Old 07-31-2018   #1601
avvsergius
Registered User
 
avvsergius is offline
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 19
Your summilux is a strange case.
Read :VIEWFINDER
QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF THE LEICA HISTORICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA

VOLUME 29 NUMBER 3
THIRD QUARTER 1996

Legendary Leica Lenses:
The 35mm f/1.4 Summilux-M
by Dick Gilcreast


All 35 summilux had a certain degree of field curvature. Who needed a flat field used a summmicron.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-31-2018   #1602
Erik van Straten
Registered User
 
Erik van Straten's Avatar
 
Erik van Straten is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 8,040
So you had to buy two lenses? What a nonsense.

No, there are bad series and good series. The original Summilux 35mm, the "steel rim", had no field curvature at all. No distortion either. Later series of the Summilux 35mm (made in Germany) are great too. Maybe some later Canadian batches too.

Erik.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-31-2018   #1603
avvsergius
Registered User
 
avvsergius is offline
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 19
No. There are good lens and bad lens. You have one of both. People very qualified tell us 35 summilux was projected with curvature field from 2.8 to 8 f/stop.This for obtain a flat field with 1.4 and 2 f/stop and a beautiful 3dimensional image. The 35 summilux is not easy lens to use. You have to learn to use and you can obtain great results exploiting his features. Also the 50 lux pre ash has no flat field. You need two 2 lens ? No. You have to choose between summicron or a lux depending on your needs.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-31-2018   #1604
Erik van Straten
Registered User
 
Erik van Straten's Avatar
 
Erik van Straten is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 8,040
Quote:
Originally Posted by avvsergius View Post
No. There are good lens and bad lens.
Ah, you think there was no quality control at Leitz?

Qualified people? I am very qualified too. I'm working since 1971 with Leica M.

A threedimensional image with a bad lens ... hmm. I don't get it, I'm sorry.

Erik.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-31-2018   #1605
Artingei
Registered User
 
Artingei is offline
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 77
@avvsergius yes, the second ones were shot with the summilux.

@Erik, my copies' serial is 25XXXX, which dates it to '72. It was CLAed recently and sold by the Leica Store in Berlin (Meister Camera) as BB condition. I will return it tomorrow but i don't blame this copy. The problem is my expectation I have when I pay this price. I didn't expect it to be so flat and soft at f4 to 5.6 and I didn't even test it on a digital camera.

I am fine with my Jupiter-12 for now, I really like it's rendering, contrast and how it paints OOF areas. Maybe I will look for a modern Biogon-C or a Pre ASPH Summicron sooner or later for my M. The Jupiter belongs on a LTM Body (FED2, Zorki4k or Barnack Leica).
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-31-2018   #1606
avvsergius
Registered User
 
avvsergius is offline
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erik van Straten View Post
Ah, you think there was no quality control at Leitz?

Qualified people? I am very qualified too. I'm working since 1971 with Leica M.

A threedimensional image with a bad lens ... hmm. I don't get it, I'm sorry.

Erik.
1) Quality control is a bit difficult after 50 years...

2) I quoted a technical article. Tom A and many other qualified people told same things.

3) The 35 lux is a wonderful lens, not a bad lens. In any case from your photos with 35 lux don't emerge any 3dimensional effect. Because, generally, you takes landscape photo in the morning hours. If you don't need 1.4 f/s you can use a summicron. A very perfect lens for this kind of photo.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-31-2018   #1607
avvsergius
Registered User
 
avvsergius is offline
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artingei View Post
@avvsergius yes, the second ones were shot with the summilux.
I choose the second ones because at that apertures there is a positive field curvature. The front corners are more in focus than the edges. It's very normal for a 35 lux. It's was projected so. From f8 to upper the depth of field hides this. You can use this at your advantage. Think a photo in internal house. You can have in focus either the center of photo and the edges near to you too.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-31-2018   #1608
Erik van Straten
Registered User
 
Erik van Straten's Avatar
 
Erik van Straten is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 8,040
The problem is the Leitz policy around 1966 when the Japanese cameras became popular in Europe and the US. The Japanese products were cheaper than the Leitz offerings, so Leitz had to do something. They cheapened their products. The M3 became an M4, the Summicron 50mm became anodized instead of chromed and was made with one optical element less. The Summilux 35mm was cheapened too. Instead of with five exotic kinds of glass it was made with ordinary glasses started at serial number 222XXXX (1965). That is why a Summilux 35mm f/1.4 steel rim with the serial number 206XXXX or 216XXXX (1964) will cost you now at least EUR 7.000 and the later ones maybe EUR 2.000.

