Well this my version of the "Lux Adventures" series founded by our forum friend Mike Dixon, in 2002.

On recent travels to Sydney (one hour flight from Melbourne where I live) I was fortunate to take some Sydney night shots while involving myself in the romancing of my fiance. Luckily she let me take a shot or two in between some lovin'.

Though this review is not as technical as Mike's it's purpose is to show with examples, the kinds of limitations that the Summilux 35 Asph is not bound by. All shots were at the exposure of f/1.4 and 1/8 sec using Sensia II 100 E.I. 100. I also used Tom. A soft release. the best US$10 I've ever spent. The shots would've also benefited from being taken about 45 minutes prior when the light was nicer, but I was busy "romancing the stone".

I am not saying that using the lens in the circumstance that I did is a better way of shooting night scenes; it is just an alternative way. A way that is much more convenient and can be very rewarding, especially considering that you don't need to shoot with a tripod. Of course, shooting at about f/5.6-f/16 on a tripod with cable release is the most ideal technique for getting the maximum possible sharpness and DOF. But for travelling without a tripod, the results can be very rewarding.

Please keep in mind that these shots look at least 25% better on slide, and my scanner is a cheap Epson 1650, that doesn't scan night scenes very well. The slides offer fantastic detail and beautiful OOF highlights. Put simply, they are pretty impresive for f/1.4 shots at 1/8 sec.

While a Noct is regarded as the ultimate low light lens, it is not as versatile as the Summilux 35 Asph as it doesn't give as much DOF, angle or sharpness. Give it a try!

photo 1 photo 2 photo 3 photo 4

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), April 13, 2002

Answers

Personally, I don't think you need a Noct or a Summilux 35 Asph. All you really need is a desire to take a photograph! Leitz M6, Elmar-M 50mm 1:2.8, B+W KR1.5 MRC, Fuji Sensia II 200, Manfrotto Tabletop Tripod (braced against my chest):

-- Glenn Travis (leicaddict@hotmail.com), April 13, 2002.

I have to agree with Glenn here. Even though I like the idea of a handheld camera even in these low light situations, the result will be much better by using a simple and small tripod. Why use a US$ 1200 lens for pictures that will probably turn out better when a much cheaper lens is used with an inexpensive tripod?

While a Noct is regarded as the ultimate low light lens, it is not as versatile as the Summilux 35 Asph as it doesn't give as much DOF, angle or sharpness.

I personally donīt see the advantages you mentioned in your night shots. They are not sharp (maybe apart from the Opera house) and the angle can be corrected by choosing the the right shooting point. Of course a Noct used wide open will provide a shallow DOF, but would it matter in your pictures? I do like your compositions, especially the "Bridge side". They make me feel like planning a trip to Australia soon. Thanks for sharing Kristian.

-- Eric Kragtwijk (e.kragtwijk@hccnet.nl), April 13, 2002.

Great shot Glenn!

-- Eric Kragtwijk (e.kragtwijk@hccnet.nl), April 13, 2002.

Well...I have the 35 lux, and there are times when a small tripod is just out of the question. Such as taking a snap of your significant other at a low lit restaurant. I've done this at 1/15th of a sec. wide open, and the results were great, but with at f/2 it probably would have been blurred. Although, speaking of these shots, I can see why you two would mention the idealness of smaller aperture on a tripod. But heck, these are nice results w/o the tripod. Good point I guess...all in what you want.

-- James (snodoggydogg@hotmail.com), April 13, 2002.

Speed does matter. It was raining, a strong wind was blowing, 1/8th second at 1.4.

Driving to Jinbeh, near Hebron.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), April 13, 2002.

U might as well use fill flash.

-- travis (teckyy@hotmail.com), April 13, 2002.

Travis, fill flash is not very effective in landscape.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), April 13, 2002.

landscape? where?

-- travis (teckyy@hotmail.com), April 13, 2002.

All the pictures Kristian, Glenn and I posted on this thread are landscape shots, I think - don't you?

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), April 13, 2002.

Glenn. Very nice and effective photograph. I can see where a lot of people may be trading in their 50/1.0 and 35/1.4 ASPH lenses for a better night photography lens, the 50/2.8 Elmar. :-).

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), April 13, 2002.

Kristian,i have to agree with some of the other comments.These photos are out of focus,a tripod or some sort of support would have helped.

-- Allen Herbert (allen1@btinternet.com), April 13, 2002.

Sure, Glenn's photo is fantastic and supports his claim very well. This doesn't mean that the validity of my claim is wrong. I also stated that my scanner has a tough time scanning night scenes. The opera house is the sharpest becuase there was more light in that scene. All the slides are very sharp with lots of detail!!!

My claim is that it is possible to get decent, even great looking shots WOITHOUT A TRIPOD!!!

Why did I even bother?

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), April 13, 2002.

Rob, Another just beautiful, beautiful, shot. I don't know why, but everything just comes together to give me this real eerie feeling. The truth, though, is that we could put a coke bottle on the end of your camera, and you'd still bring home the bacon.

-- Glenn Travis (leicaddict@hotmail.com), April 13, 2002.

Couldn't agree more Glenn.

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), April 13, 2002.

Why did I even bother

Kristian you are taking me the wrong way.Your photos are not sharp as displayed on this forum.Would you like me to say they are great,would that be any help to you.If i make a comment on a photo i am honest.I have said i liked your sax player photo...these i did not.They were simple out of focus and you did not prove your point with them.Rob did with a sharp photo under the same conditions.

-- Allen Herbert (allen1@btinternet.com), April 13, 2002.

Kristian, just as you advocate the 35mm Asph vs the Noct, I'm advocating that one doesn't need to spend $2k to get decent available light photographs. After all, there are Leica Photographers out there using more modest equipment. I really believe that what one needs is the desire to "take the shot." As far as a tripod goes, I didn't use a tripod per se, I used a very small, "Tabletop Tripod" (that would typically be found in any "available light" photographers kit) braced against my chest, which after all, is what it is designed for, and is a technique historically recommended by Leica. This is what a Leica Tabletop Tripod/Large Ballhead is designed for. And I would recommend that if you enjoy shooting available, low light photography, that you invest in one of these marvels, especially since it will add three to four stops to your lower limits. I think you will find that the Leica Tabletop Tripod/Large Ballhead is more than worth every $ they ask for it. And if it's still the same as it was twenty-five years ago, then it will also include a Leica Manual on available, low light photography.

-- Glenn Travis (leicaddict@hotmail.com), April 13, 2002.

I can understand the logic behind your shots, Kristian. I think the others are agreeing that it's a fantastic lens, but given the way you used it it's reduced to being average.

Here's a shot taken with my Olympus Epic. I set the camera on a ledge and used the self timer. I'm sure it was wide open because that is what the camera defaults to for a longer exposure...it was about a 1/4 to 1/2 a second. You don't need a camera & lens worth a couple of thousand dollars when you're going to use it like an $89.00 dollar point & shoot...I think that's the point trying to be made here.

-- Jim Tardio (jimtardio@earthlink.net), April 13, 2002.

Following up on Glenn Travis's & Jim Tardio's posts, you don't even need to spend $200+ on a Leica tabletop tripod & ballhead. Here's are a couple shots I took in Paris 5 and 3 years ago using a Leica Mini point & shoot (made by Minolta) & a $30 Ultrapod mini-tripod (widely available @ corner camera shops):

-- Chris Chen (Wash., DC) (furcafe@NOSPAMcris.com), April 14, 2002.

Nice shots Chris! Ahhh yes, an inexpensive kit with outstanding results, no doubt the other half of the equation (you) makes the difference. Is that in France?

-- James (snodoggydogg@hotmail.com), April 14, 2002.

Chris nice pics!

first one is great specialy how top of three mixes with nigth, so poetic, just for the couple at left, that atracts so much atention and donīt add a thing to content.

-- al1231234@hotmail.com (al1231234@hotmail.com), April 14, 2002.

Thanks James & "al1231234". When I discovered that I could get shots like these w/mere point & shoots on vacation (although a Leica Mini is a pretty good point & shoot), I was inspired to get serious about photography & start using real quality gear. Unfortunately, I've yet to surpass these early bursts of "genius" despite all the new equipment!

-- Chris Chen (Wash., DC) (furcafe@NOSPAMcris.com), April 14, 2002.

"Can't I get a little tiny bit of credit for making an effort???????"

If that's a serious question, then the answer is no. Effort is nothing, results are everything. Winner takes all in real life. Especially in photography.

As for your pictures and their intent, I think they illustrated your point pretty well, and I was impressed by your exposure, which it isn't so easy to get right in such conditions.

But please lighten up, Kristian.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), April 14, 2002.

Kristian, my point is just this - it doesn't matter how much effort any of us put into a project, in the end the pictures are the only result of that project and we are judged on them. I could spend a load of money, time and effort on a feature, but if the results are no good, then no-one's going to be impressed, are they.

Like I said, I think your scans illuatrate your point perfectly well. But if you want me to be impressed by how much effort you put into the scanning, then I'm not going to be able to satisfy you there.

That's all!

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), April 14, 2002.

Travis, my truck (tractor, actually) pic was an illustration of a point, i.e. that having a higher shutter speed is useful in marginal light situations. I think it's a nice snap myself, but opinions are bound to differ. As for a tripod, I don't own one, although I think I'll look into Glenn's chestpod technique. When you have to walk for several hours over the hills to take a picture, a fullsize tripod is not the thing you most want to be carrying. I'm sure it would have been handy if I'd had it there, sure. As for flash, that wouldn't have been appropriate, for a wide variety of reasons (the main being the atmospheric type of picture I wanted to take) - and I didn't use flash at all for this feature.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), April 14, 2002.

No problem Travis, believe me. Time for lunch!

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), April 14, 2002.

Kristian, first of all, thanks for sharing your photos. Starting out the 35 Lux series with a more challenging set/mission (that being low light hand-held) perhaps wasn't the best way to go, since it's like a composition- start with your best stuff first, less impressive stuff in the middle, and end with a bang. I guess anyway, or I could be on a tangent. Anyway, I look forward to your second installment of your adventures. And maybe a better scanner could help prove your points you're making. I need to get a scanner period, maybe a Canoscan 4000.

-- James (snodoggydogg@hotmail.com), April 14, 2002.

I don't think anyone's making this a competition. You wanted to show that you could take some shots at a slow shutter speed, wide open, hand held, with your 35/1.4 lens. No matter what lens or camera you're using, it's a poor technique. Whatever wonderful qualities this lens may have, they're lost when you can't hold the camera steady. That's the only point being made here.

By posting my shot...which is nothing special...all I'm saying is that I can take a shot at a slow shutter speed, wide open, at night without using a $2000.00 camera and lens. And have it come out reasonably sharp because I utilized the most basic of camera techniques...making sure the thing was held steady. The Summilux 35/1.4 Asph holds no special powers for stopping camera shake.

By the way, my shot was scanned with a cheap Epson 1640 flatbed.

Please don't take it the wrong way. At least you're out there using your camera and trying different things...that's the important thing.

-- Jim Tardio (jimtardio@earthlink.net), April 14, 2002.

this is Flight over a Cuckoo's Nest !

Wonderful image Rob. When did you take it ? Current times are not really the best for landscape shooting in the Hebron heights!!! Such a wonderful land !

-- Jacques (jacquesbalthazar@hotmail.com), April 14, 2002.

This was all very entertaining, and I have a very simple point to make.

If I have a bad print, and I have some, I don't show it to anyone except to show them how to make a bad print or ask how to make a better print.

If I have a bad scan, and I have some, I don't show it to anyone except to show them how to makea bad scan or ask how to make a better scan.

The only exceptions I can think of are if I had a clear photo of a UFO and wanted people to see it so quickly I couldn't figure out how to make a good print or scan.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), April 14, 2002.

You miss at least 1/2 of the point of such lenses. Where they work well is with indoors handheld people shots. Nighttime landscapes can be taken just as well with a tripod so that's not really the best comparison. Examples of the lens wide open from 70 cm to 5 meters would be more interesting...

-- Russell Brooks (russell@ebrooks.org), April 15, 2002.

Tony, I dun get it. I was speaking facts and defending rights of opinions here.

When others critised my work, I become a cry baby. And when I defend other's work, I become also a cry baby.

When others speak bad about Kristian's work, U let it happen.

Thx for the enlightenment.

-- Travis (teckyy@hotmail.com), April 15, 2002.

I have no idea what you're trying to tell me, Travis, which is the case with about 75% of your posts of late. If you're referring to me deleting some 25 posts from this thread alone from you and Kristian (and probably other characters; I have no idea), that's my job, you know. You should see some of the other threads I've pruned! If there are other pointless rantings in need of a quick death, please do tell, and I'll gladly remove them, too.

-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@mail.com), April 15, 2002.

And what exactly is your job? If u had no idea what I and Kristian were saying or of our intentions, why did u delete them in the first place? Aren;t u suppose to read and understand the conflict behind before u make a decision?

By telling me U didn't know what happened but deleted anyway, I just dun get it.

