Re: 35mm M lenses

[D Khong <dkhong@pacific.net.sg>]

>Eric had mentioned:
>
>>The difference in price between the old lenses and the Summicron ASPH
>>aren't that much. I'd say bite the bullet and get the Summicron ASPH. You
>>won't regret it. It's very small.  And sounds like a real performer. You
>>might own this lens for the rest of your life. What's a couple extra
>>hundred bucks?
>
>I'm beginning to wonder if perhaps there may be a reason the older versions
>of the 35/2 command such high prices.  I am using a 2nd (six element) 35/2
>from about 1969.  I owned the 8 element 1st version previously.  I shoot B&W
>exclusively.  The rendering of the image by this (6 element) lens is
>unbelievable.  The saturation and gradation of the tones (irrespective of
>emulsion) is phenomenal.  Sharpness (aside from the corners at lagre to
>middlin apertures) compares favorably (even under an 8X loupe) to my
>Hasselblad images.  OTOH - Iused to own a late (sn 3.4 mil) Tele-Elmar 135mm
>and was very unhappy with its rendering on B&W.  I suspect coatings have
>some effect here.  But, before reaching for my checkbook to grab the latest
>and greatest, might want to investigate a bit more!
>
>Would love other comments/testiments on this subject of the influence of
>coatings on imaging quality. 
>
>Regards,
>
>Curt
>

I also own a 2nd ver. 6 element 35/2 and I am very very happy with its
performance.  The images are just great and the lens is unbelievably light
for travelling.  Since the ASPH came out there are quite a lot of the older
version out for grabs in the market.

Dan K.