Steel Rim images above all look to have a slightly narrower field of view.
Yes. The bokeh balls from the SR are slightly larger, particularly noticeable at f/1.4. If the tripod was in exactly the same spot, then it can't be a focusing distance difference.
p.6 #13 · Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 Steel Rim lens
Matt Kerby wrote:
Like I said, these were just handheld guestimate snapshots in aperture priority with auto ISO converted to JPEG's in LR. I added some sharpening and lowered the highlights a little. Nothing else.
The bokeh balls between the SR and v2 May very well be different sizes because they're not positioned exactly in the same spot.
I'll do a more controlled test tomorrow (if I have time, likely)
Very informative. Thank you Matt. This test seems to confirm that late German copies of the Lux 35 (including the Titanium version) made in the very late 1980s and early 1990s have better coatings and capture more contrasty images. It's interesting to note meanwhile that the bokeh balls of the v2 are more evenly lit than the ones of the new SR which makes me conclude that a more contrasty lens produces more contrasty bokeh balls. If one wants smoother OOF then the v2 is the lens to get, right?
p.6 #14 · Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 Steel Rim lens
Maybe I'm missing something here but in the bottle opener series it looks like the SR shots aren't more contrasty and the bokeh is very close but smoother in to my eye in the SR shot at least at 1.4.
p.6 #15 · Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 Steel Rim lens
mulberry2006 wrote:
Very informative. Thank you Matt. This test seems to confirm that late German copies of the Lux 35 (including the Titanium version) made in the very late 1980s and early 1990s have better coatings and capture more contrasty images. It's interesting to note meanwhile that the bokeh balls of the v2 are more evenly lit than the ones of the new SR which makes me conclude that a more contrasty lens produces more contrasty bokeh balls. If one wants smoother OOF then the v2 is the lens to get, right?
I remain skeptical regarding the coatings of one older version compared to another (v2 Canada versus German for example). Similar myths were circulated for years in the cinema world around the Contax Zeiss C/Y lenses – the older versions thought to have a warmer, more organic rendering due to the coatings. Later real world testing by Yiorgos Jun Tryfonas in the Contax Zeiss Facebook User Group shows the only true differences in output are due to copy variation and lens condition.
p.6 #16 · Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 Steel Rim lens
highdesertmesa wrote:
I remain skeptical regarding the coatings of one older version compared to another (v2 Canada versus German for example). Similar myths were circulated for years in the cinema world around the Contax Zeiss C/Y lenses – the older versions thought to have a warmer, more organic rendering due to the coatings. Later real world testing by Yiorgos Jun Tryfonas in the Contax Zeiss Facebook User Group shows the only true differences in output are due to copy variation and lens condition.
I agree. IMO, older copies are more susceptible to develop haze, fungus and coating deterioration and therefore contrast and overall IQ could diminish. Later copies produced in late 1980s and 90s have a better chance just because they are newer.
I think what matters is glass condition and if one finds an older model with pristine/clear glass and intact coating, it could perform close to the new SR.
Having said that I think the 2022 version does indeed have slight higher contrast. They are all pretty close though and I think Leica did a great job with this release. (minus the hood + filters issue)
BTW, Leica just released a firmware update for their M bodies and now the SR has automatic lens detection. I have added the code to my CV 35/1.4 II SC and it works as well.
p.6 #17 · Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 Steel Rim lens
Fred Miranda wrote:
I agree. IMO, older copies are more susceptible to develop haze, fungus and coating deterioration and therefore contrast and overall IQ could diminish. Later copies produced in late 1980s and 90s have a better chance just because they are newer.
I think what matters is glass condition and if one finds an older model with pristine/clear glass and intact coating, it could perform close to the new SR.
Having said that I think the 2022 version does indeed have slight higher contrast. They are all pretty close though and I think Leica did a great job with this release. (minus the hood + filters issue)
BTW, Leica just released a firmware update for their M bodies and now the SR has automatic lens detection. I have added the code to my CV 35/1.4 II SC and it works as well....Show more →
Yes, the coatings for sure make a difference when there are huge jumps in coating tech, like from the original Steel Rim to re-issue Steel Rim. It's probably similar to comparing Voigtlander lenses offered in both MC and SC.
p.6 #18 · Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 Steel Rim lens
Thank you guys for clarifying the performance of these lenses over the years. My main question now is about the rendering of the new steel rim. Is it (due to higher contrast output) producing bokeh balls closer to the late Lux of the 1990s?
Fred Miranda wrote:
I agree. IMO, older copies are more susceptible to develop haze, fungus and coating deterioration and therefore contrast and overall IQ could diminish. Later copies produced in late 1980s and 90s have a better chance just because they are newer.
I think what matters is glass condition and if one finds an older model with pristine/clear glass and intact coating, it could perform close to the new SR.
Having said that I think the 2022 version does indeed have slight higher contrast. They are all pretty close though and I think Leica did a great job with this release. (minus the hood + filters issue)
BTW, Leica just released a firmware update for their M bodies and now the SR has automatic lens detection. I have added the code to my CV 35/1.4 II SC and it works as well....Show more →
p.6 #19 · Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 Steel Rim lens
mulberry2006 wrote:
Thank you guys for clarifying the performance of these lenses over the years. My main question now is about the rendering of the new steel rim. Is it (due to higher contrast output) producing bokeh balls closer to the late Lux of the 1990s?
Bokeh balls are virtually identical between all the versions. It's also very similar to the Voigtlander, although the latter produces slightly more rounded specular highlights towards the edge.
p.6 #20 · Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 Steel Rim lens
The blacks are darker with the Voigtlander. Not sure how to describe it optically speaking with the right terms, but looking at the images taken with the Voigtlander one can see colors are more contrasty and, in some areas, the details more defined.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Bokeh balls are virtually identical between all the versions. It's also very similar to the Voigtlander, although the latter produces slightly more rounded specular highlights towards the edge.
BUT.....My 1992 is a very contrasty (in the center) and stopped down all over.
