The last of my 35 lux questions. I decided to go with a pre-asph 35mm lux. I have found a good line on both a early chrome version, and a later black one. Weight is not an issue (I actually prefer the heavier lenses). I know the optical formula was changed, with improved performance. My question is, does anyone have experience with both lenses? Is this improvement a question of edge performance? Is it enough of a difference to be noticed in hand-held shots? Better yet, how much of an improvement is it, and is the difference only noticeable @ 1.4? I had, and loved a canon black 35 f2 a few years ago-- are we talking performance below that level? Any opinions would be appreciated. Best,

-- Marke Gilbert (Bohdi137@aol.com), February 10, 2002

Answers

Of all the Leica lenses, this is one where you should buy as late a model as you can. At f/1.4 it has so little contrast and is so flare prone that the improvements in coating technology make a big difference over the 38 year production life. Get the newest one you can find.

-- John Collier (jbcollier@powersurfr.com), February 10, 2002.

I have a hard copy article that I got off of the LHSA web-site back in 1998 about the 35mm Summilux, but it is no longer active (I tried the address, but it is gone), so it is impossible to refer you to it.

The one point about it is that the reviewer, Dick Gilcreast, does confirm that the coating upgrade, which happened at about serial number 2,930,000, did in fact help the overall contrast. Additionally, the ability of the lens, from this serial number, to cope with glancing side light seemed to be improved by the blackening of the element edges. I would think that if you are looking for a lens to use, rather than the outward cosmetics, the latest model would be the one to go for.

I wish it were possible for you to access this article, because it is pretty thorough about this lens' weaknesses and strengths. Obviously this older lens has been surpassed by the more modern design ASPH version, but Gilcreast is a pretty convincing cheerleader for the older classic lens.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), February 10, 2002.

My experience with a late, black non-ASPH 35 Summilux is that if it were a reflex lens, I would use the f/1.4 for finder brightness but always stop down at least to f/2.8, and preferably f/4-5.6 for shooting. Any 35 Cron I've tried is better at f/2. I can't think of a single other example among current and immediate-predecessor Leica lenses where the new version just tramples over the previous. Most of the updates are of the kind you need to be Erwin to chronicle, not this one. That's not to say the 35 Lux is a cokebottle, just that it comes to knee-high to the Lux and Cron ASPH and waist-high to the rest of the Crons.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), February 10, 2002.

Marke. I thought I answered this question on a previous post. I can't remeber whether it was a question by you but I think it was. Please review the previous posts. I don't like to repeat answers to the same question by the same poster.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), February 10, 2002.

Al, try this. http://www.lhsa.org/viewfinder.html

-- Ed DeAngelis (edeange769@aol.com), February 10, 2002.

Yes. Here it is in response to a previous question. Didn't you read the previous responses?

Marke

The earliest 35/1.4 Summiluxes were chrome w/ E41 filter size (both M2 and M3 versions). These were only made in '60 or '61. They are very rare collectors items, especially the M2 version. But optically not as good as the later black lenses, which had a slightly different barrel. The later lenses may have had improved coatings or the formula may have been changed, its not known, but the earliest lenses showed reduced contrast and a greater tendency to flare.

For many years, the 35/1.4 Slux was offered only in black, then in the 90s, some titanium versions were made. This lens has a very long production run (40 yrs), but was still not made in very large numbers.

Expected prices for nice lens (E++ w/ perfect glass): early chrome ('60-'61 only) M2 version about $ 2000 give or take (special lenshood called Ollux, rare, costs about $ 300)

early chrome (M3 version w/ eyes): $ 1500 or so (special lens hood Ollux, as above)

regular black lens w/ hood and caps: about $ 900-1000 or so late titanium version: ? $ 1200 or so

Unless you are a collector, stick with the pre-ASPH black lens, which you can buy from a dealer (or eBay, if you feel lucky).

It's a very good lens, by F/4 about equal to the 35/2 of the same vintage. Neutral color rendition. Has tendency to flare wide open when shooting into the light. This one was a favorite of many photojournalists and other pros.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), January 30, 2002.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), February 10, 2002.

Marke,

If f1.4 is not your main day in day out working aperture, I'm pretty sure that lens (black, late serial nr, etc) will be more than adequate optically. I am not writing from 1st hand knowledge here, so do not give too much credit.

But I can tell you with complete confidence that the fact that the 35mm f1.4 'lux does not focus nearer than 1m is a darn frustrating limitation. The 'cron and current asph 'lux focus down to 0.70m. Those 30 cm on a 35mm lens make a real difference, and that reason alone has discouraged me from going for that lens.

