Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/01/29
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Eric, > Has Zeiss updated the formula on this lens (35/1.4) since then? I think that the lens was a 1976 update of the older Rollei 2000 version but only Marc really knows. > rating of lenses went from the 35mm Summilux > Aspherical (first version) then the 35 Summilux R, then the Canon 35mm f/2, > then the 35 Summicron M, then the Summicron R, then the Zeiss, then the > Nikon 35 f/2 and on from there. I don't compare RF with SLR 35's, nor 1.4's with f/2's in my list. Obviously, the M ASPH is going to kill any SLR 35/1.4 and, were we to throw f/2's in, the M ASPH 'cron would probably hold title as the best ever. I've never seen results from the Leica SLR 35 Summilux; only the Contax Zeiss, Minolta, Nikon and M 'lux normal version. When I did the test (between the CZ and Min lenses), I was a bit surprised that they didn't seem to beat the Canonet 40/1.7, in either corner sharpness or vignetting wide open. Then again, my main concern in any testing I do is heavily biased toward wide open image quality and the comparison to the Canonet 40 was from an earlier test, not a same-time comparison (though the Canonet vignettes very little compared to these superspeed 35's without question). > And my experience has been, contrary to some reports here, is the top two > are the Asphierical (ASPH) and the Summilux R are the best 35mm 1.4 lenses > I've seen put an image on film. I haven't used either of these primarily because I'm satisfied with the Contax lens and the various 35's and 40's (CL, CLE, C'net, 7sII, Hexar etc.) I've amassed. Going back to another conversation for a minute: If Leica was adding English electronics to the R4, they must've been preoccupied with something other than having the camera work. In the mid 70's, only the English had a worse reliability rep than German electronics did. Regards, Danny Gonzalez