Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/06/05
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]No one has posted an answer to this so I will try to help. This usually prompts the more qualified people to chime in as I typically make a complete a** of myself :-). If you dig through the archives: http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/ you will find various opinions on both lenses, generally the 2.8 is considered better than the 3.5. The reason I say generally is that with lenses this old it is all to common for people to be using lenses that need cleaning. This is not always readily apparent and degrades the image significantly, or, as some would say, gives it that special Leica glow. If you do purchase one, budget for a CLA. Which lens? As always it is a trade off between available budget and needs. If you shoot low light, I would say a late, cosmetically trashed, but optically fine f2.0 Summicron would be the best. If you shoot 400 ASA C41 in daylight, then the 3.5 would do just as well as anything faster or more expensive. I hope this helps. Cheers, John Collier > From: "Tony Salce" <NadinaTony@bigpond.com> > > Is it worth the extra money to purchase the f2.8 as opposed to the 3.5 ? >