I want to buy a 35mm lens for my M6 TTL. I want to get one of the 35mm ASPH models, and I'll be buying it new. What I'd like to know is which one is the better performer. I do shoot in available light so a f1.4 Summilux ASPH would be nice, but how does its performance compare to the Summicron ASPH? I haven't heard anything bad about the Summicron ASPH, but I've read more about the price of the Summilux ASPH than its performance. Thanks,Paul

-- Paul Duckett (pduckett@snet.net), May 16, 2002

Answers

Paul -

Unless you absolutely need that extra stop, I'd get the Summicron. If you need the extra low-light capability, just go from an ASA 100 to an ASA 200 or to an ASA 400 film. The Summicron is a gorgeous piece of glass!

-- George C. Berger (gberger@his.com), May 16, 2002.

I don't know the official scientific data, but I can say from my experiences that the 35 'lux asph is nothing short of amazing. It was my first M lens, and it blew me away. I also have a 35 'cron asph I got a great deal on used.

The 35 is probably my most used FL, so that's why I have both. I got the 'cron as both a backup and as a super compact lens to carry for everyday use.

To me, any quality differences between the lenses are minimal. At similar apertures, they are fairly similar in performance. I might give a small edge to the 'cron at f/2 to f/4, but I can't tell the difference by 5.6. Of course if you need f/1.4, there's only one choice. I use the 'lux wide open fairly often, and I've never been dissapointed with the results.

If I had to choose one, I'd get the 'lux, no question about it. I do documentary work and the extra stop is more than worth the extra $$$. However, if you prefer a more compact lens and don't shoot in extremely low light all that often, maybe the 'cron would suit you better. You really can't go wrong either way.

-- Noah Addis (naddis@mindspring.com), May 16, 2002.

Please take a look @ the archives. There are @ least 3 or 4 threads bearing on your question.

-- Chris Chen (furcafe@NOSPAMcris.com), May 16, 2002.

Have a look at Erwin Put's site "http://www.imx.nl/"

-- Andre Bosmans (a.bosmans@pandora.be), May 16, 2002.

Paul, I had a Summicron 35mm ASPH, later I bought a Summilux 35mm ASPH just to give it try, after one roll of film, I sold the Cron with no second thought, it is no comparison!!!

-- Mitchell Li (mitchli@pacbell.net), May 16, 2002.

i don't own either and have no desire to do so. i have the old cron for compactness.

but, given that they are both similarly sized and that you can afford new, get the lux. i as you have heard nothing but raves, so you might as well go for the lux. logical?

btw, i've seen new 35 luxes on ebay for as little as $1199 buy it now. even if one has the bread to buy at any price it is always good to buy for less. watch the pennies the dollars take care of them selves.

-- steve (leitz_not_leica@hotmail.com), May 16, 2002.

Lux all the way. Crons are for compact freaks, or those who need to save money on their lens. Think of how long you're going to have your lens, and the use of a fine-grain film is nice. My 1st lens was the 35 lux, I love using it. Anyway, your call...

-- James (snodoggydogg@hotmail.com), May 17, 2002.

Both being ASPHs, they're easy to compare (and better to compare e.g. than 1.4/50 and 2/50). They have essentially the same optical qualities except for that one speed (and over and above the quantity of lenses in the same numerical groupings). The 'lux uses filter E46 and 'cron uses E39. The 'lux is 11.7 mm longer, but both have the same maximum diameters and weights (in black). This is practically the only thing of importance here and it has always been said before: if you need the speed, get the 'lux. If you value the compactness instead, get the 'cron. That's why I goth the 'cron and I'm perfectly happy with it. Two last tips: (a) before you buy anything, check out exactly how straight the hood sits, looking at it from the front. Shouldn't be any bad alignment (clockwise) here. That often happens at least with the 'cron, so you'd just have to take everything back and trade in the hood and/or the whole lens. (b) Some people prefer the lux's somwhat greater length because it gives them more room for their fingers' focussing.

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), May 17, 2002.

As I've mentioned in other threads, with a gun to my head and only one choice of camera/ lens, it would have to be M6 with 35 Lux. For me, speed is Leica and Leica is speed. That said, I also have the 35/2 Asph which is also an excellent lens. But I choose to use the Lux 8 times out of 10. You can always stop down the Lux in bright conditions, but you can't open up the Cron in darker lighting situations. Then there is the DOF of the Lux when focused close and shot wide open.

-- Marc Williams (mwilliams111313MI@comcast.net), May 17, 2002.