Erik.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-31-2018   #1609
avvsergius
Registered User
 
avvsergius is offline
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 19
The steel rim costs 7000 euro for a simple reason. Because is a very rare version. No one has ever heard about exotics or super lens in the first version of 35 lux. If it’s true what you say it should a very big scoop and you could write a new history about 35 lux. Do you have any evidence for us ?
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-31-2018   #1610
Flat Twin
Film Shooter
 
Flat Twin is offline
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Oxfordshire, U.K.
Posts: 481
Agreed! ^^^ Finally somebody talking sense in these past few posts.

Erik, you need to get over this. It is misleading, totally unproven and actually fabricated by you and you only... It's getting really boring I'm afraid.

Move on old boy...

Simon
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-31-2018   #1611
Erik van Straten
Registered User
 
Erik van Straten's Avatar
 
Erik van Straten is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 8,040
The US Patent 2975673 was filed on 26. Aug. 1959 for the Summilux steel rim 35mm f/1.4. There were 7 elements/5 groups made of 5 types high-refractive glass, indexes from 1.70444 to 1.7899. There were two batches, one in 1960 and the other in 1964. The price of the lens was very high and therefore Leitz made a version wich cheaper glasses (serial nr. started at 222XXXX) that was the reason for the bad reputation the Summilux had and still has, "glow" and all that. Fortunately the steel rim never glows.

The lens is not really rare, about 7.000 pieces were made. I don't think people pay this amount of money just because of this kind of rarity.

Simon Flat Twin, if you find it boring, don't read it. Please move on.

Erik.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-31-2018   #1612
MikeL
Go Fish
 
MikeL's Avatar
 
MikeL is offline
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flat Twin View Post
Agreed! ^^^ Finally somebody talking sense in these past few posts.

Erik, you need to get over this. It is misleading, totally unproven and actually fabricated by you and you only... It's getting really boring I'm afraid.

Move on old boy...

Simon
Simon, it isn't as interesting or value-inducing to think that they changed the formula since the steel rim was more flare prone. Imagining it has special magical pixie dust is a better story.

I've had both, there's not enough difference to make or break a photo (and Erik's photos from both show it). If you really like less contrast and don't mind lots more flare, than throw dough at a steel rim.

If you want want a small lens that flares less, has funky aberrations at f1.4-f2, but sharpens nicely when stopped down, get a version 2 and steer clear of the magic-pixie-dust-hand-assembled-by-virgins-it-will-make-better-photos stories....
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-31-2018   #1613
Erik van Straten
Registered User
 
Erik van Straten's Avatar
 
Erik van Straten is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 8,040
Mike, I don't think that the steel rim has more flare, maybe your copy needed some cleaning.

There is also a difference between the 1960 and the 1964 versions. I have both. The 1960 version has a lot more coma, maybe that is what you call "flare". Was your copy the 1960 or the 1964 version? (numbers 17XXXXX or 206XXXX)?

Erik.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-01-2018   #1614
avvsergius
Registered User
 
avvsergius is offline
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erik van Straten View Post
The US Patent 2975673 was filed on 26. Aug. 1959 for the Summilux steel rim 35mm f/1.4. There were 7 elements/5 groups made of 5 types high-refractive glass, indexes from 1.70444 to 1.7899. There were two batches, one in 1960 and the other in 1964. The price of the lens was very high and therefore Leitz made a version wich cheaper glasses (serial nr. started at 222XXXX) that was the reason for the bad reputation the Summilux had and still has, "glow" and all that. Fortunately the steel rim never glows.

The lens is not really rare, about 7.000 pieces were made. I don't think people pay this amount of money just because of this kind of rarity.

Erik.
The patent isn't an evidence. Based on your thesis so we should have a stack of patents...One for model of 1964, one for version II, one for google, another one for Germany version .....
In any case if your 35 steel rim doesn't glow is a bad version of this lens.
Who should buy a 35 summilux without glow and other aberrations ? Aberrations (calculated) are the heart of a summilux 35. If you see your portraits you can note that they missing of characteristic of lens. They are completely flat.
The simple reason of cost is because is very rare and it is a very nice object too. And yes.... there are many people pay this amount of money for this kind of things.
Why the people should buy for a lot of money a leica black MP original or a black M3 ? Because they have thaumaturgic powers ?
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-01-2018   #1615
Erik van Straten
Registered User
 
Erik van Straten's Avatar
 
Erik van Straten is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 8,040
People who buy a Summilux 35 because of the abberations are throwing money away. Buy a Jupiter 12. Discussion closed from my side.


Erik.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-01-2018   #1616
Flat Twin
Film Shooter
 
Flat Twin is offline
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Oxfordshire, U.K.
Posts: 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erik van Straten View Post
People who buy a Summilux 35 because of the abberations is throwing money away. Buy a Jupiter 12. Discussion closed from my side.


Erik.

Discussion closed from your side Erik?

That’s great news and not a moment too soon. Well done!

