RE: [Leica] First Images from the 35/1.4 ASPH and the 50/1.4

["Rodgers, David" <david.rodgers@xo.com>]

Frank,

The 50 seems much longer than the 35. That's the big difference in my mind.
Seems the 50 is a tele and the 35 is a WA.

They both perform extremely well across the board. I imagine that under
close inspection the 35/1.4 ASPH is a better performer. But in practice I
don't see that one performs noticably better than the other. They're both
excellent. When I bought the 35 I half expected it to "wow" me. It does at
times. But then so does the 50. 

There are some small differences I've come to appreciate. The older 50 seems
like it's more solidly built. I bumped my 35/1.4 just after I bought it. The
focusing felt a little sticky after that happened. I sent it to Sherry and
she fixed it (feels smoother than new, actually). I think one of the
helicoids got knocked slightly out of round. It wasn't a severe bump. In
fact, fhe lens still appeared to be in like new condition. The fact that it
damaged the lens really shocked me. But it didn't cost much to fix. The 50
has taken much harder lumps, without any problem. It's also a 12-year old
lens, whereas the 35 is less than one-year old. 

I like the reversing metal lens hood on the 50, vs the weak plastic hood on
the 35. The focusing throw on the 50 is longer than the 35. That means
focusing takes longer. But that could also be a function of the longer focal
length. At f1.4, in closer than 10 feet, focusing can get pretty touchy; as
in there's not much room for error. The 50 is even less forgiving that the
35.  

I find the focusing tab on the 35 very useful. I wish my 50 had one. With
the tab straight down on the 35 I know where the focus point is even before
I put the camera to my eye. Even at f1.4 I'm about 95 percent accurate using
a distance guestimate. It's much faster than using the rangefinder to focus
precisely. Thus, the 35 is a better lens for candids.    OTOH, the 50 is
better portrait lens in situations where I have time to focus. Neither lens
focuses under a meter. That's hardly ever been an issue for me, but I know
it is for some people. 

One last thing. The 50/1.4 was less than half the cost of the 35/1.4 ASPH.
Thus, I bought a 50 Summilux long before I bought a 35/1.4 ASPH. After I got
the 35 I used it almost exclusively. But now I'm back to using both lenses
about equally. Part of that is due to the fact that I now have complete
filter sets for both lenses. The 35 is 46mm. The 50 is 43mm. I almost sold
the 50 after I bought the 35, but I'm really glad today that I held onto it.
Hard to say today which one I prefer. 

BTW, I (almost) never use anything longer than a 50 on my M. 

Dave