With a Leica M and a 35mm, you want to get close by your subjects. One meter on a 35mm is all too often not close enough...

-- Jacques (jacquesbalthazar@hotmail.com), February 11, 2002.

Hello Eliot,

you gave a sound answer to the more or less very same (personŽs) question already, so it can be understood, that you are a bit fed up with this repetition. Nevertheless, thank you for pointing out again to your answer.

Things get difficult when it comes to taxes. I also tend to mix things up when IŽam forced to tackle these serious affairs.

Kind regards

-- K. G. Wolf (k.g.wolf@web.de), February 11, 2002.

I studied Markes Q again and found it goes much more into detail than the previous one ... Never had the first series LUX, my CRON was enough for me for 15 yrs +.

Sorry for this intervention.

-- K. G. Wolf (k.g.wolf@web.de), February 11, 2002.

I have a late version of the 35/1.4 pre-ASPH (3,537,xxx) and want to say the complaints about flare, low contrast and softness at 1.4 do not exist with my lens. There must have been some improvement with the formula and coating for the final production version. The old 35/1.4 is a wonderful lens, at wide-open, and I have the Summicron 28/2.0 ASPH to compare it with.Finding a late one will not be easy as the annual production run on this lens was very small.

-- Steve LeHuray (steve@icommag.com), February 11, 2002.

I have used several of the 35 summicrons. I had a chrome first version from Wetzlar that was beautiful and I have the 4th vers pre aspheric. I also have the 35 aspheric summilux 2nd version. The lux is a much better lens than any of the others I have used and if the pre asph cron wasn't so small and so good I would get rid of it and use only the lux. I have been seeing them on ebay for $1100 to $1500 used lately and Delta has new ones for $1795. Go in a store and try one. I tried the lux and an aspheric cron and, anecdotally of course, the aspheric summilux was the one I liked the best by a lot. Good luck.

-- Don (wgpinc@yahoo.com), February 11, 2002.

Get the newest,if you must get a Summilux...I did myself a favor and sold it,purchased a 35mm Summicron that was sharp and contrasty, and almost as good as my 35mm f2.o Super Takumar on Spotmatic.Against the lite...the Leica was useless. My Nikon stuff fared no better!I loved the look of my Summicron photos,the 'roundness' and depth.

-- jason gold (leeu72@hotmail.com), February 11, 2002.

I have the first version Summilux for an M2. These lenses were supposed to be upgraded from ser# 2166702 (recompute for flatter field and better edge sharpness at middle apertures). Nonetheless, I have used this lens for years and it is pretty equal to the Summicron except that it has f1.4. I try to stop it down a half-stop and this makes an improvement visible to my eyes from wide-open. Its compactness induces me to carry it in leiu of my Noctilux from time to time. Its just harder to conceal a nocti. Still I am pleased with the Summilux and its quality of manufacture is awesome. Its rugged and beautiful. I also have the OLLUX hood, yet I avoid carrying it as not to loose it. I carry the Summilux and a 90 tele-elmarit for a nice compact outfit.

-- James F. Gumm (jim.gumm@okdhs.org), February 13, 2002.

Dear Marke,

There are always lens tests and then there is always your lens.

I've used an old black 'lux 35/1.4 since Jan. 1990 and wouldn't part with it. There are a lot of things wrong with it. I now confine mine to low light work. In bright light there are ghosts and flare. My biggest compaint has been the hood -- hard to change f-stops, unlike your fingers are super thin.

Recently saw comparative test shots between the old and new ASPH 'lux. The new 'lux wipes the floor with the old. Shot at night, lights with the old 'lux are rendered as inflated round blobs in the center and bright smears at the edges.

But then there is my 'lux. In street / candid photography my subjects are neither blobs nor smears at 1.4. They are sharp when I focus properly and seem to have a warm glow to them.

I love my old 'lux's light weight (180 g.) and its compactness.

As I said in other posts, I now carry a tiny Voigtlander 35/2.5 Classic for bright light work.

You mentioned the old Canon 35/2. I have used a Canon 35/1.8 for years and got good results. I think that the old Canons are less flare and ghost prone than the old 'lux, but I might be wrong.

It's important to know that stopping down the 'lux will not improve the ghost problem. I'm haunted at f16 more than at 1.4 (which I use in darkened and, sometimes, spooky places).

If you know a lens's limitations and can work with it, any lens is a good lens for you. If you believe this is this lens is YOUR lens then go for it.

-- Alex Shishin (shishin@suma.kobe-wu.ac.jp), February 13, 2002.