Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 35 of 35

Thread: 35 lux or not?

  1. #1
    Senior Member GMB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Heart of Europe
    Posts
    396
    Post Thanks / Like

    35 lux or not?

    I have the chance to buy a new 35 lux from a dealer at list price. I wonder whether its worth the extra money over the cron (which I have and don't plan on selling). I guess it only makes sense to get the lux to shoot it wide open because I assume that otherwise there is no real difference between the two lenses. Am I missing something?

    (I know, if I get it and dont like it I can probably always sell without a loss.)
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Georg
    My new website (under construction) at Zenfolio

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    GTA, Canada
    Posts
    587
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 35 lux or not?

    If you are absolutely sure you are not going to sell the cron, then it might not be worth it to buy the lux as you would be paying just to use it at f/1.4. However when I bought mine, I sold my cron in a heartbeat. Lux does everything cron does and more so I didn't see the need to keep the cron. Only advantage would be that cron is a bit more compact for portability.
    Scott

  3. #3
    Not Available
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    1,864
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 35 lux or not?

    It's a larger, heavier and (much) more expensive lens. If you need/want the extra stop though... Both are wonderful lenses in every respect and from wide open.

    I don't buy into that "shoot it wide open always" mantra. I think of it more as a wider array of choices and improved control over DoF.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  4. #4
    Workshop Member glenerrolrd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Jupiter FL/Atlanta GA
    Posts
    2,279
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 35 lux or not?

    If you are committed to the M system ..buy the 35 lux and sell the cron . They are both great lenses and a perfect focal length for the M system . The lux has an edge in every area and having the 1.4 to extend the light gathering or to reduce DOF just makes it better .
    Agree with DN its not a question of always using it wide open . There is a brilliance and clean color transmission that is similar to the Noctilux . The whites are clean without a color cast .

    This is a lens I really enjoy in bad light ..like a rainy day or with heavy overcast .

    I select from the 35 lux asph fle or the 28 / 2 cron based on the light . The Cron has a creamy bokeh and a beauty in decent light but the 35 lux hammers it in dull light .

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    236
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 35 lux or not?

    I recently went through considerable consideration of 35mm lenses. I think it comes down to price, size, and speed, as well as rendering. I’m not sure which Cron you have. If it’s the Cron ASPH, then the rendering will be quite similar to the new Lux. If this is the case, I agree with others that I would pick one of the two lenses and go with it. However, if your current 35mm Cron is a pre-ASPH version, then the rendering will be significantly different, with the new Lux being near “perfect” (but a bit nervous at times in OOF per the improvements in sharpness), while the pre-ASPH lenses have a more classic feel. If so, there may be a stronger rationale for having two 35mm lenses, as they’d differ not only in terms of size and speed, but also rendering.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    27
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 35 lux or not?

    Quote Originally Posted by ramosa View Post
    I recently went through considerable consideration of 35mm lenses. I think it comes down to price, size, and speed, as well as rendering. I’m not sure which Cron you have. If it’s the Cron ASPH, then the rendering will be quite similar to the new Lux. If this is the case, I agree with others that I would pick one of the two lenses and go with it. However, if your current 35mm Cron is a pre-ASPH version, then the rendering will be significantly different, with the new Lux being near “perfect” (but a bit nervous at times in OOF per the improvements in sharpness), while the pre-ASPH lenses have a more classic feel. If so, there may be a stronger rationale for having two 35mm lenses, as they’d differ not only in terms of size and speed, but also rendering.
    +1. I assume the OP is referring to having an Asph Cron. I wouldn't suggest only having 2 Asph 35's or only having 2 pre-Asph 35's.
    I like to have a couple lenses in each focal length b/c I can have 2 lenses with different characteristics. Eg. I have a 35 Asph Cron and a preAsph 35 Lux. Very different lenses, that I can use in very different situations to get the effects I want. Alternatively, I think a good combo would be the 35 Asph Lux and a v3/v4 preAsph Cron. Different animals for different situations.

  7. #7
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,623
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 35 lux or not?

    I would recommend the new 35 Lux and sell the cron.
    I had a Cron Vers,4, later a 35 Lux asphI (I didnt really manage the slight focus shift), then I moved to a 35 Summarit (very nice and compact lens, and I (still?) own it. Finally got the Summilux asphII last year and I think it is a great lens.
    The only reason why I still have the Summarit is because I thought it is a compact alternative when one wants a small lens or when one doesnt want to carry too much money in a bag.

  8. #8
    Senior Member GMB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Heart of Europe
    Posts
    396
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 35 lux or not?

    Thanks for all the helpful posts. Indeed, my cron is the ASPH. The reason I like it is that it is compact and razor sharp. It was also my first Leica lens and therefore does have an emotional value and thefore it would be a tough decision to sell it.

    I completely agree that one does not have to allways shoot wide open. My remark referred to the situation that I would keep the cron and the assumption that, other than the extra stop, the lenses would be quite similar.

