Leica R 35mm f/2 Summicron (Type I) vs Canon 35mm f/1.4L

[fWord]

I own a beat-up leica 35mm/f2 (Type1) and previously owned a 35mm/f1.4 which I sold within a week. I do use the leica lens on a Canon 10D regularly for instant gratification. Focusing is not so easy on the 10D, but stopped down aperture priority exposures are fairly accurate. I shoot wide open and therefore I get automatic aperture priority exposure using this lens on the 10D.

The Leica had noticeable vignetting but the colour, sharpness, contrast and bokeh are excellent WIDE open. You should get a lens shade (which is a rare and expensive item) to control flare .

The problem with the canon lens is not so much a sharpness or colour issue, but a problem controlling highlights. WIDE open, the purple fringing was too much to bear and it affected the image quality. The effect is akin to the image from a high end point-n-shoot with small plastic lens. The purple fringing does go away when you stop down substantially. You can test this at any shop before buying. Shoot the shiny metallic surfaces. Of course, away from strong highlights, the lens performs well enough.

The Canon 35mm L and 135mm L are considered to be legendary lenses. In the end, I kept only the 135mm.

Ultimatel, when I'm dealing with more fluid scenes, I'd primarily be shooting wide open, otherwise to MF wide open and then stop down to the needed aperture would mean I could lose the shot. However when dealing with static subjects then I could take all the time I wanted as long as the light didn't change. I've read that the Leica is very good at controlling flare and there is hardly any even under challenging conditions. However in that sense maybe there are differences between the type 1 and type 2 versions.

CA is one of the pet peeves I've had with a number of lenses, but I don't mind them as much as distortion, which I find much more objectionable...barrel distortion especially.

 

[fWord]

The old R 35/2 uses a series-6 or 7 thread if I recall. You can find a S6/49mm or S6/52mm adapter and buying regular cheap threaded hoods which shouldn't be critical since its only a 35mm view angle.

As for your 10D ... it may benefit from two things:
1) focus calibaration by Canon (all my DSLRs benefitted from this, esp the 10D)
2) a manual focus screen ... which should be cheap since the 10D is quite old.

The focus calibration on the 10D is an interesting issue. In other forums people reported a similar problem with the 20D and such. Even when the image looked to be in focus on their VF, it was in reality very much OOF.

I've been using a MF macro lens on my 1Ds for a while and have found that the VF is reliable in use to judge focus. I'm also hoping that the larger and clearer VF means it'd be easier to MF with a wide angle lens. Also considering to get a focus confirmation chip for the lens which would help to some degree.

 

[limhousen]

Thanks for the tip on the lens hood.

Its either my eyes or I have been too pampered by the bright R9 focusing screen. The 10D is calibrated. Do u know where to get this manual focus screen?

The old R 35/2 uses a series-6 or 7 thread if I recall. You can find a S6/49mm or S6/52mm adapter and buying regular cheap threaded hoods which shouldn't be critical since its only a 35mm view angle.

As for your 10D ... it may benefit from two things:
1) focus calibaration by Canon (all my DSLRs benefitted from this, esp the 10D)
2) a manual focus screen ... which should be cheap since the 10D is quite old.

 

[bigu2fan]

Quote from Erwin Puts in his review of both R lenses.

Summicron-R (1), 1972 Wetzlar design and Midland production

The first version of a 1:2/35 lens for the R has the same fingerprint as the Elmarit-R 1:2.8/35mm (second version). At full aperture overall contrast is medium and while on axis (till image height 6mm) we see clear definition of fine detail, in the field the contrast drops sensibly and details are soft., becoming fuzzy in the edges. There is a tendency to flare and ghost images.

Vignetting is less than 2 stops. At 1:4 the overall contrast improves and this brings good edge sharpness to the outlines of larger subjects. At 1:5.6 the contrast in the field is enhanced and for the recording of fine detail is now as good as on axis. We need to stop down to 1:8 to record really fine detail over a larger part of the image field. At 1:4 overall performance is somewhat below the Elmarit, but from 5.6 the Summicron offers better imagery in the field, due to an improved correction of field curvature. For good image quality at closer distances, one should close down a few stops, as distortion is visible at wider apertures.

2/35 Summicron-R (2), 1977

Midland design and Wetzlar production. Relatively soon, in the Leitz world at least, an improved version has been introduced. It is more compact and also of less weight. At full aperture overall contrast is a bit lower, but the performance on axis extends farther into the field (till image height 12mm). The edges are not as good as with the previous version, which is more visible too as the field performance is better. Vignetting is 2 stops. Secondary reflexes are suppressed to a higher degree. At 1:2.8 contrast improves and brings the usual crispening of edge sharpness. From 1:4 we see comparable performance as with the previous version, which has lower contrast in the field. At 1:5.6 the newer version has a marginal edge and from !;5.6 both lenses perform on the same level.

I have used both the 35mm f1.4L and Leica R Type II on my 350D. Colours wise, there is a POP to the R that the L doesn't have. Built wise, the R is one solid piece of metal and glass, makes the polycarbonate of the L look cheap.

