Buying a Preasph 35 1.4 Summilux which one

Hi Mike

Hi Mike

Interesting. My Leica lenses handle light in the frame, including sun well. I've noticed that the 12504 did nothing for out of the frame veiling flare, so I went with a 12526 rect. hood. I think the hood helps in some situations, but am not sure. I am not sure how to test this easily though.

One lens I have when shooting into the sun gives an example of most every type of flare - see attached, it's the CV 21. Interesting, as its sibling, the CV 15 gives a nice star pattern with the sun.

Even the '50s Canon 28/2.8 gives no flare when shooting into the sun. I wonder why some lenses got worse in this regard.

MikeL said:
Hey Ted,
By bands I mean the bright thin arcs that show up on the side of the frame opposite the bright light. On my lens, the square hood has no effect on whether they show up or not. Stopping down to f2 they disappear.
Click to expand...
 

Attachments

  • L1028259.jpg
    L1028259.jpg
    53.4 KB · Views: 0
HALP!

I have a 35 Lux pre ASPH, serial 360**** which I purchased without a hood. I spoke with Leica a year ago and purchased the 12453 hood to protect the lens and combat flare.

Problem (I think): the 12453 hood does not screw apart to accept the Series VII filter like the 12504 hood does - correct? I can't mount a filter directly on the lens and now I have a hood that won't separate to accommodate the filter.

Do I need to find a 12504 if I want to use a filter with this lens?

Alternatively, can I use any of the other hoods mentioned earlier in this thread? I really need to be able to manage flare and use filters. Right now, I am hosed (technical term meaning UNABLE TO USE FILTERS).

Halp! Thanks.
 
BUTLER,

if you want to use filters and switch them easily and can stand a lot of flare then the original 12504 hood (two-parts screw-type) with either VII series or E48 can be used.

if you are concerned about flare, can live with some vignetting and like DIY solutions, then get a 12526 hood (the from the 35/2.o ASPH or 28/2.8 ASPH), glue a rubber o-ring into it in a way that it holds a E39 filter in position. If you are lucky, that hood will fit quite sturdy and not rotate when mounted.

Me personal solution is to use the 12526 hood without any filter. Barely any flare and a small hood with a hood cap, ideal for me. :)
 
Thanks, Gabor.

I've been using the 12453 without filter and clipping in a Nikon lens cap when not in use (a trick I read about on RFF someplace). My concern relates to the one camera, one lens, one film project - I'm shooting Tri-X 400 and here in So Cal there's a lot of glaring sunlight, and I'd like to manage that a bit with a UV filter or perhaps something a bit stronger.

I'm just disappointed to learn the hood I have (and paid decent $ for) can't handle a filter.

Thanks for the suggestion.
 
I like the 12504

I like the 12504

but I also use a 12526 rect sometimes as well.

I think that 12453 one is just a decoration hood for the Titanium version, if you have a Titanium lens, you can put away to save, or use it but without filters, or if you don't have a Titanium pre-asph, I'd sell that hood, and get either a 12504 or 12526. I use 49mm filters in the 12504.

BUTLER said:
Thanks, Gabor.

I've been using the 12453 without filter and clipping in a Nikon lens cap when not in use (a trick I read about on RFF someplace). My concern relates to the one camera, one lens, one film project - I'm shooting Tri-X 400 and here in So Cal there's a lot of glaring sunlight, and I'd like to manage that a bit with a UV filter or perhaps something a bit stronger.

I'm just disappointed to learn the hood I have (and paid decent $ for) can't handle a filter.

Thanks for the suggestion.
Click to expand...
 
Exactly. My Lux happens to be the titanium version (just happened to be the one I got my hands on) and Leica matched the hood for me. But it's useless. Also, I banged the Hell out of it photographing in a mosh pit. So I can forget re-selling.

I think the original 12504 is the way to go.
 
I might be

I might be

how bad are the dents, and how is the tension on the 2 side clips and 4 prongs?

BUTLER said:
Exactly. My Lux happens to be the titanium version (just happened to be the one I got my hands on) and Leica matched the hood for me. But it's useless. Also, I banged the Hell out of it photographing in a mosh pit. So I can forget re-selling.

I think the original 12504 is the way to go.

P.S. (Anyone in the market for a partly dented titanium lens hood model # 12453?) ;)
Click to expand...
 
ampguy said:
how bad are the dents, and how is the tension on the 2 side clips and 4 prongs?
Click to expand...

Honestly, it's one dent. And I pulled it (mostly) back into position. The Prongs and clips are perfect. To be honest, I almost never used the thing - strange given the lens's propensity for flare - but for those times when I wanted physical protection for the lens itself, hence the dent.

I can send you a few photos if you'd like to PM me an email address.
 
SERIOUSLY:
This 12453 hood doesn't unscrew? I CAN'T insert a series 7 filter? Really? Is there NO WAY? This still makes no sense to me.

I've got a used #12504 on the way, but this is annoying.
 
Last edited:
I think the v1 is the one to get. I prefer it to v2. I am still looking for a decent M2 version, although the M3 version works OK.

I've never understood why people think v2 is better. It is not better, but different.

Erik.
 
