35mm lenses compared?

[asjordan@attmail.com (Andrew S Jordan)]

> THIS IS A MESSAGE IN 'MIME' FORMAT.  Your mail reader may not support MIME.
> Some parts of this will be readable as plain text.
> To see the rest, you may need to upgrade your mail reader.

- --_337bb09f.748.0_maaumail.att.net=_
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I have been puzzled by the recent lukewarm or negative views by some LUGgers 
of the 35mm asph lens.Clearly, the lens does not live up to some users 
expectations. I have been wondering whether the disappointment is related to 
the difference between version 1 and version 2 of the aspheric lens.
 
Reading back issues of Leica Fotografie, I note thar the placement of the 
aspheric surfaces in version 1 has no relation to he location of the single 
aspheric surface in version 2. Clearly, version 2 is a brand new computation.
On the other hand, the qualitative descriptions by Mr. Osterloh with regard to
performance are virtually identical.Note also that very sharp pictures 
accompany the introduction of version 1(1990) while no photos were produced in
describing version 2.

I have done my own crude tests (courtesy of a loaner from a major dealer) 
between the 1.4 asph and standard Summilux  using Kodacolor 100 film. The 4x6 
prints are indistingushable except at ~f2.4 where the version 2 asph exhibits 
a more pleasing contrast on a child's face. Above f4 the difference between 
the two lenses is minute. At 10X magnification the negatives with the asph are
slightly more contrasty, as seen by the improved definition of shingles and 
fine print in shadow areas. Whether this slight advantage is maintained in 
comparison with the current(7 element) Summicron I don't know but it is 
apparent with the previous(6 element) version.
 
All in all, the second version of the 35mm f1.4 aspheric won't get you to 
photographic Nirvana. Consequently, setting the steep price of the 35 asph 
aside, I and perhaps other LUGgers are currently undecided between the f1.4 
asph,f2 Summicron or the forthcoming f2 Summicron asph(if very low light 
performance is not a top priority). Mr. Puts and other experts can you help?


                Andrew Jordan
                Clark,NJ 

- --_337bb09f.748.0_maaumail.att.net=_
Content-Description: RTF attachment, source: Text_1
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Text_1.RTF"
Content-Type: application/X-RTF; name="Text_1.RTF"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

=7B=5Crtf1=5Cansi=5Cdeff0=5Cdeftab720=7B=5Cfonttbl=7B=5Cf0=5Cfnil MS Sans=
 Serif;=7D=7B=5Cf1=5Cfnil=5Cfcharset2 Symbol;=7D=7B=5Cf2=5Cfswiss=5Cfprq2=
 System;=7D=7B=5Cf3=5Cfnil=5Cfcharset1 Courier New;=7D=7D=0D
=7B=5Ccolortbl=5Cred0=5Cgreen0=5Cblue0;=7D=0D
=5Cdeflang1033=5Cpard=5Cql=5Cplain=5Cf3=5Cfs16 I have been puzzled by the=
 recent lukewarm or negative views by some LUGgers of the 35mm asph lens.=
Clearly, the lens does not live up to some users expectations. I have bee=
n wondering whether the disappointment is related to the difference betwe=
en version 1 and version 2 of the aspheric lens.=0D
=5Cpar =5Cpard=5Cplain=5Cf3=5Cfs16  =0D
=5Cpar Reading back issues of Leica Fotografie, I note thar the placement=
 of the aspheric surfaces in version 1 has no relation to he location of =
the single aspheric surface in version 2. Clearly, version 2 is a brand n=
ew computation.=0D
=5Cpar On the other hand, the qualitative descriptions by Mr. Osterloh wi=
th regard to =0D
=5Cpar performance are virtually identical.Note also that very sharp pict=
ures accompany the introduction of version 1(1990) while no photos were p=
roduced in describing version 2.=0D
=5Cpar =0D
=5Cpar I have done my own crude tests (courtesy of a loaner from a major =
dealer) between the 1.4 asph and standard Summilux  using Kodacolor 100 f=
ilm. The 4x6 prints are indistingushable except at =7Ef2.4 where the vers=
ion 2 asph exhibits a more pleasing contrast on a child's face. Above f4 =
the difference between the two lenses is minute. At 10X magnification the=
 negatives with the asph are slightly more contrasty, as seen by the impr=
oved definition of shingles and fine print in shadow areas. Whether this =
slight advantage is maintained in comparison with the current(7 element) =
Summicron I don't know but it is apparent with the previous(6 element) ve=
rsion.=0D
=5Cpar  =0D
=5Cpar All in all, the second version of the 35mm f1.4 aspheric won't get=
 you to photographic Nirvana. Consequently, setting the steep price of th=
e 35 asph aside, I and perhaps other LUGgers are currently undecided betw=
een the f1.4 asph,f2 Summicron or the forthcoming f2 Summicron asph(if ve=
ry low light performance is not a top priority). Mr. Puts and other exper=
ts can you help?=0D
=5Cpar =0D
=5Cpar =0D
=5Cpar                 Andrew Jordan=0D
=5Cpar                 Clark,NJ =0D
=5Cpar =0D
=5Cpar =7D=0D
=00=

- --_337bb09f.748.0_maaumail.att.net=_--