Hi, I'm on the verge of trading my 50mm Summicron for one of the 35mm's. I'm seeing non ASPH 35mm's for about $750 and ASPH for $995+ plus ( used). Usually an ASPH s about $1200 unless you have patience. So lets call it a $450 difference. Anyway with all the discussion on the ASPH choices it makes the plain old 35mm Summi sound like junk! I'm easily swayed by all you folks out there doing tests on edge to edge sharpness and distortion but how noticable is it? How does the non ASPH hold up? Money is an issue, I'll have to trade out of my 50 to make this happen and I have a few days left on a return policy so I can't be real picky. I'mm leaning towards the ASPH but I'll see what happens. Thanks, Warren Allen whatrix@home.com

-- Warren Allen (whatrix@home.com), November 15, 2001

Answers

Warren:

One Old Fart's opinion: keep the money and the 50 'cron, buy lots of film and take lots of pictures. The practice one gets shooting a hundred rolls of film will likely make much more difference to the quality of the final product than getting the latest whiz bang lens.

No charge for that advice.

Click click

-- RICHARD ILOMAKI (richardjx@hotmail.com), November 15, 2001.

My exprience is that at f/4.0 and smaller, there's no difference betwen them. It's in those last two stops - 2.8 and 2.0 - that the ASPH really shows its stuff. So, if you are planning on shooting a lot at those apertures, the ASPH is unequivocally better. For general-purpose shooting, the non-ASPH will be as good, and is certainly smaller and lighter.

-- Paul Chefurka (chefurka@home.com), November 15, 2001.

If you go to the Leica M heading of this site, and do an onscreen "find" on your browser, you'll find this topic has been long discussed and maybe you'll get your question answered.

-- Tse-Sung (tsesung@yahoo.com), November 15, 2001.

Warren: My results agree with Pauls. I found there was a very noticeable difference below f4, where the asph really shines over th enon-asph. Also, I noticed a big difference in flare supression - the asph clearly being the superior performer.

BUT, I also have to agree with Richard... Are you wanting to sell your 50 because you are not able to get the shots you want? Or, are you simply wanting the 35 because of a desire to "try it out"? If your answer is the latter, I would suggest that there are a lot of great images yet to be made with the 50, and your hard-earned $$$ are better spent on film rather than a different lens.

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), November 15, 2001.

Warren, I own the 35 Summicron ASPH and love it, but No Way, No How would I consider giving up my 50 Summicron. My 50 Summicron is indispensible. Consider saving for the pre ASPH 35 if you need to maximize value; it is a tremendous lens, some preferring it to the latest Summicron.

-- Davied (pagedt@chartertn.net), November 15, 2001.

Warren, I use R cameras instead of M's but the question is still relevant so will give my "opinion". You must like the 50mm lens coverage since you bought the lens. If so, why not keep the 50 and add a 35 later? Personally, I prefer 50mm over 35mm but your choice should depend on your likes/uses. Good luck with your decision. LB

-- Luther Berry (lberrytx@aol.com), November 15, 2001.

Ditto. Keep the 50mm, buy and shoot lots of film, and don't worry about a second lens for now. The Leica M lends itself to a minimalist approach, and you may find that one camera + one lens really helps you refine your vision.

As far as the 35's go, the pre-ASPH may be inferior to the ASPH, but it is superior to any other 35mm lens I have owned -- a list including the Hexar AF, four Nikkors, and a couple others. I think most users were perfectly happy with it until the ASPH came out.

-- Douglas Kinnear (douglas.kinnear@colostate.edu), November 15, 2001.

Like the others, I would urge you to keep your 50mm and get a 35mm as another lens. If I had only one lens, personally I would keep a 50mm. I would buy the ASPH as the price difference (s/h) is often not what you observe - $200-300 seems to be more like it, if you are talking the latest pre-ASPH version in good condition. At that price I would get an ASPH, personally (which is what I have done in fact)

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), November 15, 2001.

Wow , Thanks for all the great answers. I go back and forth on the issue like the answers. I shot hunderds of rolls of Tri-X witn my Nikon and the 35mm 1.4, and I suppose I feel constricted with the 50mm.

And for cryin' out loud! did Capa, Bressen, Winogrand, Frank, Gibson etc.... have the ASPH option? I should just get a old chome number from the 50's or 60's and let my eye be the final determiner.

But that ASPH sounds so cool. Here I go again! Arrrgghh!

I wonder what I'll do... Warren Allen whatrix@home.com

-- Warren Allen (whatrix@home.com), November 15, 2001.

