I recently came across a good deal on a 35mm Summilux asph. So I bought it. Normally, this would not be a big thing, but as I already own the 35 Summicron asph, this becomes a lot of high-end glass to try and explain to my wife! I was very curious, and obviously wanted to compare them carefully before giving either of them up. And before anybody asks, yes, I have read Mr. Putts’ review of these lenses. I was more interested in how they might compare in the field, the way I use them. So, here is what I learned…

First off, I decided a benchmark test was in order, just to be thorough. With the camera attached to a sturdy tripod at a distance of 60X the lens focal length from a wall, and with cable release attached, I shot some test-targets on the wall at all of the f-stops for each lens with Fuji Velvia. I could have saved some film here, because my results were virtually identical to what Mr. Putts has posted on his website. The hand-held shots were random shots near my home, with the same shots being taken at the same settings with both lenses. The same M6 TTL body was used for all tests.

At f1.4 the Summilux asph shows a remarkably sharp center image, with slightly softer corners. At f2, the Summicron asph and the Summilux asph are equal in resolution at the center, with the Summicron asph being much better at the edge. At f2.8 & 4, the Summilux asph is sharper in the center, and the Summicron asph is sharper in the corners. At f 5.6 & 8, the lenses are equal in center sharpness, but the Summicron asph remains noticeably sharper in the corners. Beyond f8, the lenses are indistinguishable in resolution. One distinguishing characteristic of the Summicron asph is that its center to corner sharpness remained very consistent throughout the aperture range. The differences described above remained somewhat noticeable in most hand-held shooting situations, however both of these lenses are excellent performers overall. Both lenses showed a very slight loss in resolution at the corners when a Leica UV filter was attached. I would rate the Summicron asph “excellent” in its ability to control flare, and it slightly edges out the Summilux asph, which I would rate “very good” at controlling flare. A slight amount of additional flare was detected in the Summicron asph when the UV filter was attached, but no such differences were noted with the filter on the Summilux asph. Interestingly, the Summilux asph has noticeably “smoother” bokeh than the Summicron asph, but the Summicron’s was still very pleasing. Both lenses exhibited an identical neutral color-cast.

Which one am I going to keep? Tough decision. Probably the ‘cron because it is a bit smaller -- but there are those times when the extra stop would be nice! :-)

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), March 08, 2001

Answers

A hard decision, and a detailful explanation of both lenses.Thank´s Jack; any way for now I´ll must be satisficed with my 35 ´cron fourth version.

-- R. Watson (AL1231234@HOTMAIL.COM), March 08, 2001.

Wow.

I envy your ability to choose the better of two lenses by owning and comparing both. Nobody in town has the Summilux in stock. I am bent on getting an additional lens to compliment my 50 'cron (its the Leica affliction, I am sure). I have decided on the 35mm for two reasons. One, I have taken many of my best photographs with the 35mm focal length over the years, and two, the 35mm frame lines in the 0.58 finder (they are uncluttered and easily viewable with my eyeglasses in place).

Thus, your post is right on point for me. Tough choice, because the extra stop is often useful. So too is marginally optical performance, smaller size, and lower price. Let me ask you this, with the hoods in place, how would you compare the handling on- camera, in & out of the camera bag, and with using a lens cap between the two? How about foucsing and aperture setting? The same?

Finally, which will you keep, and what would you want for the one you let go :)

-- Dan Brown (brpatent@swbell.net), March 08, 2001.

Dan:

Good questions -- I probably should have icluded a few comments on handling and the lens hoods, so here goes...

First off, I like the hood arrangement on the Summilux asph better than the one on the Summicron asph because of the way it locks on (It twist-locks on, as opposed to snapping on). It is simply better designed, and seems more sturdy. Also the hood on the 35 Summlux asph is "cut out" so you can see through it, whereas the hood for the 35 Summicron asph is not. However, the Summilux is notably longer and thicker than the Summicron, so it intrudes into the viewfinder frame more. With the cutout on the Summilux's hood, both lenses end up clipping the same amount out of the lower right corner of the VF frame.

The 35 Summilux asph is just about the same length as my tabbed 50 Summicron, but a little heavier. However they are virtually identical in handling "feel" when on the camera, and when focussing or setting the aperture. The 35 Summicron asph is shorter (and about the same weight as my 50 'cron), but the only real difference in use is that the "stretch" from the focus tab to the aperture ring is a little shorter on the 35 Summicron asph. I always leave my hoods attached when the lenses are on the camera in my bag, so the 35 Summilux ends up coming out of the bag just like my 50 'cron. The 35 Summicron may come out of the bag a tad easier when I pay attention to it, but I can't really say I noticed any difference before you asked the question! In actual practice, I simply did not notice that much difference in the way these three lenses (both 35's and the 50 'cron) handled.

I still have not decided which one to give up... They are both such sweet lenses. (I've actually considered keeping both of these, and maybe getting rid of my Noctilux instead!) I'll keep you posted on what I decide to do. As an aside, I feel that with "limited supply" or other desireable equipment, it is probably okay (not considered rude) to offer them up for sale to the readers of this forum prior to listing them on eBay -- after all, I'd like to give somebody who would really appreciate it first crack at it! But, maybe it is better etiquette to list these items on eBay, then notify this group of the item... I'd be curious to hear from others as to their opinion on this topic.

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), March 09, 2001.

I, for one, feel that it's a very nice gesture - and you're certainly welcome - to introduce items for sale here before posting them onto ebay. Moderator get's first choice!!! (I'm just joking) Seriously, whatever you feel comfortable with.

-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@mail.com), March 09, 2001.

Thank you for your cogent answer. Though, it doesn't make the choice any easier :) In the final analysis I think this is a money for optical speed decision.

-- Dan Brown (brpatent@swbell.net), March 09, 2001.

My decision to get a 35/1.4 Asph to replace my 35/2 was motivated by my constant reaching for the next larger aperture when I was at f/2 already. So use your lenses. If you find yourself in the same situation that I did then the extra speed of the f/1.4 is worth the price. If, however, you are an f/8 and be there type of photographer, spend the extra money on film and a soft release for the few times you need the extra stop.

Cheers,

-- John Collier (jbcollier@home.com), March 09, 2001.

Jack,

I agree with Tony that offering any equipment to us before the 'open market' is a very nice gesture! After all, who better to appreciate it than us?

Ken

-- KL Prager (www.pragerproperties@worldnet.att.net), March 13, 2001.

I'm currently in the same dilemma. I'd like to carry just one fast lens to substitute my Tri-Elmar at night, and I've been considering the 35/1.4 ASPH because it offers a 3-stop advantage over the Tri- Elmar vs 2 stops for the Summicron ASPH, which is the lens I currently own. The better performance out to the corners of the 'Cron is what has stopped me so far, because I use it for cityscapes and such, rather than portraiture where the corners don't matter as much.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), March 13, 2001.