    Anyway, I will continue to reflect on this. (And sometimes I think that these days my money is safer if I invest it in Leica glass than keeping it in the bank ).
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Georg
    My new website (under construction) at Zenfolio

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    764
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 35 lux or not?

    The bokeh people are one thing if you find your self shooting in low light get ti if not do not. Me I have love it will never sell it

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    889
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 35 lux or not?

    Here's my little contribution: (May not be helpful)

    I had purchased the 35lux new for my THEN new M9, I can't say I liked it. Disclaimer here is that I am a 50mm person, and had the 50cron and would NOT sell that (but I did, since I sold the whole system), and if I had bought a 50lux, I would just view them as different lenses. With that said, I didn't like the 35lux and how it vignettes at f/1.4. I wanted to shoot it wide open. I just didn't like the look of rendering in general of the 35lux ASPH, subjective I know!
    ___________________
    Po-Ming Chu
    POPHOTO

  11. #11
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    seakayaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    2,889
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 35 lux or not?

    I have the cron and a lux. I am debating why I should keep both. I love the size of the cron over the Lux, the output from both are outstanding. I have a 50 lux and could use that if I need the extra stop. I could use the money for other equipment and should sell one.

    . . . . . one of these days the debate will end.

    Right now I'm not much help in answering your question, except to say I do not think you can make a bad decision.

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Tromsų, Norway
    Posts
    109
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 35 lux or not?

    For me, the decision is between getting a 35 lux or getting a 28 cron and a 50 lux(for the extra stop). Luckily(?????), I have lots of time to make that decision.

  13. #13
    Senior Subscriber Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    411
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 35 lux or not?

    From my own experience, the performance of Summicron at f=2 is better than the Summilux at f=1.4. The Summicron also performs better at the edge/corner. But Summilux has a very smooth rendering that the Summicron cannot match. I also also never sell my Summilux.

  14. #14
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    4,497
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    141

    Re: 35 lux or not?

    No one is going to see the difference in your images.

    So, do you want a smaller camera or a faster camera? The only of thing about having two lenses with identical focal lengths is one will not be used.

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    236
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 35 lux or not?

    I have been meaning to provide is link: Bokeh of Leica 35mm M lenses compared (Summicron IV vs Summicron ASPH vs Summilux ASPH)

    It provides a useful rendering comparison of three 35s: Cron v4, Cron ASPH, and Lux ASPH v1.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  16. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    GTA, Canada
    Posts
    587
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 35 lux or not?

    Quote Originally Posted by Shashin View Post
    No one is going to see the difference in your images.

    So, do you want a smaller camera or a faster camera? The only of thing about having two lenses with identical focal lengths is one will not be used.
    I generally agree with your statement except that even if two lenses have the same focal length, they can have large difference in rendering ie. 35mm summilux pre-ASPH V1 vs. 35mm summiilux ASPH FLE. In which case, it may make sense to have both to make use of their differences.
    But for this case, 35mm summicron ASPH and 35mm summilux ASPH FLE share very similar rendering.
    Scott

  17. #17
    Member moreammo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Austin Texas
    Posts
    47
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 35 lux or not?

    Quote Originally Posted by GMB View Post
    (And sometimes I think that these days my money is safer if I invest it in Leica glass than keeping it in the bank ).
    Now that's a good way to look at it, gotta run this by the wife, "New retirement plan buy more leica glass"

  18. #18
    Senior Member GMB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Heart of Europe
    Posts
    396
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 35 lux or not?

    I "tested" the lens today. I was pleasantly surprised that it was not that much bigger. Still have to download the shots on my computer. The big question that I have to answer for myself is whether the one stop difference is worth that much more money, also considering that I have difficult focussing at 1.4 in low light (contact lenses, age above 50 etc).
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Georg
    My new website (under construction) at Zenfolio

  19. #19
    Not Available
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    1,864
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 35 lux or not?

    Those the real questions to ask, Georg.

  20. #20
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    4,497
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    141

    Re: 35 lux or not?

    Quote Originally Posted by SYGTAFOTO View Post
    I generally agree with your statement except that even if two lenses have the same focal length, they can have large difference in rendering ie. 35mm summilux pre-ASPH V1 vs. 35mm summiilux ASPH FLE. In which case, it may make sense to have both to make use of their differences.
    But for this case, 35mm summicron ASPH and 35mm summilux ASPH FLE share very similar rendering.
    I guess practically speaking I would always default to the one I thought the best. But that could be just the way I work--I am usually working on projects where I want a consistent look over the body of work. I think if if a photographer were more focused on single, stand-alone images or short series, then the lens choice might be more appealing. But then I am a heathen and as long as the image is sharp and contrasty with good color, other factors in the rendering don't worry me.

  21. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Madison, WI
    Posts
    298
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 35 lux or not?

    Great thread!

    I've been wrestling with this question for awhile now. I purchased the 50 lux-asph this past February and have loved having f/1,4... this lens is really amazing and I have enjoyed using it much more than the 50 cron.

