Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/05/05
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
Pascal <cyberdog@unicall.be> wrote:
>=20
> On the risk of hurting some other people's feelings, I must confess tha=
t
> the results of this lens do not appear to be significantly different fr=
om
> my Nikon SLR equipment (Nikkor 50 mm f/1.8, Micro-Nikkor 55 mm f/2.8,
> Zoom-Nikkor 28-50 mm f/3.5), and this with a variety of subjects (trave=
l
> pictures, available-light, night).
In the German "FotoMagazin" the 35 mm Summilux ASPH got the highest
rating of all lenses (9,8 out of 10). They state that the lens is
splendid ("hervorragend"), even wide open. On smaller openings, they say
that the lens becomes so good, that the image quality hardly can be
transfered to film.
I have used several samples of Nikkor 35/2 mm lenses (both the not
highly regarded Al and the better AF), and I think that the difference
should be compared on large openings. If you compare F/2,0 on your 50mm
Nikkor with F/2,0 on your Summilux, there should be a difference. You
have paid for performance on large openings, because when stopped down
most lenses are quite good (even a zoom lens...).
BTW, do we believe in lens tests? On the Nikon list, someone refered to
a recent Swedish test that stated that the new AF 24-120mm Nikon zoom
"did not reach professional standards". Some people got angry, and said
that they indeed were pro:s using this lens...
> Or am I simply missing a point? Maybe it's all in the mind and one MUST
> simply think that the Summilux is better because it is -after all- a L=
eica
> for which one has paid an arm and a leg?
=20
Well, there are Leica lenses that I don=B4t like. The earlier non-ASPH 35
mm Summilux was practically useless at F/1,4 in my opinion. And at F/2,0
and 2,8 the 35 mm Summicron performs better. But I think that the
Summilux-ASPH propably is the best 35 mm lens money can buy!=20
Regards, Hans