Leica R 35/2.0 Summicron

If you can live with one or two stops less you improve by choosing a shift lens. With the Leica 2.8/28mm shift lens or the older 4/35 PA curtagon in Leica R mount you get tremendeous sharpness, excellent Leica-type colour seperation plus extra DOF and angle correction in some situations.

I've recently had the chance to use an R8 with this lens (and also the 50, 100, 180) They are all incredible! Is the value of Leica eqiuipment there? Maybe not. Nikon and Canon seems to be 90 percent as good for only 25 percent of the cost. This Summicron is by far the best 35mm wide angle I've ever seen.

Whether a lens as expensive as this is a good "value" or not is a subjective decision each of us must make based on individual needs and preferences.

One really remarkable feature of this lens is the absence of flare or other internal reflections. I like being able to use this lens in any lighting conditions without those pesky internal reflections messing up the image; this alone makes the 35mm Summicron-R worth the cost. Aside from this the image detail, color saturation and build quality are exceptional.

I've been using my Leica R7 with(28/2.8, 50/2, 90/2.8) for several months and I really enjoy it!!! I knew that Leica was good but that good ??? The Leica system is simply phenomenal and I really mean it !! I can compare the slides shot by Leica against slides shot by Hasselblad and the only difference I can see is in the size of transparency. When I compare craftsmanship between the two Leica seems to be the winner...... and I just wish I could use Leica all year around. In my life I've owned Canon,Contax and Hasselblad but no system has given me such confidence as Leica did.. Regards Jan

By now the word's out, of course, but in case readers have not heard: the 35 mm lenses for the Leica M system are also amazing. I have the 35/1.4 ASPH and it is simply out of this world, even at full apeture. The new 35/2 ASPH is purportedly about as good, costs less, and is even more compact (the 1.4 is much smaller than a Nikkor f/2).

As to the question of value: the new Canon 35/1.4 is in the same price range as the Leica M, and maybe it even has comparable optical performance. I don't know. But it's a *monster*, with probably 4 times the volume of the Leica, and it's plastic. My point is this: depending on the lens, you may *not* get 90% as much with Canon/Nikon. Not for 25% of the price, anyway. On the other hand Leica hs no IS lenses...

I own Leica R 7 with several lenses but I couldn't resist anymore and I had to buy this(35/2) lens... After a few months of experience with this lens all I can say that this lens is worth every penny...simply superb !!!...Since medium system is my main system I use Leica mostly for hand-held shots...but even If I had to give up my every Leica lens keeping just this lens fitted on my R7 would still be worth to have it !!!!!!!!! Sincerely Jan

I entered in the Leica R system seven years ago. I bought an old R4s, the less expensive R body, and the 35/2 Summicron R. I've bought many (ops, not so many!) other lenses, and recently a used M6 with both the 50 and 35 summicrons. But the summicron 35/2 R is THE lens I use the most. 90% of my travel photography is done with that lens. I love it, and when I try a new leica lens the 35/2 is my point of comparison. I've never done any "scientific" comparison but my best photos all come from it. I'm really delighted of it. I strongly recommend it. Moreover it is not so expensive. You can find a good used example for less than 700$. If only Leica would build a lighter R body ... Now I have an R7 and that body plus the 35/2 weight 1.12Kg. The M6 + 35/2 weight only 650g!

Over the past 19 years I've rather obsessively investigated lenses within the range of focal lengths I use for my work, meaning 35mm to 90mm with a few outliers at 28mm and 100 or 105mm. I've tested literally dozens upon dozens of lenses from virtually every major maker (and a few very esoteric ones), and from every period of history from the 1950s (I've used every version of 50mm Summicron, for example). As you teach yourself to recognize optical aberrations from studying pictures, and carry out tests designed to make typical flaws show up, it's easy to let those flaws become prominent in your perceptions of work done with that lens. Typically, I use a lens for a while and then sell it and move on (I'm a photo magazine editor, and part of my job entails using lots of different kinds of equipment).

Several years ago, I borrowed a lens from a photojournalist, Michael Hintlian, whose portfolio I had published in the magazine. Not long after, he sold it to me. Through thick and thin, despite sometimes not even having a camera body to mount the lens on, I've kept it around. I once tried to sell it on eBay and, thank God, was not successful. All things considered, I think it's reasonably safe to say that it's probably my all-time favorite lens for the 35mm format. It is a rather beat-up sample of the venerable Walther Mandler-designed Leica R Summicron 35mm f/2 under discussion here.

It has its foibles like any other lens, some of which actually delight my eye. It works with my favorite film to perfection. Mostly, darn it, I just love the thing. This lens is a true aristocrat--reason enough to use Leica R (and yes, I've tried almost all of the 35mms available for the M camera, including the now $5,000+ first version limited-production 35mm f/1.4 Summilux Aspherical).

I just hope I'm never foolish enough to let go of this lens...

--Mike Johnston (Editor, _PHOTO Techniques_ magazine)

The story has a happy ending. Recently I bought this lens back from Mike and its back in my bag where it belongs. It really is a nice lens.

Michael Hintlian

This lens is sure a great one, but the Elmarit 35mm (2.8)is sharper, I mean it gives more contrasted pictures at the same aperture that the Sumicron Costing half the price of the Sumicron, it is ( or was since it is no longer sold as new) a pretty good normal lens of course the Sumicron has one stop more, and that helps for focusing, but...

I just test the Leica R35/2 (S/N 384XXX) Vs Elmarit-R 35mm (S/N 333XXX). The color reproduction, resolution and sharpness is no main difference. I think the lastest R35/2 has an improvement on it.

The Summicron-R 35mm is the fastest R lens that I own up until now, so I often use it for low light photography. I am most impressed with its edge-to-edge sharpness, contrast and flare-resistance when using it at full aperture. To be honest, though, I have found much the same with my Macro-Elamrit-R 60mm and Elmarit-R 90mm. They're all fine lenses.

Get the Zeiss Distagon 35/1.4 lens for less money and you get one additional stop. Add 400 Euros more to the price of the Summicron and get a Contax Aria body as well. And the Distagon will perform just as well in any situations as the Summicron.

Leicas lens prices are simply ridiculos. Quality may be high, but I'm pretty sure it's not any higher than the Zeiss but the prices are a horror.

Recently I tested the Leica Summicron-R 35mm f2.0 versus the outstanding Contax Carl Zeiss Distagon 35mm F2.8 and the Summicron outshine the Zeiss. This is the best 35mm focal length lens that I have ever love or think highly of. I have used both the Zeiss 35mm F1.4 and Zeiss 35mm F2.8. Definitely a keeper.

-Son

"Tom Abrahamsson has shot the Voigtlander 35/1.2 Nokton Aspherical extensively. He says he can see no difference between the Voigtlander 35/1.2 at 1.2, and the Leica 35/1.4 Summilux at 1.4, high praise indeed". What you say about this ?

Thank you, s.