Updated May 2025

Introduction

$5,995 is a pretty incredible price to pay for a 35mm f/1.4 lens, but that’s the retail cost of the Leica Summilux 35 FLE (before Trump tariffs). What could possibly make this lens worth that much?

35mm is my favorite and most-used focal length. Before I came to own the lens reviewed here, I tried out no less than 7 other 35mm lenses for M mount:
•Leica 35mm f/2 Summicron ASPH
•Leica 35mm f/1.4 Summilux ASPH Pre-FLE
•Zeiss 35mm f/2 Biogon
•Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 Distagon
•Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 II
•Voigtlander 35mm f/1.4
•Voigtlander 35mm f/2.5

They all left me unsatisfied in some way, and I regret not simply buying the 35mm Summilux FLE sooner. This is because no other 35mm lens checks all of these boxes: f/1.4, sharp wide-open, and compact in size.* The 35 FLE has now been in my kit for many years and is my most-used lens of all time. In 2025 I upgraded to the “FLE V2” version with close focusing, so this comprehensive review will include a comparison of both versions.

*The 35 Summilux ASPH Pre-FLE technically checked these boxes, but it was frustrating to use due to strong focus shift.

About this lens

There are three different lens models with the same optical formula:

35 Summilux ASPH Pre-FLE, 1994
I’ve used this lens but it will not be evaluated in this review. It can be summarized as having significantly worse focus shift than the later versions, to the point that shooting at f/2.8-f/4 is frustrating. This is because it doesn’t have a floating group (referred to as FLE), which results in worse correction of spherical aberration. It also has an oversized plastic clip-on hood.

35 Summilux ASPH FLE, 2010
This is now referred to as the “FLE V1.” It introduced a floating group which makes focus shift better controlled. It also ditches the plastic clip-on hood for a screw-on metal hood that is more compact, durable, and secure.

35 Summilux ASPH FLE close-focus, 2022
This version, referred to as the “FLE V2,” adds close focusing to 0.4m instead of the usual 0.7m. Leica did not say anything about changing the optical formula, but as we will see below, they actually tweaked it somehow to achieve even better control of focus shift than the FLE V1. It also ditches the metal screw-on hood for a built-in slide-out hood, and adds more aperture blades.

Build quality and mechanics

The lens is built entirely out of aluminum and feels rock solid. Both the FLE V1’s metal screw-on hood and the FLE V2’s built-in hood feel very nice.

The focus and aperture rings feel perfect. It’s somewhat impressive that the focus tab feels so light and buttery smooth, considering the complexity of squeezing a floating group into such a small lens. On the FLE V2, there’s a click at 0.7m to let you know the rangefinder is no longer coupled.

Size and handling

Despite its f/1.4 aperture and high optical performance, the 35 FLE is small enough to feel like a classic rangefinder lens. It balances well on an M camera and the focus tab and aperture ring are perfectly placed.

The FLE V2 is ever so slightly heavier and wider than the FLE V1 but they basically handle the same.

Minimum focus distance

A 0.7m minimum focus distance is somewhat limiting on a 35mm lens and I found this to be one of the few downsides of the FLE V1. The FLE V2 can focus to 0.4m which allows for a much higher magnification on cameras with liveview:

For many photographers, the ability to focus to 0.4m is irrelevant, but I use it all the time for food photography:

Image quality

Distortion:
There is a slight amount of barrel distortion. No problem on digital; Lightroom removes it before I can see it. But on film, it could be noticeable on some pictures and you will have to live with it.

Below is a photo with distortion correction disabled. If it doesn’t bother you here, it likely won’t bother you ever.

Bokeh:
I am not a bokeh addict and when choosing lenses in other focal lengths, I rarely go for the widest aperture available. But there’s something about the combination of 35mm and f/1.4 that makes a big difference in my photos. A 35mm f/1.4 lens gives lots of context to the subject while also blurring the background beautifully. The following sample photos were taken at f/1.4 and illustrate the unique look I’m talking about:

Leica 35 FLE @f/1.4, Leica M10 — FLE V1, Leica M10, f/1.4

I also feel like f/1.4 is necessary for a 35mm lens to isolate subjects at mid to far distances. I don’t think a 35mm f/2 would have separated the background well in this next photo:

The 35 FLE’s bokeh is not as clinically perfect as some other lenses like the Zeiss 35/1.4 or the Voigtlander 35/2 APO. The 35 FLE produces soap-bubble bokeh in the background, which adds contrasty edges to out-of-focus regions and can make them look harsh. I actually don’t mind this and I always love how my 35 FLE renders. It has some character without being overtly ugly or distracting.

Lateral chromatic aberration:
There is minimal green-magenta lateral CA which is automatically corrected in Lightroom and too small to be seen on film.

Longitudinal chromatic aberration:
Unlike the 50 Summilux ASPH, the 35 FLE is certainly not an apochromatic lens as there is a moderate amount of green-magenta longitudinal CA, also known as spherochromatism. It’s not strong enough to bother me and I don’t even notice it in most photos. This is also a significantly better CA control than typical for the Voigtlander Nokton lenses.

Sharpness, infinity:

Analysis:
•The center is already close to perfect at f/1.4. The FLE V2 is actually a tad sharper in the center than the FLE V1. There is slight improvement at f/2 but not much is needed.
•The mid-frame holds up well at f/1.4, and peak performance starts at f/2.8. I did not include results from the FLE V1 as there was no significant difference.
•The corners have noticeable coma at f/1.4 but sharpen up nicely at f/2.8. I did not include results from the FLE V1 as there was no significant difference.