I think about this question a lot. I use the original version of the 35 Summicron which I have had for about 30 years. So far I've never been tempted to 'upgrade'. It makes beautiful, neutral color sharp pictures that always surprise me with their quality. Still the 35 aspherics Lux and Cron are most likely better below 4.0. This is Puts' discussion on the subject. http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/mseries/testm/m2-35.html

I would never get rid of my 50 Cron (just upgraded from 3rd vers to tab version and having a hard time even getting rid of 3rd). Shoot pictures. The quality improves in proportion to the amount of film you shoot, not which lenses you have. Take the time to save the money for the 35 and try them out in the store before you buy. I'm waiting to see the shots I made in store with the Lux and the Cron asph.

Good luck!

-- Don (wgpinc@yahoo.com), November 15, 2001.

Keep the 50 Summicron and save up for the 35 Summicron ASPH. I have both lenses, and they are awesome! :-)

-- Muhammad Chishty (applemac97@aol.com), November 15, 2001.

I wasn't going to comment, since this has been argued over and over, but since your comment on being a user of the 35mm f/1.4 Nikkor, I can offer a bit of a comparison here. I use the last pre-ASPH 35mm Summicron on my Leica Ms, and the 35mm f/1.4 on my Nikons. I pick the Nikon for some situations, and the Leica for others, but from f/4.0 or so and beyond it would be a coin toss.

I did do a very informal test of both of these lenses, real subjects, not test charts, and found the following to be true for me:

The Leica Summicron has a much flatter field than the Nikkor. I did some "same aperture" test and thought I had erred because of the apparent depth of field difference. I re-shot, and found the result matched the first test... the Summicron "looks" like it has deeper focus at the same aperture over the Nikkor (again, up to the mid range of about f/4.0). I attribute this to the field curvature of the Nikkor which causes the focus to fall in front of the central plane, rendering objects behind that plane to be farther away from the focus plane and to appear more out of focus. The same shots with the Summicron cause objects in the periphery to look more sharp. So, just knowing this allows me to exploit the effect for when I wish to separate the central subject from the background (Nikon) or when I want to shoot wide open with as much focus as I can get at that aperture (Leica).

The Summicron has a much better rendition of the blurred background than the Nikkor. Any thought of bokeh being hype and not really important need only look at two side by side slides shot with both of these lenses. In landscapes, this is not a big deal, but in tight environmental portraits, with distinct subject planes, the Summicron consistently give me the more pleasing results... not sharper... just more pleasing.

I am from the school of thought that unless I feel hindered, I don't change my glass just because of a new generation being introduced. I am sure that the Aspheric Summicron offers a great image, but prior to its introduction, nobody complained about the pre-aspheric version. It was and is still a great optic... and it is not hindering me, so it remains in my arsenal until it does.

I will also agree with most of the folks here... I love my 35mm lenses, but I would never be without my 50mm Summicron on my Leica. I could never choose one to give up over the other. Save up for the 35mm lens, don't sell your 50mm.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), November 15, 2001.

In my use, which is predominantly scenic photography, having flatness of field and center-to-corner sharpness is paramount. Being able to achieve this at full aperture means the possibility of handholding due to shorter shutter speeds. The 35/2ASPH will be better in that regard than the non-ASPH. I did sell my 35/2ASPH, but only to buy the 35/1.4ASPH which is a nearly-equal lens but one stop faster. I would not in any case give up owning a 50 for the Leica, though. But that's personal preference...I like the 50mm coverage most of all.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), November 15, 2001.

I see the point of those advising you to keep the 50 & keep shooting, but if the 35 really matches your working style best, then by all means go for a 35. I don't have a pre-ASPH 35 Summicron, but I do have a 35 ASPH that I'm trying to sell (hint, hint) & it is, even to my relatively uneducated eyes, noticeably sharper than the other 35's I own (e.g., Nikon RF 35/1.8 W-Nikkor, Contax G 35/2 Planar), especially wide-open. However, many folks prefer the look of the old Summicrons & you may not want or need the extra performance of the ASPH. If possible, I would recommend borrowing or renting the ASPH & its predecessors to see for yourself before taking the leap.

-- Chris Chen (furcafe@cris.com), November 15, 2001.

the best way to beat up latest asph quality with any older summicron or summaron is a good frame, a good image, if you can get it there´s no need of the smallest resolution in the very corner, have you think in a 35 summaron or earlier 35´s summicrons', can be a way to keep your 50, and return to your 64° world. The best of wise.

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), November 15, 2001.

Keep the 50 cron and get the 35 ASPH later. I have a 35 non-asph (4th version) and I love it. As the thread suggest the 35 asph is better wide open but am really inclined to get the 35 lux asph next year. The 50 cron is a must with the M6. Hope this helps.

-- ed gaddi (edgaddi@yahoo.com), November 15, 2001.