    This has lead me to desire the 35 lux. I have a 35 cron asph, and have enjoyed it, but am smitten with shallow dof! I've also been trying to decide between the FLE and previous versions, 6-bit coded or not... too many decisions!

  22. #22
    Subscriber gogopix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,383
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 35 lux or not?

    ARe the focus shift issues put behind on the 35 lux? or was that the previous version?

  23. #23
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Uppsala, Sweden
    Posts
    187
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 35 lux or not?

    Quote Originally Posted by gogopix View Post
    ARe the focus shift issues put behind on the 35 lux? or was that the previous version?
    The latest FLE version is supposed to minimize focus shift. I think this article provides more info (access costs, though):
    diglloyd.com blog - Compared: Leica 35mm f/1.4 Summilux-M ASPH FLE vs Zeiss 35mm f/2 Biogon

  24. #24
    New Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    16
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 35 lux or not?

    I think the new 35 cron is way way better then the Lux.
    It has quite a character combined with high image quality,
    the lux is really weird to me. I didn't care for it at all.
    I think it's nothing like the 50 Lux which is amazing.

  25. #25
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    3,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 35 lux or not?

    Quote Originally Posted by gogopix View Post
    ARe the focus shift issues put behind on the 35 lux? or was that the previous version?
    For all intent and purposes, focus shift has been eliminated in the current 35mm Lux asph (FLE). I've detected an extremely small amount but is relatively inconsequential for most shooting applications. The previous version of course exhibits the well known focus shift, but this can be minimized in terms of real use by having the lens adjusted for accurate focus at f2 as opposed to f1.4.

    Of course the way each lens draws is different and it's a matter of personal preference vs. sharpness and/or quality of bokeh. Each has it's legion of fans and detractors and I can certainly identify with both groups...having used both versions quite extensively.

    Although not a perfect analogy, it's a little like the preference of the current 50mm Lux asph for some vs it's immediately predisessor, the 50mm Lux pre asph (a favorite of others).

    Dave (D&A)

  26. #26
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,623
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 35 lux or not?

    Quote Originally Posted by snowboarder View Post
    I think the new 35 cron is way way better then the Lux.
    It has quite a character combined with high image quality,
    the lux is really weird to me. I didn't care for it at all.
    I think it's nothing like the 50 Lux which is amazing.
    The 35 Lux FLE has maybe a slightly "bussy" Bokeh compared to the supersmooth bokeh of the 50/1.4 asph. Other than that I can not see anything where it would lack behind the 50asph.

    If Idont need f1.4 I find the 35 Summarit the best option.

  27. #27
    Senior Member GMB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Heart of Europe
    Posts
    396
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 35 lux or not?

    For what it's worth, I decided to stick with the 35 cron ASPH--at least for now . It's too much money for one additional stop.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Georg
    My new website (under construction) at Zenfolio

  28. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    GTA, Canada
    Posts
    587
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 35 lux or not?

    Unless you really need/want that extra stop, it is hard to justify the upgrade to the lux.
    I remember thinking long and hard about it before I went ahead.
    Scott

  29. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    261
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 35 lux or not?

    The new 35 LUX is a remarkable lens. There's a lot more to it than just an extra stop. The overall rendering is sublime.

    Ming Thein sums it up perfectly in this blog entry:

    http://blog.leica-camera.com/photogr...ux-m-asph-fle/

  30. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    GTA, Canada
    Posts
    587
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 35 lux or not?

    There is no doubt, 35mm lux FLE is a wonderful lens, I have one and I had cron ASPH.
    In comparison to the cron ASPH, lux has some advantages like the extra stop and slightly better sharpness (pixel level), but rendering of the two lenses are very similar. If you already have a cron ASPH, it is a tough decision to make when the lux is twice the cost.
    Scott

  31. #31
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    9
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 35 lux or not?

    Which would you recommend for an MM? I have one on order I and am trying to decide which of these 35mm to order. Currently I use 50mm Lux ASPH 90% of the time on my M9.

  32. #32
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    GTA, Canada
    Posts
    587
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 35 lux or not?

    Personally when I go shooting, I find myself carrying either 35mm or 50mm... not both. I like 35mm/75mm or 28mm/50mm combo.
    Anyway, I haven't tried MM so I can't provide recommendations based on real-life experience, but I believe the analogy is still the same as any other M body.
    Scott

  33. #33
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    9
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 35 lux or not?

    Thanks Scott. i should have said that I have a 24 & 90mm as well. So I definitely want to get a 35mm as the 24 is too wide for me. I am not sure whether the 35 lux is worth the extra cash given the high ISO's possible on the MM

  34. #34
    New Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    16
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 35 lux or not?

    Quote Originally Posted by SYGTAFOTO View Post
    ...but rendering of the two lenses are very similar.
    Don't agree at all.

  35. #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    GTA, Canada
    Posts
    587
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 35 lux or not?

    Quote Originally Posted by snowboarder View Post
    Don't agree at all.
    We can agree to disagree.
    Scott

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •