Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/04/30
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Hello, Tom's comprehensive report was very helpful. While we are extensively on this subject, how about extending it a little with some third-party 35mm lenses like the Canon 35mm and the Nikon 35mm (of course in LTM). These cannot be compared directly as these are older but overall performance compared with the Leica 35mm will be helpful. I have heard that the Nikon and the Canon, f1.8 and f2 respectively, were excellent. I once used the Canon 35/2 but was not impressed as much as people claimed. Tom or anyone else has any experience to share? Thanks, David Lee Original Message: - ----------------- From: TTAbrahams@aol.com Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 15:24:51 -0400 To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us Subject: RE: [Leica] 35/2 ASPH vs. 35/1.4 ASPH I have had the 35/1,2 for two months now and I have shot about 60-70 rolls of black/white with it (Tri-X, Acros, Delta 100 and 400 and Tech Pan). I also have the 35/1,4 Asph (2nd generation), the 35/2 Asph. and the classic 35/2 and 35/1,4. The weather has been co-operating here in the North-West so I have shot in March gloom, in April sunshine and a variety of shots indoors. I have also been doing a test of a developer that supposedly gives very sharp and smooth contrast results so the reason for testing 35’s was valid (at least in my mind). At the moment my take on the various lenses is as follows: 35/1,2 Voigtlander Aspheric: As sharp as the 35/1,4 Aspheric is at 1,4 at 1,2. You gain ½ stop with this lens, something that can be critical in low-light. Contrast is lower wide open than the 35/1,4 but goes up by f2/2,8 and stays even all the way to f22. It is a heavy lens (450 grams) but with the classic style knurling and large diameter barrel it is surprisingly comfortable to hold (if not to carry). Extremely resistant to flare, which is critical for low light lenses as you more often than not shoot in dim interiors with bright spotlights in the picture area. It is a special purpose lens, just like the Noctilux or Summilux 75, but when you need it, there is no substitute. Dramatic drop-off on the sharpness plane at 1,2. It makes the subject “pop” and the back-ground goes “fuzzy” very quickly. Bokeh is quite smooth, but typical for Japanese lenses. 35/1,4 Leica Aspheric: Used to be the bench mark lens for fast 35’s. I have had mine since it was announced long time ago. Very sharp and contrasty, but not very well corrected for flare. Mine went back to Solms for a rebuild in 1998 after it started to flare badly enough to be useless. I never got an explanation what had happened, but after 6 month it was back in my hands and has behaved well ever since. Still you have to watch for strong lights at the edges. Wide-open performance is very good, sharp and contrasty, but that also means some burning and dodging when printing black/white as the contrast is almost too high. Less dramatic drop-off of sharpness than the 35/1,2 and a fairly unpleasant “Bokeh”. It almost looks like digital pixilation and lacks smoothness. The 35/1,4 Asph. weighs less than the 35/1,2, but not by much and it is a bit smaller. However, it does have a focusing tab which makes it quick to focus. I am not sure that the benefits of the 35/1,2 outweighs those of the 35/1,4 Asph. if you already have the 1.4 lens, but if you are in the market for an ultra-fast 35 I would look at 35/1,2. 35/2 Aspheric: This is a strange lens. It is very sharp and contrasty, but it has a very unpleasant “texture” to the image. “Bokeh” is strongly “pixilated” and very edgy. It is also a heavy lens compared to the old 35/2 and it feels clumsy. It has a very high sharpness wide-open, probably as good as any other 35 lens. Not very sensitive to flare and contrast is “printable” although high. Noticeably sharper wide open than the old 35/2, but it lacks the smoothness in the image. I call it a “technical” lens the way it translates a 3D world into a flat plane. 35/2 Classic: I have several versions of this lens (I do not trade or sell 35’s!) and it remains one of my favourite. Smooth quality and, in most cases, more than enough sharpness. Earlier 8 element lenses are more sensitive to flare, but they do have a “signature” that modern lenses lack. The post 1980 version of this lens is probably my favourite. Small, lightweight and consistent in performance. It is easy to pull a 16x20 from a Tri-X neg with this lens. The “Bokeh” is the epitome of smoothness; you go from a sharp plane to a creamy smoothness in a seamless transition. There are certain lenses in the Leica arsenal that are classics in my mind. The 21/3,4, the 50/2 DR, the 75/1,4 and above all the 35/2. The 35/1,4’s and the 35/1,2 are lenses for the time when the f2 is too slow. The 35/2 Classic is the perfect “walk-about” lens on a M2 or a 0,58 M6/M7/MP. 35/1,4 Old style. The first version with the OLLUX hood was not very good. Wide-open it exhibited Bokeh and sometimes only Bokeh! The 2nd generation of this lens is not a bad lens, It has a very smooth tonality and, although not super-sharp wide open, it is usable at f1,4. It is just about the same size as the 35/2 Classic and you do get a stop more speed out of it. It has one of the more interesting qualities when it comes to field of sharpness, it curves somewhat and that gives it a quality all its own. If you shoot wide-open and focus at 10 feet, the corners are sharp at 7-8 feet and the sharpness “curves” to the center. One of the unsung lenses in the Leica production is the 35/2,8 Summaron. If you don’t need the speed, this is a great lens. Remember that to get high speed performance in a lens something usually got to give (size, weight or mid f-stop performance). The 35/2,8 is as sharp as the other 35’s at f4 and 5,6 and sometimes I suspect that they are sharper than the “faster” counterparts. They are also usually cheaper and in better condition than the used 35/2’s and 1,4’s as they most likely were bought by non-professionals and treated much more gently. I have a couple of these lenses and what always strikes me is the close-up performance (0,7 to 1,5 meters), noticeably better than the 35/2’s or 1,4’s. All of these statements are based on my own experience with these lenses; the results are based on my style of shooting, handheld and with black/white medium speed films (400 ASA). This said, I think that I could survive for a long time with a M2 and a 35/2 Classic and a bag full of Tri-X. It is amazing what you can coax out of a negative shot with this combination! Now I am going out to shoot a couple of rolls of Tech-Pan with a M2 and my old 35/1,4. The sun is beating down on the beach and life is good. Tom A Tom Abrahamsson Vancouver, BC Canada www.rapidwinder.com - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html - -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html