Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/06/02
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]> on 6/1/01 11:46 AM, Steve LeHuray at icommag@toad.net wrote: > >> That looks a bit better to my eye. My questions is (because I only use B&W >> with the 35/1.4) is the 35/1.4 ASPH that much better than the pre-ASPH at >> wide-open? I had always thought the biggest failing of the pre-ASPH was >> flare from bright light while shooting at 1.4. Johnny Deadman replied: > massively better. night and day > > the pre-asph did indeed flare like mad but also wide open it was *extremely* > soft. Nice pictorially in some circumstances but just no rendition of fine > detail whatsoever wide open. Technically I think a combination of coma and > spherical aberrations, 'classic' but sometimes frustrating. > > Much softer in my experience than say the 50/1.4 wide open. hmmmm.....that is curious about the 35/1.4 being *extremely* soft. Early on with my weekly PAW I was going through an 'available darkness' phase and posted these three photos all with the 35/1.4 pre-asph and at 1.4. They are probably not up to ASPH standards but I did not think the results was to terrible. Would love more discussion on the 35/1.4. Please look: http://www.streetphoto.net/photo_of_the_week/wk4a.jpg http://www.streetphoto.net/photo_of_the_week/wk13.jpg http://www.streetphoto.net/photo_of_the_week/wk13a.jpg This last is the weakest of the three, but if the people had been wearing lighter clothing it may have made a difference. Also this was shot at 1/15th. sl