Re: [Leica] My cheap kit (I wish)

[ted grant <75501.3002@compuserve.com>]

someone wrote:

<<<Does anyone have an opinion about the last pre-aspherical 35mm Summilux
as well?  I have read that the max aperture (1.4) is only for backup due to
the presence of flare in adverse lighting conditions.  Is it usable?
>>>>>>>

I've had one for years and probably used it at 1.4 more than any other
aperture. I have no idea what is meant by:

 <<<the max aperture (1.4) is only for backup due to the presence of flare
in adverse lighting conditions.>>>>>

Adverse lighting conditions? Hell whom ever gave you that line surely was
all wet, simply because the adverse lighting conditions is why you  buy a
1.4 lens. As in any fast lens, if you buy it and don't use it at f.1 or 1.4
why spend the extra money for the speed. It is foolish to waste hard earned
dollars for a 1.4 lens and then never use it wide open.:) Besides my stuff
at 1.4 looks fine to me and has for many years and that's making prints up
to 16X20. so figure the flare thing.

Sure the aspherical lens is better, but is the price going to make that
major a difference in the quality of a photographers  pictures if he
doesn't use it at 1.4?  I'm sure that if you had the Summilux 35mm 1.4 non
aspherical you'd be as happy as a puppy with the results. 

Certainly if you were not looking at the identical image shot with and
without the aspherical version sitting alongside. 

Quite often we hear of these "advanced technology" lenses that cost a
zillion dollars, but unless you can unequivocally see with the naked eye an
immediate difference, then why spend great gobs of money?

Just an opinion. :)

ted