Dear Leica Users,

need some help, currently there is an auction ebay for a 'lux 35 (current version). I 'm thinking about to bid on it, I don't have any experiences with this lens. So it would be great if some could state a few pro's and con's about it. How's the contrast, sharpness etc. comparing to the 'cron?

Thanks for all comments !!

Greetings from Ticino/Switzerland

-- Martin (m-effeler@gmx.com), May 19, 2002

Answers

35mm f/1.4 Summilux. Sharpest Aperture.

-- Kelly Flanigan (zorki3c@netscape.net), May 19, 2002.

Martin; the thread link I posted maybe only for the M series lens; I am not sure yet.. Kelly

-- Kelly Flanigan (zorki3c@netscape.net), May 19, 2002.

When I had R equipment ( before my eyesight forced me to Auto Focus for SLR work ) there were four R lenses that made the System expense worth it: the 35/1.4. 80/1.4 and 100/2.8 APO Macro and 180/2.8 APO. Of the four, I got the most use out of the 35 and 80. Both are big and heavy compared to competitive makes. But well balanced on camera. The Leica look is definately there with both. The 35 is an outstanding optic in practice if not on a bench test. The closest competitor IMO is the Canon 35/1.4L. But, to my eye, the tonal gradation qualities of the Leica are superior. The shallower DOF of the f/1.4 verses f/2 is worth evey penny. Over all, the only 35/1.4 that bests it is the M-35mm Lux.

-- Marc Williams (mwilliams111313MI@comcast.net), May 19, 2002.

At one time I owned just the late version 35/2.8-R, but when I purchased the 35-70/4 I re-thought things and decided I needed to sell the Elmarit and get a 35 which was substantially faster than the zoom. (I borrowed this philosophy from my M system, where I sold a 35/2ASPH for a 35/1.4ASPH when I got a Tri-Elmar and it was a good decision). So I bought the 35/1.4-R. Unlike the M-ASPH, the R lens is large and very heavy...almost the same size and nearly double the weight of the 35-70/4! At f/1.4 it vignettes noticeably and in the close range (under 5m or so)the corner sharpness is visibly behind the center. It is sharper and contrastier than the 35/1.4 Nikkor-AIS which I owned concurrently, but well behind the 35/1.4ASPH-M. For my use of the lens wide open (nighttime city images, not photojournalism), I was less than thrilled with the image quality wide open. Due to the lens construction (internal rearrangement of elements when focused)it acts like a zoom and sucks in dirt. When I came upon a mint 35/2-R I compared it with the 35/1.4 and quickly decided to switch. I am still happy I did. I'm much more pleased with the performance of the Summicron for my use, it's a lot smaller and lighter, and I put nearly $400 back in my pocket.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), May 19, 2002.

Martin: 35mmF/1.4 for speed, 35mm-70mmF/4 for versatility and 35mmF/2 as a compromise. Think this through and you will save alot of money and aggravation. Jay is right.

-- Albert Knapp MD (albertknappmd@mac.com), May 19, 2002.

Hello Martin

If you can buy it for a good price and need a brighter viewfinder than you have no other choice... just buy it. If you only want it to buy for to have it and shoot occasionaly than you may go for a Summicron and will save of consequence money. And as stated in Jay`s answer for general use you can also live with the 4/35-70 it is a real nice lens.

I also have the R35 Lux and yes it is havey but while using you will not notice it as it is very well balanced and vignetting is not an issue if you have to stop down anyway. And even if you have to shoot at 1,4 the vignetting is only visible if you make a direct comparison with other lensen and than you have to compare with super lensen like the M-Lux Asph.

Greetings from Thurgau

Salvatore

-- Salvatore (salvi1963ch@yahoo.com), May 20, 2002.