Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Leica R Lens Test

I'd like to ask anyone with experience with the Summilux-R 35/1.4 about the difference between older and newer samples of this particular lens.

A little background about my current situation. I recently acquired three Summilux-R lenses 35/1.4, 50/1.4, and 80/1.4 from my friend. All with serial numbers starting with 32xxxxx. I believe they were all manufactured around 1983. I tested it by shooting some dollar bills and portraits. While the 50mm and, to a lesser degree, the 80mm both perform very well even wide open, the 35/1.4 seems to be quite soft wide open when compared to a Contax Zeiss 35/1.4.

The softness is especially pronounced and unnatural when I begins to pull focus slightly away from critical focus. A halo begins to show around the edge of the subject (especially noticeable on a brighter subject against darker background). Micro details on the skin quickly smooth out. It reminds me the look of a diffusion filter that has tiny stipples / micro-lenses, like the Tiffen Class Soft. To recall David Mullen's excellent article on the principle of diffusion filters, filters that feature micro-lenses would throw a slightly out-of-focus image on an otherwise in-focus image. It seems to be exactly what is happening on my Summilux 35. The halo that grows around the edge of the subject makes it rather unnatural and distracting when I begins to pull focus away. The purple/green fringing on the halo makes it even worst.

I spoke to GL-Optics about it and Nan suggested me to send them my lenses and they will check it out on a lens projector. Their verdict is that all three lenses perform similarly to other samples they have. But Nan said they don't account for the differences between older and newer versions of the same lens. He said lenses from later era might have less flare and halo due to better coating.

I have been trying to find a more modern copy of the Summulix 35, but haven't been able to find one in the city I live in. So I have to ask for help here from those who is familiar with this particular lens. Do you think the year of production makes a noticeable difference in terms of halo and purple fringing? I am less concerned by flare because I think it flares beautifully. But I find the halo and purple fringing when wide open distracting.

I'd love to share still samples of the lens problem. But I am out of town now. Kind of need to make this decision on the rehousing now.

I really appreciate your thoughts on this.

Jack
 
Jack, I have an older 35 Lux like yours #32... and newer #37... that were just cinevised and CLAd, which I should receive by Monday.

If you can wait until then let me know and I'll run some side-by-side tests early next week.
 
Thank you Mark. That would be very helpful. Thanks a lot.

btw, how much do they differ in term of market price?

Jack




Jack, I have an older 35 Lux like yours #32... and newer #37... that were just cinevised and CLAd, which I should receive by Monday.

If you can wait until then let me know and I'll run some side-by-side tests early next week.
 
Nice test Adrian.
 
Jack, I paid about 750 more for my late 35Lux rom vs the older one. The condition was a little better too though both are in great shape.

Samir, I have the 28 v1 and v2. Though the v1 is an excellent lens, the v2 is truly amazing with gorgeous color, clarity and almost no distortion (great for buildings, etc.). Is it worth it? Like most higher-end gear there's diminishing returns since cost is 3-4x more than the v1 and it's not THAT much better. But once you've tried it you probably won't be going back... :)
 
Back
Top