[Leica] 35mm normal vs asph or aspherical lens

[bdcolen at earthlink.net (B. D. Colen)]

I have to say that it was the first thing I noticed about the lens -
other than how damn cute it was - when I got mine. :-) And it was also
the thing that convinced me that I had to invest in the ASPH.

-----Original Message-----
From: lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org
[mailto:lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of
Michiel Fokkema
Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2004 4:12 PM
To: Leica Users Group
Subject: Re: [Leica] 35mm normal vs asph or aspherical lens


B. D. Colen wrote:
> I understand the arguments in favor of the late versions of the 35 
> Summicron - IF you don't need the extra stop. The Summicron is a 
> lovely lens. I do not, however, understand the love affair with the 
> original 35 Summilux. Yes, it is wonderfully compact. But it is a 
> grossly inferior lens in terms of both "sharpness" and flare 
> suppression. People can talk about bokeh all they want, but it you 
> lose your subject to flare - which is a pretty common problem with 
> that lens, who cares how glorious the bokeh is. The ASPH version of 
> that lens is bigger and heavier - although not when compared to any 
> other manufacturer's 35 1.4 ;-) - but it is tack sharp and virtually 
> flare free, to the point that some people on this list insist that 
> they regularly use it without a shade. The differences between the 
> original 35 Summilux and the ASPH version are differences - big 
> differences - of functionality. The differences between the late 35 
> Summicrons and the ASPH Summicrons are more differences of taste.
> 

I agree with you on the sharpnes, but I never noticed excessive flare in

my 35 summilux non-asph. But as I said in another mail, if I have to 
choose now I surely would go for the asph, based on the better
sharpness.

Best regards,

Michiel Fokkema
_______________________________________________
Leica Users Group.
See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information