I´m going to by my first M6 soon, and have decided that my first lens should be a 35 mm Asph. I just don´t know if I should buy the 35 mm f/2 summicron or the 35 mm f/1.4 summilux. What are the caracteristics of these two lenses, how do they differ (besides the adifference in speed). I have seached the archives but coulden´t really find anything. Photodo gives the two lenses the following grades summicron: 4.1 summilux: 3.8. Not a great difference but the summicron seems to be better (not that I´m going to shoot MTF graphs). I have noticed that a lot of pros use the summilux, is this only a need for speed or does it offer other advantages?

-- Jonas Vilslev (jonasvilslev@groenjord.dk), August 08, 2001

Answers

yes Jonas, the need of a faster speed is the reason, they also have a diferent image signature, ´cron is better at corners of the frame (more uniform image in the entire field), wile the ´lux has a higher contrast in the center of the image wide open, so if your photography needs the wide apertures the ´lux is your lens, if not the ´cron is unsurpased in the midles apertures.I don´t own any of this but the pre asph version of both, and are superb. to realy reach the diferent caracteristics of any of this two lenses, your tecknich also has to be up to date. And those are bigger lenses compared to pre asph.

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), August 08, 2001.

Jonas, I would disagree with r watson only in his implication that the 35 Summicron ASPH is inferior to the 35 Summilux ASPH at the wider apertures, and superior in the moderate apertures. It is true that these lenses have a somewhat different signature. That being said, if you need the extra stop, go with the Summilux ASPH unless its larger size is a problem for you. Both lenses are superb at all apertures.

-- David (pagedt@attglobal.net), August 08, 2001.

Just because someone published on a website that "one is better in the center while the other is better in the corners", now everyone swears they see the same thing and it becomes another Leica myth. I owned the 35 Summicron ASPH and 35 Summilux ASPH together until I sold the 35/2. The Summilux is much better...from f/1.4 until f/2 where they're so close from there on you can really ignore the differences unless your main goal in owning lenses is testing them rather than taking photographs with them.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), August 08, 2001.

Well, for what it's worth, here's my opinion. I do a lot of MTF testing on complex electro-optical systems. Some have their performance limited by internal components, some by the lens so lets not start that argument. The point here is that in general, it takes major changes in MTF to make an image obviously less pleasing to the eye. What does this mean for the Lux VS the Cron? It is extremely difficult to see the difference in MTF in practical applications. Buy the lens you want (go for aperture or compact size). If you need the other feature sometime, buy a low-cost Voigtlander lens to round out the collection. I've got an Asph Lux - nice lens. For a compact lens I have a 40mm from a CL - about as sharp as the last pre-aspheric 35mm summicron.

-- mark (mramra@qwest.net), August 08, 2001.

Erwin Puts' site has a good write-up about the characteristics of these 2 lenses. If I may crudely summarise his conclusion: the Summilux Asph. is like a Summicron Asph but faster by 1 stop. I would agree with that view (my brother has the Summicron Asph).

I own the Summilux Asph but I think if I have the choice I would probably be happier saving the extra cost and stick with a Summicron Asph. Why? I shoot with 35mm as a standard lens and most of the time f2.0 is more than fast enough. The Summicron is much easier to use and see through the viewfinder. Last night I went out shooting some street photography at night in a night bazaar and I hardly had any use for f1.4 (I have to admit it comes in useful for interiors shots). The Summilux is much bulkier and the lens hood partially blocks the viewfinder. And the rubbery lens cap is a bit of a joke - keeps falling off! As for Photodo's test - can't agree. I own lenses which they have tested at higher than 4.3 and IMHO either of the 2 lenses are right up there in both contrast and resolution. Have fun shooting!

-- David Yeo (yeo_d@hotmail.com), August 08, 2001.

I want to buy the summilux, I already have the Summicron, but a second thought, for the price of the Summilux, I can buy a G2 with 35- 70mm lens, does anyone have the G2 and the new 35-70mm out there? How do you like it?

-- Mitchell Li (mitchli@pacbell.net), August 09, 2001.

you´re rigth Jay all my aseverations are based on what I´ve read here, not on real experiences, neather on my own 35´s pre asph, since I haven´t seen my work for three years, what I can only talk about is on my 35/2.8 summaron.

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), August 09, 2001.

I had a Summicron ASPH, and sold it when I succumbed to the siren song of the Summilux ASPH. My take on the two lenses is:

In terms of sharpness, colour rendition and flare resistance there isn't much to choose between them. I think (though I can't prove) that the lux is a tiny bit sharper/contrastier in the center at in the 2.0-4.0 range; but it's nothing to get bent out of shape over. the performance of the Summicron at 2.0 will take your breath away.

Weight and size for me is pretty much a wash. Yes, the Summilux is a bit bigger and heavier, but again not so much as to make any real difference to me. The shade on the Summicron is a real treat, and yes, it doesn't block the VF as much as the one on the Summilux. However, the shade cap on the Summilux is miles ahead of the one on the Summicron (which popped off and I lost it).

The bokeh is a bit different between the two lenses. I found that the Summicron s tended to be a bit smoother, the Summilux is a bit rougher, but again, not enough for me to base any buying decisions on.

For me it all comes down to the extra f-stop. Once you've taken a photo at 1.4 and seen the utterly unbeatable image quality, you may be sold. The reason pros use it is indeed that extra f-stop. If you need it, and can justify the cost, get the Summilux. Otherwise you'll be very happy with the Summicron. Until, of course, the first day you need to shoot some available light action and that extra f- stop would have made the difference between 1/15 and 1/30...