Warren, Better is in the eye of the beholder. Stuart Dorman (a frequent contributor) and I tested the pre-ASPH and ASPH Summicrons a few weeks ago. He had been wandering around with a pre-ASPH and noted some softness and light falloff in the corners. So we went searching for an evenly lit, uniform wall. Indeed, the light falloff was noticeable even at 5.6 whereas it was substantially absent with the ASPH even at f/2. (We tested two pre ASPH's against one ASPH.) The ASPH is also sharper in the corners. Although I have not tested the Summicrons, I did compare the quality of bokeh with the pre ASPH and ASPH Summiluxes. The ASPH has a harsher, double image out of focus appearance; the non ASPH is smooth. Needless to say, the pre ASPH is quite soft especially wide open; despite that, the bokeh is more appealing. My assumption is that the Summicrons behave similarly.

-- Henry Chu (heninden@yahoo.com), November 15, 2001.

Warren: here is a link to a folder full of wedding snaps I took this summer. The first 4 were all taken with the pre-ASPH 35 'cron at f/2. Combined they give a pretty good idea of the lens' strengths and weaknesses. (the last 4 are with the pre-ASPH 21, in case anyone cares)

The bride and groom kissing picture shows weaknesses - light fall-off, and visible coma (see UFO-shaped fairy lights at top left) - things the ASPH is supposed to correct.

The other shots show strengths - it's pretty damn sharp near the center, does a beautiful job of 'popping' sharp subjects away from dreamily soft backgrounds, and has a very sensual contrast when rendering skin tones.

Some 35 pre-ASPH pictures

I think the summaries here are pretty on-target. The ASPH 'cron has less light and sharpness fall-off at the edges in the first couple of f/stops, and may be MARGINALLY sharper dead-center at f/2 (although I've never been able to a difference at the center, myself).

I won't upgrade from my present lens - the technical improvements aren't great enough to equal the losses in weight, size and cost - there's a 'lumpiness' to the shape of the ASPH that just makes me itch, personally. Buying from scratch, well, the choice is much tougher.

But the pre-ASPH is definitely NOT junk!

I'm not a 50mm guy, so I don't have any problem with the trade idea. But that's really a personal taste question - the fact that 30 of us like 50's and 30 like 35's really has no bearing at all on whether YOU prefer one or the other.

One cautionary note - there are at least FOUR optically different versions of the 35 Summicron, so don't assume that ALL pre-ASPHs are equal. Mine is the last pre-ASPH design (1978 approx to 1998 approx).

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), November 15, 2001.

Warren: Andy has the final pre-ASPH; I have the first. And even if I got the ASPH, I still don't think I could give up my compact little Summicron. It does what I need; I'm satisfied. I would say keep the 50, and get an affordable 35 when you can afford it.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), November 15, 2001.

I'm always amazed by posted advice which is not solicited. Warren didn't ASK whether he should trade the 50.... he's already decided that he wants a 35. I know how that is. I owned a 50 and hated it. I sold it for a 35/2 ASPH, as a matter of fact. I didn't like the 50 SLR lens I owned, either. Sometimes this forum treats advice-seekers like children. "Keep that old M2 and just shoot more film... etc.". I can't see where that helps the person asking the question.

-- john costo (mahler@lvcm.com), November 15, 2001.

I have both. I think the Asph is a superior lens in most ways, and ultimately more pleasing to my eye . The older lens is no slouch, and does have a sort of pleasant look to it-the new lens is more snappy in some way. All at wide apertures. At small apertures they are the same.

The old 35 'cron and 'lux are both delightfully compact lenses. The new Asph is not so compact, but still a small lens, by any measure.

Regarding the money thing, IMHO, buying and selling lenses is false economy. Save up for or borrow to buy the Asph. You'll be happier you have both, in the long run.

I've gone through phases lating upto 2 years at a time thinking I'll never use the 50 or alternatively the 35, ever again. But in the long run, I've used both, a lot.

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), November 15, 2001.

Although I have not tested the Summicrons, I did compare the quality of bokeh with the pre ASPH and ASPH Summiluxes. The ASPH has a harsher, double image out of focus appearance; the non ASPH is smooth. Needless to say, the pre ASPH is quite soft especially wide open; despite that, the bokeh is more appealing. My assumption is that the Summicrons behave similarly.

Just as I suspected. I'll go with the pre-ASPH, thank you.

-- Peter Hughes (ravenart@pacbell.net), November 15, 2001.

Old Fart's Opinion again:

Yes, the 35 ASPH "Is so cool". Like Harley Davidson bikes, you look so cool on a Harley, so if all you want is "Cool" go for the ASPH and save money and don't waste it on film. Also, like HD bikes, the secret ingrediant that sells them is not in the product but in the customer.

I have made enough mistakes in my life that I am entitled to give advice when it is not sought. (By the way, my employer pays me good money to give junior engineers advice) If the receiver wants to save a few mistakes, good: if not- just as good. No sweat off my back.