S.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-01-2018   #1617
astro8
Registered User
 
astro8's Avatar
 
astro8 is offline
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Sydney
Age: 56
Posts: 553
I have a 216XXXX non steel rim, non goggled, black anodised version.


It could be the first of the rubbish, the last of the best or a combination of both!
__________________
-Greg

My RFF Gallery

  Reply With Quote

Old 08-01-2018   #1618
Erik van Straten
Registered User
 
Erik van Straten's Avatar
 
Erik van Straten is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 8,040
Quote:
Originally Posted by astro8 View Post
I have a 216XXXX non steel rim, non goggled, black anodised version.

It could be the first of the rubbish, the last of the best or a combination of both!
Yes, that is true, I've seen some of those too! Very interesting. Can you post a picture of this one? Just for the record.

Erik.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-01-2018   #1619
pyeh
Registered User
 
pyeh is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Taylor Square
Age: 58
Posts: 578
I don’t know if Erik's theory of Summilux 35 variants is correct or not, but his photos are impeccable.
__________________
Peter
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-01-2018   #1620
Erik van Straten
Registered User
 
Erik van Straten's Avatar
 
Erik van Straten is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 8,040
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flat Twin View Post
Discussion closed from your side Erik?

That’s great news and not a moment too soon. Well done!

S.
Thank you, Simon and thank you for your enormous positive contribution to the discussion. In terms of content it was fantastic.

Erik.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-01-2018   #1621
Erik van Straten
Registered User
 
Erik van Straten's Avatar
 
Erik van Straten is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 8,040
Quote:
Originally Posted by pyeh View Post
I don’t know if Erik's theory of Summilux 35 variants is correct or not, but his photos are impeccable.
Thank you, but some people don't like that. Tastes differ.

Erik.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-01-2018   #1622
giulio stucchi
Registered User
 
giulio stucchi's Avatar
 
giulio stucchi is offline
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Bruxelles
Age: 41
Posts: 784
234xxx here (around 1969), infinity lock.
never had or use a hood with it.

perfect lens? no
mint condition? no
do I enjoy using it? yes but not as an everyday lens (this is a job for my summaron)


a pic from a couple of years ago, guess meter, around 800 asa and the only time I use the self timer on my 1963's M2


a bit of fun on a bavarian road trip:








Giulio


(still here but shooting very little lately)
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-01-2018   #1623
astro8
Registered User
 
astro8's Avatar
 
astro8 is offline
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Sydney
Age: 56
Posts: 553











Erik, best I can do at short notice...
__________________
-Greg

My RFF Gallery

  Reply With Quote

Old 08-01-2018   #1624
Erik van Straten
Registered User
 
Erik van Straten's Avatar
 
Erik van Straten is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 8,040
Thank you, Greg, this is in my files the first of the series after the steel rim. The cut becomes narrower. Do you have the original shade? Should be without any engraving.


Erik.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-01-2018   #1625
astro8
Registered User
 
astro8's Avatar
 
astro8 is offline
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Sydney
Age: 56
Posts: 553
Erik, yes, original hood, screw apart seriesVII, no engravings.
__________________
-Greg

My RFF Gallery

  Reply With Quote

Old 08-02-2018   #1626
avvsergius
Registered User
 
avvsergius is offline
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erik van Straten View Post
People who buy a Summilux 35 because of the abberations are throwing money away. Buy a Jupiter 12. Discussion closed from my side.


Erik.
The discussion is closed because you have no technical arguments. Many people has to justify his shopping with spouses, fiancé, parents or himself. But please, it should be better invent something different from exotics lens never documented. This is not acceptable for a reputable community like rangefinderforum.

I like to finish this discussion with an extract taken from first message where this (beautiful ) thread is started:...."Some respected RFF members do all what they can to discredit this lens in favor of the newer Zeiss or ASPH offerings. They say it's not sharp, shows light falloff and it flares. My personal thinking is those are part of its qualities and undeniable charm. One doesn't shoot the 35 summilux pre-asph for sharpness per se. One shoots it for its overall very unique rendition."....

It's all true. This is the reason why this lens is so loved. Who loves poetic aspect of photography can't not love this incredible gem. And the most photos of this thread are the better evidence.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-02-2018   #1627
jamin-b
Registered User
 
jamin-b is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erik van Straten View Post
No, I think it was f/5.6 or f/4.

This shot is now "In Explore" on Flickr, believe it or not.

Erik.
Yeah, the in explore elections are hard to fathom, certainly not the shots I have viewed as my best...

