Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/03/08
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]About the Summilux 35mm f/1.4 I concur. It is so good in near-darkenss it blows my mind. I have taken photos in places so dark I had to guess what was going on, and the pictures have come out looking like daylight. Consequently, I no longer dream of the Noctilux ... I can't imagine a situation which the Summilux cannot handle, especially with the wonderful modern films. Having said that, I am cheered to read that the prices of the "old" Summicron 35mm f/2 have become reasonable. I would really like to have a super-compact lens, and that would be worth the trade-off of the super-sharpness of the ASPH (right now I use an Elmar 50 f/2.8). A U S T I N . The Leica blog: http://www.suninsplendor.com/leica/ Sprezzatura: http://sprezzatura.editthispage.com/ Frank Filippone wrote: >This is a repeat of the answer I gave to another with the same issues..... > >Here's the tradeoffs..... > >There are 4 lenses involved.... The F1.4 NON-ASPH and the ASPH; The F2 >NON-ASPH and the ASPH. > >USED Costs..... from that auction place.....F1.4ASPH $1400-1600; F1.4 >$900-1100; F2ASPH $900-1100; F2 $550-750 > >Filter Size... I forget the details, but the weight and filter sizes are in >proportion.. the heaviest uses the biggest filters, the lightest, smaller >filters. > >Weight from Heaviest to lightest..... 1.4ASPH; 2ASPH; 1.4; 2 ( Figure the >F2 and 1.4 are almost the same weight. The ASPH versions are heavier, with >the 1.4 much heavier than the F2 "Classic") You could look these weights up >to be accurate.... > >Performance: The 2 ASPH lenses are incredible. Almost a match for each >other. The classic F2 is a great lens, the classic 1.4 is less than these. >Look in the archives for the "testing" I did to prove this to myself. > >OK.. confused yet? > >My precise ( ???) testing says the 1.4 classic lens is NOT as good wide open >or at F2 as the Classic F2 lens. Stopped down, I doubt there is little >difference... but I did not test this. The F2 is a really good lens. > >There is 1 issue I did not bring up.... the issue of lens clarity or haze. >Make sure that any lens you buy is CLEAR. I am not talking about little >spots of dust, but rather the haze from the lubricants that comes with >lenses made in the 60 and 70's... roughly the serial number range of 2M to >2.6M. Haze is possible to remove, but why bother when if you look a little >longer, you can find a clean lens...... Theses lenses are not >rare.....thgere are "millions" of them out there...... > >Here is the REAL difference...... If you want the best performance on the >planet, and to use the highest shutter speed you can, AND you shoot in dark >places, get the 1.4 ASPH. If you are dollar challenged, get the F2 Classic, >and never look back. If you want speed and light, the 1.4 classic is the >lens for you. If you want incredible optical quality, but want a little >less weight, and save a few bucks, get the F2ASPH. > >Bokeh... The ASPH lenses have basically none. They are technical lenses. >The 3rd generation classic Summicron has lots of Bokeh. So does the first >generation, but the price is higher, by a lot. the classic Lux does have >bokeh, but wide open, it is just not as sharp. If you want a really high >bokeh lens, get the classic Summicron. > >Frank Filippone >red735i@earthlink.net > > >I would like my "new" lens to have the smooth >bokeh of the Summicron. Does the ASPH share the >"look" or the non-ASPH Summicron? > >Does the Summilux (pre-ASPH) also have smooth >bokeh? Does sharpness suffer because of the >f/1.4 maximum aperture? > > >_______________________________________________ >Leica Users Group. >See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > >