Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/01/04
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 08:55 PM 1/2/97 -0000, you wrote: >Anyway, thanks to my newfound sense of economics I can now afford a 35/1,4 Summilux (not the aspherical), instead of the 35/2.0 Summicron. Any opinions about that would be equally welcome. I really need a 35mm lens. > Dear Claes, At the risk of starting up an old thread again, I will say the following: having had three of the old non-asph 35 1.4's of varying ages, the lens suffers from coma and flare as compared with the current 35 f2. (There's only been one optical design for the old Summilux, dating back to the '60s). It is also, in my opinion, a good deal less sharp at f2 than is the Summicron. It's OK at the middle apertures, but I think the F2 is a bit better, and anyway why buy the 1.4 to use at the middle apertures? There are those who think the 35 1.4's failings give it character--so there was a great article in, I think, Camera and Darkroom which showed a beautiful shot of India at night where the coma effect on torches was wonderful looking. But coma is still a failing by contemporary standards. Another thing to think about is the ease of handholding an M. I can have success most of the time with my 35 f2 at 1/15, and hit some at 1/8, which would be hard to do with an SLR. So the need for an f 1.4 is less desperate with the M! Of course the other answer is to win the lottery and get the ASPH! Good luck--Charlie Charles E. Love, Jr. CEL14@CORNELL.EDU