Now for the negative part, focusing is an issue for me. I have greater difficulty focusing because of the need to step up and step down the aperture. So sharpness wise, the AF of the L helps me get sharp shots faster and more efficiently. But with your 1Ds the VF should be sufficiently bright for good focusing. I never tried the R to EOS adaptor with focus confirmation cos I was told it was unreliable. On my R6 of course the 35mm is a joy to use. In short when it's in focus I'm very happy. But when my photos are soft I miss my AF.

Hope this is informative for you.

 

[fWord]

Quote from Erwin Puts in his review of both R lenses.

Summicron-R (1), 1972 Wetzlar design and Midland production

The first version of a 1:2/35 lens for the R has the same fingerprint as the Elmarit-R 1:2.8/35mm (second version). At full aperture overall contrast is medium and while on axis (till image height 6mm) we see clear definition of fine detail, in the field the contrast drops sensibly and details are soft., becoming fuzzy in the edges. There is a tendency to flare and ghost images.

Vignetting is less than 2 stops. At 1:4 the overall contrast improves and this brings good edge sharpness to the outlines of larger subjects. At 1:5.6 the contrast in the field is enhanced and for the recording of fine detail is now as good as on axis. We need to stop down to 1:8 to record really fine detail over a larger part of the image field. At 1:4 overall performance is somewhat below the Elmarit, but from 5.6 the Summicron offers better imagery in the field, due to an improved correction of field curvature. For good image quality at closer distances, one should close down a few stops, as distortion is visible at wider apertures.

2/35 Summicron-R (2), 1977

Midland design and Wetzlar production. Relatively soon, in the Leitz world at least, an improved version has been introduced. It is more compact and also of less weight. At full aperture overall contrast is a bit lower, but the performance on axis extends farther into the field (till image height 12mm). The edges are not as good as with the previous version, which is more visible too as the field performance is better. Vignetting is 2 stops. Secondary reflexes are suppressed to a higher degree. At 1:2.8 contrast improves and brings the usual crispening of edge sharpness. From 1:4 we see comparable performance as with the previous version, which has lower contrast in the field. At 1:5.6 the newer version has a marginal edge and from !;5.6 both lenses perform on the same level.

I have used both the 35mm f1.4L and Leica R Type II on my 350D. Colours wise, there is a POP to the R that the L doesn't have. Built wise, the R is one solid piece of metal and glass, makes the polycarbonate of the L look cheap.

Now for the negative part, focusing is an issue for me. I have greater difficulty focusing because of the need to step up and step down the aperture. So sharpness wise, the AF of the L helps me get sharp shots faster and more efficiently. But with your 1Ds the VF should be sufficiently bright for good focusing. I never tried the R to EOS adaptor with focus confirmation cos I was told it was unreliable. On my R6 of course the 35mm is a joy to use. In short when it's in focus I'm very happy. But when my photos are soft I miss my AF.

Hope this is informative for you.

Thanks for the info. As others have also mentioned, Erwin doesn't have a good opinion of this lens, however users have reviewed it in favorable light in most cases, even though the reviews aren't detailed and thorough.

 

[bigu2fan]

Thanks for the info. As others have also mentioned, Erwin doesn't have a good opinion of this lens, however users have reviewed it in favorable light in most cases, even though the reviews aren't detailed and thorough.

As you know for Leica glass, they each have their own signature and character. So as the cliche goes, it's up to the individual. Erwin Puts tends to value contrast above all else, whereas some others prefer lower contrast and higher resolution etc. He is not the be all end all, but merely a good reference point. But you are asking about a choice between Leica and the Canon L, whose differences are more distinct.

 

[fWord]

As you know for Leica glass, they each have their own signature and character. So as the cliche goes, it's up to the individual. Erwin Puts tends to value contrast above all else, whereas some others prefer lower contrast and higher resolution etc. He is not the be all end all, but merely a good reference point. But you are asking about a choice between Leica and the Canon L, whose differences are more distinct.

That's what I've been reading also...the hard-to-quantify characteristics of the lens. Lower contrast but higher solution would be nice, and quite a step away from today's contrasty lenses, I believe.

What in your opinion, are the biggest differences between the Canon L and Leica 35mm Cron-R characteristics?

 

[bigu2fan]

That's what I've been reading also...the hard-to-quantify characteristics of the lens. Lower contrast but higher solution would be nice, and quite a step away from today's contrasty lenses, I believe.

What in your opinion, are the biggest differences between the Canon L and Leica 35mm Cron-R characteristics?

The main differences I can perceive are the colours and build. There are more tones rendered by the R and the colours also appear slightly more natural. When compared to the L, the colours of the L come out more flat. They just don't seem as rich and lifelike, but both are good lenses so Canonphiles don't flame me!

Resolution wise, my camera is not enough to push the limits of the lines/mm happily thrown around by MTF graphs and pixel peepers, so no cannot comment:bsmilie:

Of course the aesthetics also count, just hold the Leica R and you know what I mean;p

Another good thing with the 35mm is that it is made by Leica, not farmed out to others like some of the focal lengths. I've got a 'third party' lens and images are just not as good. And of cos, the more you try Leica then the more you should look at the m series, which is really Leica's strength and not the R series.