I have never heard someone say: "Wow you must have used an ASPH lens for that", but I have heard lots of people say 'WOW look at that cute kid, or WOW look at those flowers, or look at that Brazilian gold miner climbing the ladder with a bag of ore on his back'"

I would love to have a 35 ASPH but I would rather have people connect with the beauty and emotion in the world through my photos.

Again, no charge

Cheers

-- RICHARD ILOMAKI (richard.ilomaki@hotmail.com), November 15, 2001.

Andy Piper and Henry Chu noted some light fallof in the corners of shots made with the pre-ASPH 35mm 'cron, and I want to add this note: I don't mind a little fall-off, and sometimes like it. I shoot only B&W, and often find myself burning down corners and edges a bit, as this helps focus the viewer's vision inside the frame. (If you don't believe me, look at some pix with large bright areas near the edge[s] of the frame, and you'll notice that your eyes can wander right off the print.) So a little fall-off saves me the trouble of burning while printing. And more broadly, that fall-off, along with a few aberrations and some sharpness fall-off at large apertures, help give the lens its famous bokeh. A lens flaw to one person may be a virtue to another, I guess...

-- Douglas Kinnear (douglas.kinnear@colostate.edu), November 15, 2001.

Warren,

To add to Henry's comments above, the light drop-off that I noticed in the corners of photos taken with the 4th version pre-ASPH 35mm Summicron between f/2 and f/5.6, was more of an issue with colour slides than B&W prints. So think about the medium you will be using.

I didn't have the opportunity to test the comparative bokeh of the Summicron thanks to an unexpected soaking by a sprinkler system (the camera & lenses were unaffected, but why do these things happen to me?!) but Henry's comparison of the 35mm Summilux bokeh was astounding. If I were in the market for that lens, I'd definitely go for the 35mm Summilux pre-ASPH.

As for the cost of ASPH 35mm Summicrons, I just bought one, mint in box, for $900 from a reputable dealer on eBay. That was the Buy It Now price, and the auction ran for 6 days before I ended it. If you're looking for a return policy or warranty, try Samy's in Los Angeles. A little more than 2 weeks ago I bought a mint in box 50mm Summicron (latest) there for $575, which I negotiated down from $700, thanks to the existence of the Leica rebate program. They also had a 35mm Summicron ASPH, mint in box. I think the asking price was $1200, but they might come down to the $1000 mark, and throw in a 6 month warranty.

But the fundamental question is whether you should sell the 50mm Summicron to finance the 35mm Summicron. To that, I would have to say DON'T! They are both excellent lenses, and they both have a place in my collection. Or at least they would if I could prevent myself from leaving stuff on planes. I will definitely replace my 50mm Summicron, even if I have to sell other non-Leica equipment to do so.

Cheers, Stuart

-- Stuart Dorman (stuart.dorman@us.pwcglobal.com), November 15, 2001.

Warren,

I tried both lenses after owning a PRE for some time, I much prefer the out of focus rendition on the PRE and have argued that the proportion of the image that is out of focus is significant if you are photgraphing anything but flat objects. Please have a look at the 2 comparitive images to see my point, and remember they were ONLY taken to compare the OOF performance, the tree is in focus. You can see the improvement in flatness of field and sharpness in the corners you might be able to see an improivement in shaerpness of the tree I cannot, but you will see a great deal of diffence in the OOF regions. http://www.photo.net/photodb/presentation?presentation_id=109264

-- Richard (richard@designblue.co.uk), November 16, 2001.

Warren,

Assuming that you're interested in keeping the 50 (since I'm too young to dole out much unbidden advice), you could buy yourself some time: buy the Voigtlander Ultron 35mm f/1.7 (for $350) while you decide which Leica lens you want. I can't compare it to a pre-ASPH Summicron (though some people say it compares nicely), but it should do as well for you as a Nikkor.

-- John Morris (jtmorris@slb.com), November 16, 2001.

I've tried the 35mm pre ASPH f2, the 35mm ASPH f2, adn the Ultron 35mm f1.7. I shot a bunch of backlit subjects, close-ups with OOF background and hyperfocal type of subjects. My conclusion is I kept only the ASPH. The Ultron 1.7 had light fall-off at f2, and FLARE! real bad on the backlit subjects, even with the supplied hood and extra shading with my hand. The PRE ASPH has bery nice bokeh - probably the best, but had problems with corner sharpness compared to the ASPH. The ASPH when photographing a backlit tree with the sun INLCUDED in the picture controlled the flare enough so that only a small area of the image was affected. This was at f4. Only problem that I am concerned about is corner sharpness wide open with a backlit subject - it seems as though some flare is causing a problem. If you already traded the 50, I'd get the 35mm ASPH. Then mount it on the camera and don't take it off until you have shot the 100 rolls that the "old guy" is talking about.

-- Paul Fitzpatrick (paulF@trdmedia.com), December 03, 2001.