Handling 35mm Summicron ASPH vs older version

"I am worried if I would be as comfortable using it in the street as the older lens."

I think that is going to be pretty hard for someone else to answer. Your best bet might to rent or borrow one for a short time, and shoot a few rolls. At the cost of a 35 Asph Cron, that's a small investment to get the best answer that's possible.

The 35 summilux ASPH is larger -- my 35 Summicron IV generally stays home these days.

It is twice as long and 1.5 or 2x as heavy.

Unless you need sharper corners at 2.0, keep what you have.

I like small light lenses and carry a 24 Voitlander, 35 4th gen, new 50 2.8, and new 90 4.0. Meets most of my needs. 90 Summicrons and Leica 21 and 28 stay at home mostly.

same with the Nikon digi stuff. Smaller is better unless you need to shoot in the dark.

"I currently have a 3rd generation Summicron which is very compact and light. Is the difference in handling that great?"

The 35mm Asph. Summilux is an outstanding performer on any measure, but the filter size is E46, not E39, and it approximates the size of a 50mm Summilux-M.

I can tell you it's a fantastic lens (my personal favorite in the M lineup), but handles differently than any Summicron. It is still quite compact relative to any SLR lens at any speed.

If anything greater in size than a 3rd generation Summicron won't do it for you you'll have very few options all the way around. And IMHO the 35mm pre-asph Summilux is a dog to about f/4.0 - personally, I don’t buy Leica glass to get images equivalent to shooting through the bottom of a coke bottle, then refer to the results as "the Leica glow."

Anastas -- The newer summicron ASPH is larger than the old version, but it is still quite small. Handling you will have to judge for yourself, but I actually liked the newer version better -- a bit more room for your fingers to move the aperture and focus. Either way, it is still a very small lens, even compared to the other Leica lenses.

I am not sure how useful this is to you, but Karen Nakamura has the respective dimensions and weights of both versions at her site: (link) <P>The 35mm f/2 pre-asph is 160g and 26x52mm with a 39mm filter, the 35/2 ASPH is 255g and 34.5mm by 53mm a 42mm filter. So basically, it is 95g heavier and 8.5mm longer. Not exactly a gargantuan difference...

Anastas, stay with your lens and spend the money on useful things. Exept Paul and Stuart, everybody did a reference to another lens than you did ask about: The be(a)st. And: Your lens is fine. Go, shoot!

"The 35mm f/2 pre-asph is 160g and 26x52mm with a 39mm filter, the 35/2 ASPH is 255g and 34.5mm by 53mm a 42mm filter."

The dimensions sound about right, but the filter size on the Asph Summicron is E39, not 42.

And, actually, I misread your original post. I thought you were asking about the 35mm Asph Summilux (as indicated in my post hereinabove) - my apologies. Having recognized that, let me tell you the Asph Summicron is larger than the pre-asph (version IV, so called), but it is still one of the three smallest lenses Leica currently produces. It is still quite compact. Complaints posted in the archives indicating the "massive size and weight" of the Asph Summicron are simply outrageous.

I had both versions for a short period of time and I found their handling to be very similar. I kept the Asph model only because I could recover what I had into the version IV at the time. As to image quality, I couldn't tell them apart, even when looking at the results side-by-side.

BTW, the three smallest lenses in Leica's current line-up are the 35mm Summarit-M, the 28mm Asph Elmarit-M, and the 35mm Asph Summicron-M.

"Exept Paul and Stuart, everybody did a reference to another lens than you did ask about: The be(a)st"

?? I don't see that I made such a refrence.

Bill I am confused, are you saying ver 3 is a dog but ver 4 is almost as good below F4 as the asph ver?

"Complaints posted in the archives indicating the "massive size and weight" of the Asph Summicron are simply outrageous."

Yeah, it's interesting, isn't it? And the Zeiss ZM 35/2 is similar in size to the 35 Asph Cron (240g, 56mm length, vs 255g and 53mm for the Asph Cron), and there's much whining about the ZM 35/2 being too big.

I guess I spent too much time dragging Nikon F-mount lenses around to see any of the M-mount lenses being discussed here as being too large.

After a day or two, you won't notice any difference.

Anastas: I have the original Version I Summicron; the Version IV; the pre-ASPH Summilux; and the Summilux ASPH. I have used the ASPH Summicron 35mm. Here are my comments:

1. As memory serves, the ASPH Summicron handled pretty much like my version IV. No noticeable difference in weight or handling.

2. I compared the 35mm ASPH Summicron version I, the version IV, the pre-ASPH Summilux. I used Velvia 50. The camera was on a tripod for most of the shots. From f/4 and smaller, I could not see any difference in the slides. I don't have the version III, so can't comment. I didn't include the ASPH Summilux in this comparison because I didn't own it at that time.

I think the ASPH Summicron should outperform the version III, but I don't have that one, so can't make a direct comparison. I would question, though, whether the difference, which is probably hairsplitting, would be visible in most handheld shots!

"Bill I am confused, are you saying ver 3 is a dog but ver 4 is almost as good below F4 as the asph ver?"

No. What I said was (IMHO) the pre-asph SummiLUX was a dog. I originally thought you were asking about the 'lux models. Stewart's last post above helped me to realize you indeed asked about the asph SummiCRON.

Your confusion is because of mine.

But since you asked, the version IV 'Cron is much improved over the version III (yours). But as to the last half of your question addressed here - yes, the version IV 'Cron is almost as good as the asph version at all stops.

Pre-ASPH 'Lux was NOT a dog. Soft wide open perhaps -- or that was my experience when I had one. But see books by Roger Hicks and Frances Schulz packed with excellent pictures using this lens.

I have the 35 'cron ASPH, and the handling is fine. No problem at all. As others have said, a helluva lot smaller than an SLR lens.

Wow, thanks for all the input. Very useful information. Since there are so many different opinions I guess I will have to try and borrow the lens for a day and see how it handles in the street.

Since I rarely shoot at 2.0 or 2.8 the ASPH might be an overkill. On the other hand if the ASPH is bigger it might be more comfortable for my big hands. Sometimes my fingers get in the way of the lens (if not using the lens shade) and I have a few pictures with fingers in the lower right corner ...

I use both the v1 and the ASPH Summicron 35. Neither are dogs. The ASPH is a black paint version so it is brass and heavier than the v1. I can interchange between them quite easily and use them for their strengths, I love the vintage look of the v1 and IQ of the ASPH at f2. My advice is to get an ASPH and try it for yourself. Then if you need to make a choice make it, or like me if you like them both find a way of keeping both!

Take a look at the 35 Summaron 2.8.