Last edited:
Tom A said:
They are two different lenses. The Nokton 35f1.4 is a modern version of the pre asph Summilux. Some idiosyncrasies when it comes to field curvature and mine is a SC and has a slightly lower contrast - which I prefer for bl/w.
The VC Skopar 35f2.5 is a smaller sized competitor for the Summicron pre asph. It is sharp, good contrast and though a bit slower than the Summicron - it is as good as the VIII/IV of that line-up.
If you need the speed, go for the Nokton 35f1.4 (it is better @1.4 than the Summilux) and if you want something small and compact, but with a high performance, go for the VC 35f2.5. The good news is that you can get both for what the "market" charges for a clean 35f2 IV Summicron! Just switch at 6 pm from the f2.5 to the f1.4.
As per usual - check Flickr for the "look" of any of these lenses.
Click to expand...

Tom, what about the Nokton 1.2? Would you consider it a good lens for daily use? (I'm used to SLR lenses, so size isn't much of a problem) Is it worth the extra $300 to you?
 
The 35f1.2 is very much the top of the class for fast 35's. However it is big and as a day to today lens a bit of overkill. When night falls it is in a class by itself. Just like a Noctilux/Nokton 50f1.1/Hexanon 50/60 f1.2 - these are lenses that do it best at wide-open. By the time you stop it down to 2.8 and beyond - why carry the weight.
I do use my 35f1.2's with fast film Neopan 1600 (still have 100 rolls) and at 1.2 - biggest problem is seeing what to focus on - the lens lets in more light than the human eye can see!
If you intend to lurk a lot in the dark and can stand the size - it is a perfect combination - and yes it works fine in daylight too. If you are only going to have one 35mm lens only - it is a good choice ( and it is smaller than most 35f1.4 SLR lenses). "Bang for the buck" - it is the best around. I shudder to think what Leica would charge for a lens like that - if they could make it!
 
Tom A said:
The 35f1.2 is very much the top of the class for fast 35's. However it is big and as a day to today lens a bit of overkill. When night falls it is in a class by itself. Just like a Noctilux/Nokton 50f1.1/Hexanon 50/60 f1.2 - these are lenses that do it best at wide-open. By the time you stop it down to 2.8 and beyond - why carry the weight.
I do use my 35f1.2's with fast film Neopan 1600 (still have 100 rolls) and at 1.2 - biggest problem is seeing what to focus on - the lens lets in more light than the human eye can see!
If you intend to lurk a lot in the dark and can stand the size - it is a perfect combination - and yes it works fine in daylight too. If you are only going to have one 35mm lens only - it is a good choice ( and it is smaller than most 35f1.4 SLR lenses). "Bang for the buck" - it is the best around. I shudder to think what Leica would charge for a lens like that - if they could make it!
Click to expand...

Well then, since I can only afford one 35 at the moment, I'll go for the 1.2. I do lurk a lot in the dark, so speed is a must if I'm only gonna have one 35 for some time.

Thanks Tom!
Rob
 
Melvin said:
Leitz was clever about the way they designed this lens. They made it so the aberrations show up mostly in front of the plane of focus. What this means is that if you take a photo with lots of OOF foreground in the corners you will see nasty corner swirl/bluriness from f1.4 diminishing until about f2.8. But most people don't compose this way, or else the corners are too dark to show the coma. I looked at hundreds(ed.:well, I didn't count but it was a lot) of photos taken with it on flickr and could only find a few with OOF foreground that showed the effect. Most people put the subject in the foreground, so the background is OOF. At f2 the lens is noticeably better. I wish I had a first gen Summicron to compare it to, I bet it's similar. It's low contrast wide open, but it actually controls veiling flare really well (compared to an uncoated tessar type lens, for example, which can not be pointed toward any light source without washing out the picture). What you'll see is flare around edges and "glow" off of light surfaces. The depth of field is very shallow at f1.4, which may contribute to its reputation for softness.

At f4-f8 I think it is a superb lens, and that's really the main reason to own it. I find I only use f1.4 under really dim conditions, where the character of the lens seems to match the character of the light.
Click to expand...

I just tried this experiment, and I agree: It makes a big difference when I focus on the closest thing of interest, even if it is not the only thing of interest, or necessarily the main subject. At a distance of around nine feet, I focused on a chair arm that was about 16" closer than a lamp in the center of the frame. The lamp was a bit softened but but it just looked like any other photo with a slightly OOF background, even wide open. Focused on the lamp, nothing looked good until f/2.8. Mine is #2221865, with 12504 hood, which makes it a type II.
 
Erik van Straten says that the optics used in of V1 is far superior to that in V2.
Could he have a bad example of V2 or an amazing example of V1?
 
not sure

not sure

He has shown some good example photos from his V1 (good for the web, I guess). Would be interesting to see images from his v2.

The v2's probably do have cheapened lighter parts, so maybe that is why there is more variability.

raid said:
Erik van Straaten says that the optics used in of V1 is far superior to that in V2.
Could he have a bad example of V2 or an amazing example of V1?
Click to expand...
 
1joel1 said:
Read post #8.

Joel
Click to expand...

Yes, but that was some years ago. At that time I had just bought my v2. The first impression of it was quite good. It certainly has no mechanical or optical failures. Only its performance is not as good, not as solid as the performance of my v1. I found that out by using the lenses over the years.
The v2 has a very strange curvature of field. (That is something different than distortion.) No such behaviour with my v1. The V2 is not really sharp at full aperture. The v1 is, at least centrally as it should be. At f/5.6 the v2 is a very nice lens, but my v1 is a very good lens at f/1.4.

Leica M3, Summilux 35mm f/1.4 v1 @ F1.4, Tmax400. Lens nr. 2060691.

Erik.

14998664022_4ab1f42df5_c.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top