Sent from my HTC U11 using Tapatalk
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-02-2018   #1628
presspass
filmshooter
 
presspass is offline
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Lancaster County, Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,200
I have never bothered with the different variations of this lens. I have one, made in Canada, and it does what I want it to. I'm happy with the results, either wet printed in the darkroom or scanned and used in our newspapers. But that applies to any of my lenses. If it does what I want, I use it and keep it. Otherwise, it gets sold or traded.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-02-2018   #1629
Emile de Leon
Registered User
 
Emile de Leon is online now
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 950
I keep learning new things about this pre 1.4 35mm lens I've owned for several years now..
Latest cool function...video by candle light..on m4/3..wide open..simply wonderful! Similar to Noctilux..with better dof..works as a 70mm on that format..
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-02-2018   #1630
avvsergius
Registered User
 
avvsergius is offline
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emile de Leon View Post
I keep learning new things about this pre 1.4 35mm lens I've owned for several years now..
Latest cool function...video by candle light..on m4/3..wide open..simply wonderful! Similar to Noctilux..with better dof..works as a 70mm on that format..
No doubt. The 35 lux pre asph is like a little noctilux f1. It's his little brother. In fact Leica told that 35 lux was a "giant of light". Ah, a strange thing....also the noctilux f1 had a severe (less or more) curvature field. I wonder why ? Probably Leica didn't use special lens :-)
  Reply With Quote

Doodling
Old 08-02-2018   #1631
analoged
Registered User
 
analoged's Avatar
 
analoged is offline
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: HNL/TYO
Posts: 329
Doodling

Whatever the differences are in the variations of this lens, I love my late german version! Its like two lenses in one, a lot like my 80 Lux R.

Time for more pics, instead of talk in this thread! A portrait of myself, doing what I love, making surfboards...

M6, 35 lux (@f2 or f2.8), Portra 400
__________________
M6, 35mm Pre Asph Lux, 50 Elmar M

IIIasync, 5cm Summar, 5cm Sonnar, 3.5cm Elmar, 13.5cm Sonnar

Leicaflex SL, Leicaflex SL2, R6.2, 28mm Elamrit Ver II, 80mm Lux, 100mm Apo Macro Elmarit, 180 Elmarit, 400mm Telyt, 560mm Telyt

Epson R-D1
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-11-2018   #1632
steveshea
Registered User
 
steveshea is offline
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 15
M2 with 35 Lux Pre Tri-x @ 1600 Xtol
Attached Images
File Type: jpg img476.jpg (20.7 KB, 99 views)
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-11-2018   #1633
steveshea
Registered User
 
steveshea is offline
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 15
another one with the 35 lux pre asph
Attached Images
File Type: jpg img478.jpg (21.4 KB, 80 views)
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-11-2018   #1634
steveshea
Registered User
 
steveshea is offline
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 15
one more with lux pre asph
Attached Images
File Type: jpg img461.jpg (29.2 KB, 81 views)
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-28-2018   #1635
giulio stucchi
Registered User
 
giulio stucchi's Avatar
 
giulio stucchi is offline
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Bruxelles
Age: 41
Posts: 784
m2, summilux 35 pre-asph v2, infinity lock, t-max 400, perceptol



Giulio
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-28-2018   #1636
giulio stucchi
Registered User
 
giulio stucchi's Avatar
 
giulio stucchi is offline
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Bruxelles
Age: 41
Posts: 784
m2, summilux 35 pre-asph v2, infinity lock, t-max 400, perceptol





Giulio
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-20-2018   #1637
maddoc
... likes film.
 
maddoc's Avatar
 
maddoc is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: 名古屋
Age: 53
Posts: 7,295
BP M4, 35mm Summilux pre-ASPH 2nd (German-made), Tri-X, Microphen stock




by Gabor Samjeske, on Flickr
__________________
- Gabor

flickr
pBase
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-05-2018   #1638
luuca
Registered User
 
luuca's Avatar
 
luuca is offline
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: italy
Age: 44
Posts: 428
__________________
.
.
http://alliluca.wordpress.com
.
.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-30-2018   #1639
John inglis
Registered User
 
John inglis is offline
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 10
Thumbs up

Thanks for all the comments and photos everyone.

I have been a lurker here and am slowly moving in the direction of acquiring an early copy of the version II goggled 35mm 1.4 Summilux. The number is 2166865 and it arrived in my hands today.

The goggled rangefinder focus looks at least close to accurate at a meter, but somewhat off at infinity. It will take some time to shoot a roll of slide film and get it developed to see how accurate the focus is.

I sort of love and am scared of the custom side of these lenses where different copies have different properties!
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-01-2018   #1640
John inglis
Registered User
 
John inglis is offline
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 10
Erik and Helen, your photos are so wonderful, and have been key in drawing me to the summilux 35mm pre. Here is a shot of my very early version II:


But when the rangefinder images on my normally accurate M3 line up for infinity, the lens focus reads 30 feet. And with the rangefinder images at 1 meter, the lens focus is .9 meter.

Any recommendations on where to send it in the US where the turnaround is not too long?

Last edited by John inglis : 12-01-2018 at 11:11. Reason: misspelling
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:12.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.