Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/01/24
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Dear Mary and Stan, I think you would find it nearly impossible to distinguishthe photos from the two lenses. DIfferences, if any, would be seen at the largest f stops. According to Erwin and others with the capability of testing such small differences, the nonaspheric lens is the equal of the newer lenses once you stop down to about f4. I love my nonaspheric 35mm. It's wonderful, plus it's tiny and light. These are all wonderful lenses and the differences are slight. Sincerely, Joe Stephenson - -----Original Message----- From: Mary & Stan Kephart <kephartol@att.net> To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>; leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> Date: Sunday, January 24, 1999 8:43 PM Subject: [Leica] 35 Summicron--aspheric or non aspheric? > > >Friends, > >I'm thinking of trading in my Canadian Summicron 35 M for the new >non-aspheric one. Can anyone point out the difference "aspheric" would >make in the final neg or print? For instance, if I shot the same scene >with both lenses, say a landscape with buildings and trees, with both >lenses, how would the final picture differ from one another? >Does anyone have photos on the internet to illustrate the differences >between the two lenses? > >Thanks in advance, > >MK >