[Leica] LHSA convention cluster bombs Part One The Beginning.

[lambroving at worldnet.att.net (William G. Lamb, III)]

Mark,

They weren't my pictures, I didn't like what I saw and I ain't buying that 
lens.
Obviously this is a matter of taste. I'm glad that you like yours, but I'm 
far
from alone in my impressions about the 90 APO ASPH and you are
doubtless aware of this. I've seen some good pictures taken with the 90 APO
too. Problem is..., I use a 90 mainly for scenics on an M and own a 90/2.8-M
which works consistently. I've got an old 90/2 (Canada) which I can use for
portraits on an M or SL. Lets leave this one as a matter of taste.

What's with the ASPH thing? I'd have no a priori reservations about a 75 
ASPH.
My 28 ASPH is an absolute marvel. It has superhuman powers in the "light
management" department. I've ordered a 50 ASPH with the hope that it can
manage veiling glare in a similar fashion. Love the way those 28 ASPH
pictures look. I sometimes have reservations about the very high contrast
I get with my 35/2. ASPH though, but still prefer it to the Type IV. I would
probably be happier with a 35 Lux ASPH because I've seen sometimes
smoother results from this lens, but it's too big for my 35mm needs, and
if I want my viewfinder blocked, I'll just mount my 28! :-) Again a matter of
usage and taste. Certainly, your views are just as valid.

>Show me/us the scenic with the 90 APO ASPH in strong side light which are
>just awful as I've used the lens intensively and not gotten any other
>results beyond exquisite.
>I'd love to see it and have a feeling won't.  And I don't buy the anti ASPH
>mindset.

How do you conclude this? I just don't care for the character of the lens.
I wouldn't own a 100 APO R either because I much prefer the look of
the pictures from my 60/2.8, which is also damn sharp.

>Obviously a lens which was sharp in a crude or brittle way so it produced an
>unpleasant image would be a poorly designed lens and if the lens designers
>didn't see this they would not be good lens designers.

Suppose you could be right about this, although I always think of a 50mm
on an M as a short telephoto! :-)

>The 50 ASPH is not an APO because APO is an issue in normal photography for
>tele not normal lenses or wide lenses.

Yes, I believe I agree with you. Otherwise, I'd still be satisfied with my
1972 perfectly serviceable 50 Lux. :-)

>It's not the "AP0" which gets the criticism of the people who think anything
>after Leitz was not Leica.
>It's the "ASPH".
>Which I don't think they know from a hole in the ground.
>:)

So let's not get too wound up here, O.K.? I would LOVE to fill that 75mm
frame on two of my M's. If it's an ASPH, that could be very good. If it's
got APO correction, I'll be more inclined to wait and see some results
before springing for one. That's all...

William