RE: [Leica] 35 Summicrons

[Paul Chefurka <Paul_Chefurka@pmc-sierra.com>]

No doubt, no doubt.  But our esteemed friend Simon was looking for ways to
justify his purchase of the ASPH.  Having the pre-asph come out "better" by
any measure doesn't help him rationalize his actions, does it?

Paul

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Buzz Hausner [mailto:Buzz@marianmanor.org]
>Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2000 10:35 AM
>To: 'leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us'
>Subject: RE: [Leica] 35 Summicrons
>
>
>On the other hand, if your optimization function includes a 
>kit which can be
>carried in one's pocket you can't beat the pre-aspheric.  I 
>own both and
>prefer the pre-aspheric because of its portability in addition to its
>wonderful image quality which I freely admit isn't up to the 
>micro hoo-ha of
>the aspheric.  It all depends upon what you, the individual 
>photographer,
>wants in her or his gear.
>
>	Buzz Hausner
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Paul Chefurka [mailto:Paul_Chefurka@pmc-sierra.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2000 9:50 AM
>To: 'leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us'
>Subject: RE: [Leica] 35 Summicrons (was Re: Voigtlander Ultra-Wide -
>Helia r 12mm f/5.6 Aspherical)
>
>
>>From: Ogilvie, Simon [mailto:sogilvie@adaptivebroadband.com]
>
>>What it boils down to is this:
>>
>>Exactly how much "better" is the 35 Summicron ASPH
>>than the previous non-ASPH, and in what areas is
>>it considered "better"?
>
>IME, the ASPH is substantially sharper than the non-asph at 
>2.0, noticeably
>sharper at 2.8, and a bit sharper at 4.0.  At 2.0 and 2.8 it 
>maintains its
>center sharpness way out toward the corners, and has a higher 
>macro-contrast
>at these apertures as well.  I think it has less flare than 
>the older lens,
>too.  Erwin says it has less field curvature, but I've never 
>noticed this -
>I'll take his word for it (I don't test lenses, I just use 
>'em).  I think
>Erwin's report is accurate, but for my photographic tastes he 
>understates
>the improvements in the ASPH.
>
>Paul
>