Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/04/02
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]> >I'm trying to decide which used M lense to buy. I can only afford one, >and I'm considering the 35/1.4, 35/2, and 50/2. The 35/1.4 would be the >most versatile. I'm also planning a lot of low light shooting. But they >say the 35/2 is sharper (it's a little cheaper too). The 50/2 has >excellent optics and it's the least expensive. I'm also wondering how >good the 35/1.4 Asph is. I have the last generation non-asph 35mm summicron. To be brief, I love the lens. It is compact, light, and is a great performer. It is very sharp and has good suppression of flare in adverse lighting conditions. I have heard good things about the pre-asph 35mm summilux (read the article on the LHSA web page), but understand that 1.4 should be considered a reserve only. The asph summilux (2nd ver) is supposed to be outstanding, but pricey. You might want to consider either of the 35mm lenses, because for low-light use (especially if you buy a lens with f/2 as a max. aperture) a 35mm lens is more handholdable than a 50mm lens. For example, a 35mm lens is usually handholdable at a shutter speed one stop slower a speed than a 50mm lens, so a 35mm summicron is equivalent to a 50mm Summilux, while the 35mm Summilux is as handholdable as a Noctilux, etc. I also find the 35mm focal length more fun to use with an M6 (standard finder). Judging from the survery which circulated here last week, many LUGers agree.