Re: [Leica] 50mm lenses again

["Joe Stephenson" <joeleica@flash.net>]

Dear Maria,
I hardlythink it makes sense to talk about the "problems" of the Summicron.
I is a great lens by any measure. Light in weight, small, and among the very
best of all lenses optically. You will not regret its purchase. I have the
nonaspheric 35 mm and to me the two lenses are very comparable with repect
to how they render the world.
Sincerely,
Joe Stephenson

- -----Original Message-----
From: Maria Speroni <fuzzywuzzy123@hotmail.com>
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Date: Sunday, January 24, 1999 1:35 AM
Subject: [Leica] 50mm lenses again


>I'm trying to decide which 50mm M lens to get.  I've perused the LUG
>archives but I have an interesting (imho) twist to the dilemma that, as
>far as I know, has not been covered already.  As you might predict, I
>have been recommended the 50/2 as it's the sharpest 50 out there, but
>when one person said "in the same league as the 35/1.4 ASPH in every
>way", I hesitated.  The reason is that I have had two 35/1.4 ASPH, both
>sold because I ended up prefering the images from my 35/2 non-asph.
>While the images from the 35/1.4 ASPH were indeed very sharp, especially
>wide open, it lacked the "3-D" and pleasant out-of-focus rendition of my
>classic 35/2.
>
>My question is, does the 50/2 suffer from this "problem"?  I was
>investigating the 50/1.4 and found out that it has residual field
>curvature, probably of the same type as in the classic 35/2.  I wonder
>if this is why I prefer the classic 35/2, and if I should go for the
>50/1.4 based on this.  Or is this too simplistic?  Any opinions from
>people who have used both 50mm lenses?  I'll probably end up doing a
>side by side test myself but I thought I would pick some LUG-brains
>first ;)
>
>______________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>