Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/11/18
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 7:37 AM -0500 11/18/99, FIGLIO4CAP@aol.com wrote: >In a message dated 11/18/1999 2:32:31 AM Eastern Standard Time, >henningw@archiphoto.com writes: > ><< I don't think the ASPH ever meant as much on any other lens as on the > 35/1.4 M. Also, ASPH is quite rare on the R line, not being an 'R' user >> >Is that because the pre-ASPH 1.4 had such a large amount of flare and >aberration at the wide apertures and such is not the case with the other >lenses? That's pretty much it. The differences in performance between the 21ASPH and older non-ASPH, between the 35/2ASPH and pre-ASPH and between the 90/2APO-ASPH and pre-ASPH are noticeable, but of a much smaller magnitude than the differences between the 35/1.4ASPH and pre-ASPH. The 35/1.4 just stood to gain the most. The older lens had huge coma, astigmatism and spherical aberration especially at full aperture which gave pictures a very distinctive and sometimes charming look. I had one for nearly 30 years, but when I saw the results from the ASPH, I didn't hesitate in trying to get one. Actually, due to the cost, I did hesitate long enough to enable the 2nd version to come out, and I'm glad I did. There isn't a lot of difference between the 2nd and the first (double aspheric) versions, but the second is both slightly better (in my trials) and cheaper. * Henning J. Wulff /|\ Wulff Photography & Design /###\ mailto:henningw@archiphoto.com |[ ]| http://www.archiphoto.com