-- Paul Chefurka (paul_chefurka@pmc-sierra.com), August 09, 2001.

I first used the Summicron 35 ASPH then upgraded to Summilux ASPH. I can't tell much difference in image quality from f2 - f8 (I hardly shoot beyond f8). But the extra f-stop in Summilux is great help when light condition becoming very challenging. The Summilux does deliver excellent image quality at f1.4. I really appreciate the Summilux when I shoot at f1.4 with 1/15 shutter speed and be able to nail the shoots. Plus, the Summilux doesn't much size and weight over the Summicron (black version).

-- Cing-Dao Kan (cdkan@yahoo.com), August 09, 2001.

Maybe 60% of my pictures are taken with the 1.4 asph and for me the real payoff is the extra stop in shutter speed. There may not always be a difference between 1/15 and 1/30, but there is _always_ a difference between 1/4 and 1/8, which is where you often end up with 100 ASA slide film. The MTF stuff is completely irrelevant compared to that, IMO.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), August 09, 2001.

Thanks! I´m probaply going to buy the Lux, because I often use the large apertures for interior shooting. I just wanted to know if there were any diffrence in sharpness, contrast and bokeh in the two versions.

-- Jonas Vilslev (jonasvilslev@groenjord.dk), August 09, 2001.

I had both, compared them, and ended up keeping the 'Lux for the extra stop. The 'cron was a bit sharper in the corners, and the 'lux was a bit sharper in the center -- and IMO these differences were virtually insignificant, but none-the-less noticeable. Yes the 'lux is a tiny bit larger and heavier, but again virtually insignificant when I weighed all the above factors against the 'Lux's extra stop -- which I use a lot of the time.

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

I remember a test that said that wide open the 'cron was a bit sharper but that at F2 they were virtually identical. But the test gave the edge to the 'cron because it was sharper wide open. But if you're shooting a black bear in a cave and you need F1.4 to get the shot the, I'd take the 'unsharp' 'lux over the 'cron any day. That said, if you don't do a lot of low light shooting you'll be just as happy with the 'cron. I really don't get the whole MTF thing - I've never sold a photo of an MTF chart yet, and doubt I ever will.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), August 10, 2001.

The 35 ASPH Cron comes closer to preserving the compactness of the pre-ASPH, compared to the APSH Lux, if that means anything.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), August 10, 2001.

Are the Photodo grades 4.1 for Summicron and 3.8 for Summilux refer to the pre-ASPH lenses but not the 35mm ASPH lenses you plan to buy? Chenwah Lee

-- Chenwah LEE (leechenwah@hotmail.com), August 14, 2001.

I have had both also. I originally bought the Summilux ASPH f/1.4 wanting the 'best' 35mm lens money could buy. I was told by the dealer it was just as good as the Summicron ASPH f/2.0 but with a stop extra speed. Now considering it was extra in cost as well as weight and size, I didn't hesistate based on this advice as image quality was paramount for me and weight/size secondary. At the time of purchase I also bought a 90mm APO Summicron ASPH f/2.0. After 6 months of using both lenses I was less than satisfied with the imaging results from my 35mm Summilux compared to the images produced from my 90mm APO Summicron. The B&W images from my 90 were razor sharp and contrasty, oh yeah. However I couldn't heap the same praise on my very expensive Summilux. It's images were not as contrasty and lacked that visual snapiness. Now my purchases were pre-Erwin Puts informed, but even if I had read his considered reports prior to fork- out, nothing less than trying them in the field for myself would have satisfied my own curiosities. - It's not like you can walk into your local Leica dealer and ask to shoot a couple of rolls on each lens before decided which one to buy! , oh how I wish...Anyway, to cut a long story short, I went back to the dealer and did a straight swap for a Summicron. I lost out by £400, but I gained what I wanted - a contrasty lens to match a similar result to my 90. That was just my experience. But I am happier toting a lighter, more compact lens around when I travel. And the stop extra speed is not an issue for me (nod with David), as I just load faster film/up-rate it, and/or just hold my breath for that smidgen longer. The point that made me swap it, was my Minilux Zoom produced sharper images than my Summilux! That said, I have to completely agree with Mr Puts that the 35mm Summicrons and Summilux have 'different fingerprints'. I find the Summicrons have a visual clarity and edginess which I personally love for that moody, photojournalistic B&W look - blacks are black and whites are white. While the Summilux (well, the one I had anyway) was good for rendering very fine detail, most of my slide film shots were great. My Velvia and Provia sunsets and dawn shots were quite spectacular in the Summilux's abiltity to capture detail. But for B&W what impresses me is striking contrast and the Summilux lacked that 'fingerprint'. For all you 35mm Summilux owners, I have got one B&W shot which I took when I had mine that just astounded me. It was a shot of the ceiling of St Peters Dome (at the Vatican, Rome), using Ilford FP4, hand held at f/1.4, infinity, 1/15 second, and the result captured all the fine-art detail, just beautiful. So Jonas, if you havn't made your purchase yet, you should consider the type of photography you wish to take with your lens and the type of fingerprint- ie. look and feel of image you want to hold in your hand. Just think of them as paint-brushes with different characteristics.

-- Sparkie (sparkie@mailcity.com), August 17, 2001.