All opinions are my own, subjective and probably flawed.

 

[fWord]

The main differences I can perceive are the colours and build. There are more tones rendered by the R and the colours also appear slightly more natural. When compared to the L, the colours of the L come out more flat. They just don't seem as rich and lifelike, but both are good lenses so Canonphiles don't flame me!

Resolution wise, my camera is not enough to push the limits of the lines/mm happily thrown around by MTF graphs and pixel peepers, so no cannot comment:bsmilie:

Of course the aesthetics also count, just hold the Leica R and you know what I mean;p

Another good thing with the 35mm is that it is made by Leica, not farmed out to others like some of the focal lengths. I've got a 'third party' lens and images are just not as good. And of cos, the more you try Leica then the more you should look at the m series, which is really Leica's strength and not the R series.

All opinions are my own, subjective and probably flawed.

Heheh...the 35L is said to be one of Canon's 'Trinity' lenses and rightly so. Assuming a good sample, wide open pictures are very crisp, as I've seen on some 100% crops at another forum. I have not seen any sample pictures from a 35 Cron. Guess I will just have to try it and see.

The Leica M lenses are not in my sight at this time because I will need to migrate over to film in order to use them. If they could be used on a Canon DSLR, I'd definitely be pursuing the 35mm Cron-M Version IV once I have the cash. Speaking of M lenses. A couple of days ago I saw some pictures from the Noctilux and they had a character to them indeed, something I cannot explain. The pictures are soft but in a pleasing sort of way.

 

[gohaj]

If they could be used on a Canon DSLR, I'd definitely be pursuing the 35mm Cron-M Version IV once I have the cash.

not sure if you see this thread (http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?p=3533845#post3533845) before (i.e. a Leica M lens mounted on Canon DSLR).

 

[fWord]

not sure if you see this thread (http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?p=3533845#post3533845) before (i.e. a Leica M lens mounted on Canon DSLR).

Thanks for this. Yes, I've read that it's possible to mount M lenses on a Canon camera and the link you provided is another indication of that. However as far as I am aware the lenses cannot focus to infinity and can only be used as macro lenses. This destroys the appeal in my eyes...with another macro lens already in my setup, I have no need for one more.

 

[coffee3in1]

Heheh...no problems. If I really want to try it, I'll buy from Parlin. Only trouble here is that I can't find any conclusive reviews of this lens. The 35L is easy. Get a new one, get it calibrated, voila! Should be razor-sharp straight from wide open, as I've seen from some 100% crops posted at another forum. That said there's a number of really sad copies out there as well.

sorry to interrupt, but how to calibrate the lens? CSC? Thanks.

 

[fWord]

sorry to interrupt, but how to calibrate the lens? CSC? Thanks.

Yes, that's the only way I know how to do it...bring it to Harbourfront.

 

[Ljung]

Just to share some photos (95% of the whole set) taken with cron 35mm (mounted on a 20D though).

http://flickr.com/photos/18397286@N06/

 

[fWord]

Just to share some photos (95% of the whole set) taken with cron 35mm (mounted on a 20D though).

http://flickr.com/photos/18397286@N06/

At first I noticed this in my pictures but didn't say anything because I didn't want to sound naive. But after looking at your pictures too, I notice that there is a certain way this lens seems to render color. I'm wondering if it's the processing or a function of the lens itself. But the colors out of this lens do not have the same saturation that I'm used to seeing in L lenses. The colors are instead more subdued and even 'vintage'. I haven't shot very much film, yet the colors remind me of that which I used to see from printed negative film.

 

[Ljung]

At first I noticed this in my pictures but didn't say anything because I didn't want to sound naive. But after looking at your pictures too, I notice that there is a certain way this lens seems to render color. I'm wondering if it's the processing or a function of the lens itself. But the colors out of this lens do not have the same saturation that I'm used to seeing in L lenses. The colors are instead more subdued and even 'vintage'. I haven't shot very much film, yet the colors remind me of that which I used to see from printed negative film.

yes, agree on this color rendering. It sure doesnt 'as red as' L, in some way, some people might find it not "as vibrant"? err, how should i put it.....
but I like the "smoothness" of the cron

pls dont benchmark my indoor shots, i screwed up the white balance, especially during compression from RAW -> JPEG -> internet file size :embrass:

 

[fWord]

yes, agree on this color rendering. It sure doesnt 'as red as' L, in some way, some people might find it not "as vibrant"? err, how should i put it.....
but I like the "smoothness" of the cron

pls dont benchmark my indoor shots, i screwed up the white balance, especially during compression from RAW -> JPEG -> internet file size :embrass:

Yes, I noticed a similar phenomenon in my indoor shots as well, so I don't think it's anything to do with you screwing up the WB. The colors seem to be quite different indeed.

I'll need to do some landscape photography with it over the next one year to determine if it does indeed have some characteristics that set it apart from a usual L. As far as I can tell, based on the shape of the highlights when shooting at wide open aperture, the lens renders things differently to a 35L because of a probable lack of an aspherical element. The OOF highlights are shaped more like an oval rather than a perfect circle.