Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1996/06/05
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 06:27 PM 6/4/96 -0400, you wrote: >camera"? Rubbish! I enjoy fine equipment and can afford it. I don't WANT >the 35mm Summicron because someone says that for *him* it's good enough, I >want the ASPH because the type of shooting that *I* do can likely be >enhanced by its use, and I wish to use the knowledge base of this group to >help me with that decision. The 35 Summicron M is a great lens. No doubt about it. But when I first used it I was a bit disappointed (and I had not anticipated I would have been). Why? Because I had been using the 35 Summilux R for 9 years, and it's that much better. It's visually crisper (with 100 speed film - heck with 400 TMY it shows it character). I wouldn't say it's higher resolution, but the edge contrast is one of the special qualities of the lens. Many who use the Noctilux and the 35 Summilux R say they are very similar in their optical properties (other than focal length, of course). And from all reports, there is a tad bit better performance from the ASPH over the Summilux R. So I say, go for it, though I would think the difference would truly be insignficant. It's just they work on different cameras. If I were to buy into the R system again, the 35 Summilux would be my first lens purchase. And the ASPH focuses as close as the Summicron, so that argument doesn't work on this question either. If you shoot at 1.7 and 1.4 a lot, it is definitely justified. ========================== Eric Welch Grants Pass Daily Courier