Sharpness and focus shift, 1.2m:

Analysis:
•The FLE V1 is sharp in the center at f/1.4 but there is a disappointing amount of focus shift at f/2.8. It’s still better controlled than the pre-FLE version but the subject is noticeably out of focus, enough to make shooting at f/2.8-f/4 somewhat irksome.
•The FLE V2 demonstrates significantly less focus shift. It’s almost undetectable. The center is also ever so slightly sharper at f/1.4 than the FLE V1.
•The mid-frame is a slight weak spot at f/1.4 but still sharp enough. Peak performance starts at f/2.8. I did not include results from the FLE V1 as there was no significant difference. There is also no focus shift here.
•Corner performance is essentially the same as at infinity, with noticeable coma at f/1.4 that resolves by f/2.8.

Sharpness and focus shift, 0.7m:

Analysis:
•Both versions are nicely sharp in the center even at f/1.4, likely thanks to the use of a floating group.
•Similar to the 1.2m testing, the FLE V1 has noticeable focus shift whereas the FLE V2 has virtually none.

Sharpness and focus shift, 0.4m:

Analysis: I was surprised to see that there is very little performance loss shooting wide-open at 0.4m. Stopping down to f/2.8 improves sharpness slightly without causing any focus shift. This is an impressive result.

Summary and recommendations

The Leica Summilux 35 FLE is not the sharpest 35mm lens in the world, nor the fastest, nor the smallest. But no other lens offers the same combination of compactness, wide aperture, and image quality. The sharpness in particular is quite impressive even compared to more modern lens designs such as the Zeiss 35/1.4 Distagon. In my usage, the only downsides to the FLE V1 (other than the price) were focus shift and its minimum distance of 0.7m. Both of these have been fixed in the FLE V2. The lack of focus shift came as a surprise to me as Leica made no mention of improving the optical performance whatsoever. I now have nothing left to complain about with my FLE V2 and I expect I will keep this lens for a very long time.

Acquiring even a used copy of the FLE V1 will set you back around $3000. For many people, this astronomical price won’t be worth it. It’s worth it to me because I love shooting 35mm, I love the unique rendering of f/1.4 at this focal length, and I also want a lens that’s sharp and small.

So, should you buy the 35 FLE? The most important question to ask is whether you benefit significantly from having f/1.4. If not, there are several fantastic alternatives. The Voigtlander 35mm f/2 Ultron (review) is at least as sharp as the 35 FLE, free of focus shift, smaller and lighter than the 35 FLE, can focus to 0.58m, and costs just $750. For many people, this will be a smarter choice than the Summilux. There’s also the Voigtlander 35/2 APO (review) and Leica 35/2 Summicron APO. Both of these lenses deliver absolutely incredible image quality and pair especially well with a high-resolution camera such as the M11. The downside to the Voigtlander 35 APO is its larger size, and the downside to the Leica 35 APO is its price tag of over $8000.

The second question to ask is how high your standards are for image quality. Voigtlander has released a direct competitor to the 35 FLE, the Voigtlander 35mm f/1.5 Nokton (review). It does many things well including being significantly smaller and lighter than the 35 FLE, but its Achilles heel is that it just isn’t at the same level of sharpness as the 35 FLE. It wasn’t sharp enough for my taste but for photographers who don’t fixate on pixel-peeping, it could be the best 35mm lens on the market.

The third important question to ask is how much you care about size and handling. If it’s not a priority, the Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 Distagon (review) delivers the same combination of speed and sharpness as the 35 FLE but without the Leica price tag.

Despite all of these other great lenses, my take home message is still the following: if you want a sharp and compact 35mm f/1.4 lens, save up for the 35 FLE before you spend too much time and money trying out the alternatives. It’s just that good.

Good
Image quality
Size and handling
Build quality

Bad
Price
Focus shift (on FLE V1)

Buy here

Making this website is my hobby and hosting it costs $200/year. If you decide to buy this lens and want me to get paid a commission, please complete your purchase using one of my links. Alternatively, you can buy something from my accessories page or buy me a coffee!

Other alternatives (not recommended)

Voigtlander 35mm f/1.4 Nokton Classic
This is a very popular lens since it’s f/1.4, tiny, and cheap. It uses a vintage optical design from the 1960s. I only recommend it for those who intentionally want soft, dreamy images with lots of aberrations, and really messy bokeh. It also has strong focus shift, which is a pain to deal with on a rangefinder camera.

Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 versions I-II
The version III of this lens is so much better that I don’t recommend anyone bother with versions I-II.

Leica 35mm f/1.4 Summilux Pre-FLE
I owned this lens before switching to the FLE version, and I don’t recommend it because the focus shift is actually pretty bad.

Leica 35 Summicron ASPH (review)
Zeiss 35mm f/2 Biogon
Zeiss 35mm f/2.8 Biogon
Voigtlander 35mm f/2.5
These lenses are okay but I haven’t found a compelling reason to choose them over the Voigtlander 35/2 Ultron.

TTArtisans 35mm f/1.4
7Artisans 35mm f/1.4
Phillipreeve.net has detailed reviews of both of these lenses. They’re both as large as the Zeiss, but with worse image quality, mechanical quality, and quality control. They are very affordable, but I would recommend saving up and buying a lens with fewer compromises.