Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/02/25
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Sorry, It's 1 am, and I'm already too tired. I forgot to say: Thanks=20 to Marvin Moss who scanned and sent the report to me=B4. To answer your 1-st question more detailed: Not really.=20 See LHSA's Viewfinder, report by Gilcreast D & Schwartzreich E:=20 The 35 mm f 1.4 Aspherical Summilux vs. the ASPH - Which is Better ?,=20 p 14-15. They say: The lenses are petty darn close in performance ... And they are virtually identical on ordinary subject matter from f/2 on down=20 the aperture scale. We found the only differences worth noting with the lesn wide open at f/1.4. ... The earlier has a tiny bit more uncorrected coma showing at the far edges and corners and there is=20 also a touch of positive field curvature ... at infinity... Indoors and at closer distances, the performance of the two lenses is quite difficult to tell apart. At f/1.4 the eralier Aspherical lens has=20 perhaps a bit more of what I call "gross contrast", meaning the major=20 darks and brights are a little better separated. But the ASPH lens however has a slightly better "micro contrast", that is the separation of brights and darks in very fine detail, resulting in visily better=20 resolution across the frame... (Tests done on a slow high-resolution film with the lenses wide open)... would probably not show up on a high-speed film with which ultraspeed lenses such as these would normally be used. Alf - ----------------------------------------- At 13:15 24.02.1998 -0800, you wrote: >Hi Folks, > >I have a question. Actually a couple of questions. > >Is there any performance differences between the 1st (two ASPH elements) >and the 2nd (one ASPH element) 35/1.4 M lenses? > >And, > >Why is the first version commanding such a hefty price? > >Many thanks, > >Jim >