All,

I'm upgrading lenses and have used neither the 35mm Summilux-M ASPH f1.4 or the 35mm Summicron ASPH f2.0. I do some available light shots, but is it worh the extra $$. How good is the Summicron in available light (examples?). Thanks!

Anam

-- Anam Alpenia (aalpenia@dasar.com), February 06, 2002

Answers

35 mm Summicron (4th version) Available dark...

;-)

-- John (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), February 06, 2002.

As you've probably heard or read, both the 35 Summilux ASPH & Summicron ASPH are great lenses (I own both). If you look in the "Older Messages" (under "Leica M" mostly), you'll find plenty of threads addressing these 2 lenses.

-- Chris Chen (Washington, DC) (furcafe@NOSPAMcris.com), February 06, 2002.

A daylight example of the 35 Summicron ASPH (since that's what you're asking about).

-- Chris Chen (Washington, DC) (furcafe@NOSPAMcris.com), February 06, 2002.

Anam, this is probably the No.1 asked question here! You should be able to find hundreds of opinions in previous threads.

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), February 07, 2002.

I don't own a 'lux but have the ASPH 'cron.- which is fabulous.

I'm confident the answer is: You pay a lot more for the extra stop on the 'lux. If you need the stop then you pay, if you don't need it the cron is at least its equal. ( some say it's better at f2 and maybe a few more stops but I can't say from first hand experience)

Cheers,

-- Tim Gee (twg@optushome.com.au), February 07, 2002.

Both being ASPHs means that both are great, even at f/2. The "only" difference is therefore "basically" the 1.4. I prefer my 2/35 to the 1.4 not only because it is less expensive but because it is smaller and lighter. If I myself really need more speed, I just buy faster film. Work out how much more film the price difference will pay for.

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), February 07, 2002.

Actually Michael, I too was thinking the lux is smaller and lighter but I looked it up and the 'lux in black is actually 5g. lighter than the cron! It is 11.7mm shorter however but the same diameter. So there's not much in it. Cheers

-- Tim Gee (twg@optushome.com.au), February 07, 2002.

Excuse my ambiguous sentence. To clarify - the cron is 11.7mm shorter than the lux.

-- Tim Gee (twg@optushome.com.au), February 07, 2002.

Anam--

If money is an issue, here is an important question: Do you already have a 50/1.4 that you are happy with? If so, you might consider the 35/2 ASPH. if your choice rests primarily on the matter of one f-stop.

There is another advantage to the 35/2 ASPH. It protrudes less into your viewfinder than the 35.1.4 ASPH. -- especially with the hood on.

Wide open both lenses are equally good. The f2 might even be marginally better than the 1.4. (I'm looking at comparative test shots of a Tokyo night scene through various 35mm rf lenses in a special edition Japanese bookzine called "Fukata Rangefinder" -- or "Rangefinder Rebirth") The f2's rendering of street lights seem more compact, especially off-center, and the contrast seems better over all. But printed photos can be misleading. I am looking at the blowups of centers and edges through a magnifying glass.

But this aside, you need to consider how important that 1.4 f-stop is to you and whether it is worth the big extra bucks.

-- Alex Shishin (shishin@pp.iij4-u.or.jp), February 07, 2002.

I have the 35 aspheric lux and the pre aspheric cron. The lux is much better at f1.4 and better at f2.0 but the cron is much smaller and lighter. Personally I don't think you can go wrong with any of the last 3 35s from Leica. Here is Irwin Puts comparison review of the three in his Leica papers. I think it is worth a read.

http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/mseries/testm/m2-35.html

good luck,

-- Don (wgpinc@yahoo.com), February 07, 2002.