But anyway, u did a great job as a moderator...superb job.

-- Travis (teckyy@hotmail.com), April 15, 2002.

Russell, that's exactly how I use the lens most of the time, the following shot would have been at 1/8th wide open. For that, it's pretty unbeatable, IMO.

Evening in the caves, Jinbeh village, Hebron district.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), April 15, 2002.

Are u waiting for us to say what a good job u did handholding it?

Don't we all know what the lens can do by now?

Handheld at 1/8 f2...so what's the problem?

-- Travis (teckyy@hotmail.com), April 15, 2002.

And to think that some needed tripods to do a Tower scene.

-- Travis (teckyy@hotmail.com), April 15, 2002.

Rob,

Another masterpiece. Thanks.

-- Jacques (jacquesbalthazar@hotmail.com), April 15, 2002.

No Travis, I was waiting for you to make a comment - which you did.

I'm still wondering what your problem is. I can't remember ever having been rude to you, intentionally or accidentally. What's up?

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), April 15, 2002.

Very nice shot, Rob. Color by El Greco.

-- Preston Merchant (merchant@speakeasy.org), April 15, 2002.

Rob, nothing against u, seriously.

But the last time I posted a pic, I was commented exactly what I wrote to u. And when I responded like u did, I was called a cry baby.

Now u know how ruthless this place is run?

Im willing to make peace with u, but that's how I was treated previously.

so that u know..

nice pic btw.

-- Travis (teckyy@hotmail.com), April 15, 2002.

"Now u know how ruthless this place is run?"

Yes, Tony is so cruel...

Travis, I've been away for a few weeks taking pictures (you know, with a camera) and I really don't know what you're on about. I don't see how other people criticising your snaps comes back to me, frankly. But I'm flattered by the attention!

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), April 15, 2002.

Great expression on the child's face, Rob. Your first shot above...driving to Jinbeh...shows a great deal of fall-off. Was that taken with the 35/1.4?

-- Jim Tardio (jimtardio@earthlink.net), April 15, 2002.

Rob, it probably should not have gone back to u., frankly.

But my point isn't entirely an attack on you.

The 35 lux or cron will catch anylight at night. If u use a 400 film, which I did, it will be fine. So u are making a point that is not unknown even to amatuers like me.

Btw, see how much attention u got by your pic, by being a nice guy? ;)

The creditable ones get all the attention, and so I learned.

happy shooting Rob...

Btw, your pics from India are a tad underexposed, JMHO.

-- Travis (teckyy@hotmail.com), April 15, 2002.

Rob, what does the full frame of that shot look like? What did you crop out?

-- Preston Merchant (merchant@speakeasy.org), April 15, 2002.

Alex Webb is a famous under-exposer as well.

-- Preston Merchant (merchant@speakeasy.org), April 15, 2002.

I bought into leica for the camera's low light abilities and its usefulness for candids, though I appreciate the abilities of press photographer to take amazing photos with other equipment and a certain amount of bravery...

As far as this thread goes... two things

1. Thankyou Kristian for at least attempting to demonstrate the 35/1.4, and as I am heading back to sudnee (kiwi myself!!! - in joke), made me pine for my return from cold wet and dark UK!

2. But it was the photo of the girl by rob appleby that reaffirmed my intentions of my purchase... great shot

FWIW, the following pic by Travis (I think) was also the sort of thing I am after with my camera.

Not intended to offend anyone. BTW, do people here spend more time on this forum than they do taking pictures??... pro's not included!??

Cheers from the queen motherland

Stefan

-- Stefan Eriksson (drlurve_se@hotmail.com), April 15, 2002.

Russell, I was demonstrating the usefulness of Summilux for landscape/cityscape shots because it is something that hasn't been done before on this forum. We see countless pics detailing the usefulness in doors at close distances.

Secondly, Rob, I envy your opportunity to get such fantastic shots under difficult conditions. I am pretty much confined to my own mackyard at present. Wonderful photography, and not underexposed in my opinion. Sometimes, even if the shot is underexposed at 1.4, 1/8 sec, all you can say is "well at least I got the shot" and I am sure that if it was underexposed, you could've fixed it in photoshop if you wished.

Travis, sorry mate, but under/over-exposure is a very subjective opinion and there is a fine line between right and wrong. Either way i wish i could've displayed a shot like Rob's to prove my point. Next time I visit "Osama", I'll grab a shot or two!

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), April 15, 2002.