Re: 35mm lenses compared?(tech/optics)

[bholmes@frii.com (Ben Holmes)]

LUGsters,

I've been quietly reading this thread since the first grumblings, and wanted
to add a few thoughts of mine on the 35s I've owned and used.

I've had a Summaron 2.8 in chrome M mount that was in retrospect one of the
best lenses I've ever used. The mount was sturdy, the click stops were crisp
and the images were (sigh) lovely. Sharp and smooth. Alas I was relieved of
this gem against my wishes.

The two examples of 2.0/35 Summicron-M lenses I have had were both
wonderful. Tack sharp and very contrasty. One I sold with an M4-P for
tuition (paid for my entire junior year), the other I traded for a late
sixties Summilux (thank you BW). This is the 35 I use today.

I read somewhere in this thread that the old S'lux, "at 1.4 is all but
useless" or somesuch. This didn't sit well at the time, and after some
thought I wondered why that was written.

I love this lens wide open, and, for the very reason that some of you don't
seem to like it. I like the way it behaves in real contrasy, low light
scenes like street-lights-at night kinds of situations. From twenty feet or
so I can take a point of light like a porch light, put it in the corner of
the frame, focus on a subject (a face) only a few feet away, and create a
blob of light so big, it takes up half the frame. Only now, the point of
light has become this soft, zone VIIIish area that makes the face pop out at
you. Beeeutiful!

Another cool trick with the Lux wide open is to take a face, close up, put
it to the side of the frame and the focus on something of interest in the
distance. The face just melts into a smooth, non-literal form, leaving the
background sharp as nails. I don't know how to calculate this, but the
foreground DOF is much smaller than the background DOF at 1.4. With the
1.4/35 I can really blow the foreground to bokeh hell, as compared to the
background. Anyone know why?

Anyway, as to someone's comments about the S'lux v. the S'cron 35s at
maximum aperture: I think what you're seeing as far as differing sharpness
is DOF.

Other than that, I have nothing to write.

,/8^j