Have a look at :

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

If you compare the 35 scron and slux with the 50 scon and slux the 50 versions are roughly the same size, but with the 35 versions, the scron is a lot smaller. Personally I would go for the 35 scron

-- Karl Yik (karl.yik@dk.com), May 17, 2002.

Simply put, both are great lenses.

If you need the speed, get the lux. If not, the cron is smaller and cheaper. But quality wise, both are very good with no practical difference.

-- Ilkka (ikuu65@hotmail.com), May 17, 2002.

Fer cripe's sake, I'd say just buy both of 'em an be done with it ;-)

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), May 17, 2002.

I just went through this. The lux seems to be the winner. Most who own the lux swear by them. I just found one mint on ebay for $1350 shipped. If your a user go for the lux.

-- John Abela (jamriman@yahoo.com), May 17, 2002.

Paul, the Summilux is a Summicron with f/1.4 aperture and comes in a larger size and price.

"Mitchell Li", well well well, you aren't dead! You stuffed me around for a week saying you sent me money- pretty low man.

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), May 17, 2002.

The 35 Lux has the obvious advantage of speed, which comes at a price in terms of both money and heft (but not optical performance). The 35 Cron has that special Leica appeal that few products fully develop. CdI called it the Cote Amour (sp?) the "love factor". The 35 Cron ASPH definitely has the LOVE FACTOR. A sweet little lens to own and shoot with.

-- Dan Brown (brpatent@swbell.net), May 17, 2002.

I currently use both the 35 summicron and 35 summilux aspherics. I think I carry the summicron about 60% of the time. I wish I still had the 8 element chrome first version that I sold when I got the summilux or the 4th version 35 summicron that I traded for the aspheric cron. At this point in my never humble opinion I would be quite happy with any one of the four. I think you need to try them and see which one fits your hand and style of shooting the best. For me I really like both the cron and the lux. It would be hard for me to part with either of them. Of course Erwin Puts has his opinions about them:

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

which is well worth reading. I agree with his conclusions pretty much from what I've seen. Good luck.

-- Gil Pruitt (wgpinc@yahoo.com), May 17, 2002.

Why dont you go into a Leica shop put the m6 on a tripod and test out all the lenses of interest wide open,and stop down from there ,3 stops each lens on fine grain film...be sure to try out the non- aspherics too...you might like them better and save some $$$ in the process.

-- Emile de Leon (knightpeople@msn.com), May 17, 2002.

I won't get into rehashing the reasons, but I sold a 35/2ASPH for a 35/1.4ASPH and have not regretted it one bit.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), May 17, 2002.

Paul: The 35mm F/1.4 is an amazing lens. I find the correlation between buying an F/2 and just using faster film to be swimplistic. Yes, the F/1.4 is twice as fast but the construction of the lens results in superior contrast and resolution. I compare it to wine, every once and a while you have an outstanding vintage for reasons unknown. In Leica-land, the 35mm F/1.4 is one of those special "vintages". Go out, get it, and enjoy!! Incidentally, the Bordeaux 2000 vintage will turn out to be the bewst since 1945.

-- Albert Knapp MD (albertknappmd@mac.com), May 17, 2002.

I use the pre-ASPH 35 f/2. I wouldn't upgrade to the ASPH f/2 - it's better, but not enough better.

I WOULD upgrade to the 35 f/1.4 - it's as good or better and a stop faster. Realistically I probably wouldn't even upgrade - I'd just ADD it at the point where I decide f/2 just isn't enough.

The Summilux ASPH is Leica's signature lens - especially if you compare it to the size of the 35 1.4's from Nikon, Canon, Zeiss, and even Leica-R.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), May 17, 2002.

Hmm - should have read the question better.

The ASPH f/1.4 is ESSENTIALLY the same performance as the ASPH f/2 at most apertures, and is actually a little ahead at f/2 - its f/1.4 performance is a little behind the 'crons f/2 performance, though.

In other words, 99% of the time THEY ARE THE SAME. Shooting in low light the 'cron at f/2 is 'better' than the 'lux at f/1.4 - but if you have to use grainer film to get away with f/2 the 'lux may still give you better total system (film/shutter speed/optical) performance.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), May 17, 2002.

i finally just sold my 35 lux asph with a massive loss and got a cron 4th version for a really good price instead. the lux is a really great lens, but it is big and heavy, no chance to put your M in a coat pocket with it. the first roll of film i shot with the cron didn't show any advantage over the lux, but it is probably too early to tell. i am very sure i will not regret my decision.

-- stefan randlkofer (geesbert@yahoo.com), May 19, 2002.