Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/07/27
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 01:29 PM 27-07-97 PDT, Bill wrote: >Hello, > >I am about to make a big investment. I shoot slides and some prints >professionally. Generally I shoot ASA 50-100 color film. > >Here is my question. Does the 35 f1.4 (asph) yield significantly better >images than the 35 f2 or the 35 f1.4 when one is shooting at an f-stop >equal to or greater than f2? I guess what I am asking is, Do the >results of the 35 f1.4 aspherical lens justify the additional expense? Since I own both the regular 35 Summilux (recently discontinued) and the 35 Summilux aspherical (1st version, assumed the same as current ASPH version), I feel that I can give a partial answer to this question. If you never plan on using the lens wide open, you would be better off with the older regular 35/1.4. I can't tell any difference between the two at small lens openings when viewing normal sized prints or slides. There IS a big difference wide open. Another point to consider is that the ASPH lenses, being fairly new, haven't hit the used market to the same extent as the older versions. I have seen many 35/1.4 summiluxes for sale as used lenses, at an appreciable discount to the new (non ASPH) version. When comparing a used 35/1.4 in excellent condition to a new 35/1.4 ASPH, dolar for dollar, there is no contest. I don't own the 35/2 so I can't comment on it. Dan C.