Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/09/09
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Now to obtain a good example! take care... > I can't agree with a single thing you've said about this lens and its > use - BUT - I will say that you have worked this through in precisely > the right way, and have made the only sensible decision for you and the > way you shoot. > > Best > > B. D. > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us > [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us] On Behalf Of Steven > Blutter > Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 11:32 AM > To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us > Subject: Re: Why not consider a prime 35mm Summilux - [Leica] 35mm 2.0 > ASPH question (M mount) > > > I did: > 1. cost - $1000+ for 1 stop I believe is excessive > 2. why and how often would one (or me in specific) shoot a 35 @f1.4? > 2.0 is plenty fast for me. If I were shooting something that required > the extra stop - I can always either brace myself or use a support, like > a tripod. I also can't think of an instance that I would need a narrow > depth of field in a wide lens, though the idea is intriguing. It > wouldn't be all that narrow anyway. 3. 39mm filter size - I shoot a lot > of black & white (yellow & orange) and for color I use both polarizers > (reg. & circular) and don't want to rebuy all that stuff. and lens > caps, shades, etc. 4. I'm not sure, but I assume the non-asph 2.0 (gen > IV) is lighter than a 1.4. I'll have the thing around my neck all day > sometimes - plus the compactness... > > Sometimes more expensive is better - sometimes not - depending on use. > > Thanks for asking > Steven > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Charles E Cason Jr" <cec@vbe.com> > To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> > Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 9:42 AM > Subject: RE: [Leica] 35mm 2.0 ASPH question (M mount) > > > > Steve: ? There is a > > lot to be said for this lens. > > > > The Rev Canon Charles E Cason Jr > > 1805 Arlington Drive > > Oshkosh, WI 54904 > > > > mailto:cec@vbe.com > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us > > [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of Steven > > Blutter > > Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 6:54 AM > > To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us > > Subject: Re: [Leica] 35mm 2.0 ASPH question (M mount) > > > > I agree - and that's what I'm in the market for (2.0, black, > > Wetzlar) > > Do you know where I might look? > > Thanks > > Steven > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Dennis Painter" <dennis@hale-pohaku.com> > > To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> > > Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 12:42 AM > > Subject: Re: [Leica] 35mm 2.0 ASPH question (M mount) > > > > > > > No link at the bottom of the page. > > > > > > Erwin (for whatever it is worth to the reader), said: > > > > > > "...distortion is not visible" > > > > > > That is wrt the Summicron-M (IV) introduced 1979 (the > > pre-ASPH) > > > > > > And for your current lens, said: > > > > > > "Distortion is negligible." > > > > > > The Summicron (I) introduced 1958 > > > > > > ASPHs > > > > > > f/2.0 "...distortion is only visible at the far out > > zones." > > > > > > f/1.4 "...distortion is visible." > > > > > > Sounds like for your low distortion needs the (IV) version > > would be > > better. > > > > > > Dennis > > > > > > Steven Blutter wrote: > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > I'm in the market for the newest version IF I can be > > assured that there > > is > > > > less distortion than my current one: > > > > http://www.sblutter.com/35mm_summi.htm Its an older > > version with mount > > for > > > > M3 google eyes and I haven't upgraded to ASPH yet. > > > > > > > > (and please take a peek at my new Ireland pics - link at > > bottom, all > > shot > > > > with an old 50 summi collapsable on a 0.85 M6) > > > > > > > > Any comments? > > > > Thanks - new returnee to list > > > > Steven > > > > > > > > I should probably run a roll 1/2 & 1/2 and the store... > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > To unsubscribe, see > > http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html > > > > > > > > > -- > > To unsubscribe, see > > http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html > > > > -- > > To unsubscribe, see > > http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html > > > > > -- > To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html > > -- > To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html > - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html