RexGig0
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.7 #8 · 35 Summilux Picture Thread | |
RexGig0 wrote:
Well, I can understand not liking the “legendary 35 ‘lux.” None of the Leica Summilux-M 35mm lenses have a rendering that seems to match that of my favored 50mm lens, the Summilux-M 50mm ASPH, the lens that lured me to add the Leica M system. At 35mm, I have tended to prefer the background blur of the Zeiss Distagon 35mm f/1.4 ZM, when I saw comparison images posted with any of the Leica Summilux images. I confirmed as much, last June, when I took my Distagon to a Leica dealer, and compared it to a Version II Summilux, made in the Sixties, and a demonstrator Summilux FLE I. It was almost immediately easy for me to dismiss the idea of buying a vintage Summilux 35. Human subjects, within the DOF, were different in character, when looking at FLE and Distagon images, with neither being “better” than other.
The large size of the Distagon does not normally bother me.
I did, however, acquire a Re-edition Steel Rim Classic Summilux, at the end of June, when Leica USA, in NJ, received stock. This was not a passionate grail quest, but a calculation. It is like-able enough, having both compactness and a wide maximum aperture. I can hope to learn to use its flare creatively, something I cannot do with the Distagon, or my CV Color Skopar 35mm f/2.5 II, which seem to be very modern lenses.
...Show more →
Wow, I did not realize how negative my “tone” was, when I typed the above post. The “busy” (to my eyes) background blur character of a Summilux FLE may not be nearly as wonderful as I would wish, but not all backgrounds are subject to this effect, and, as I said, subjects within the DOF of FLE images are “different” than Distagon images. If/When a well-preserved FLE I presents itself, when the time and place are just right, well, one can never have too many 35mm lenses, no? 
|
