Re: [Leica] 35/1.4 Summilux at f1.4

["Terence and Patricia" <terpat@magix.com.sg>]

Hello,

I agree with BOTH Dan and Bob. The 35/1.4 ASPH performs much better wide
open than the pre-ASPH 35 Summilux. The older lenses are indeed rather
'flarey' at f1.4 and f2, and perhaps it is how we use this characteristic to
add to a picture we want to make is probably what Dan is talking about. When
we don't want this effect wide open, just whip out the ASPH lens :-)

Incidentally, my own experience with the non-ASPH lens is that even wide
open, the 'flarey' look is less pronounced if the lens is focussed on a
close object, about 2-3 metres. Try it.


Also, Dan, I really like your latest Summaron 3.5 photo of the babe in the
infant warmer.

Best to all,
Terence
Singapore

Bob wrote :

>In a message dated 02/06/2000 5:35:37 AM Eastern Standard Time,
>dkhong@pacific.net.sg writes:
>
><< Contrary to popular belief, this lens is sharp enough at
> f1.4. It has the roundness associated with an older lens design and the
> pleasing "bokeh" found in this piece of optic.  >>
>
>   I fully appreciate what you are saying regarding aberrations and I
>especially like your photos.  However,"sharp enough" is a subjective
>statement. I have owned most of Leica's 35mm lenses, both M and R, and the
>ASPH Summilux - which I believe to be the best 35mm lens I have ever used
>regardless of manufacturer.
>
>   Contrary to your conclusion, I find the "glow" as you describe it to be
>objectionable - it reduces image definition and information, bleeds light
>into shadow areas where it does not belong and reduces overall contrast in
BW
>and the color saturation of slides and prints. For me, the glow of leica
>lenses has always been in the way that images seem to illuminate from
within,
>almost as if the subject has an internal energy which radiates
independently
>from the environment. I still find this kind of glow in the new lenses as
>well. In fact the 35, 1.4  images almost shockingly jump out at you. I
think
>this characteristic is a function of low flare which helps to produce high
>microcontrast and fine gradation.
>   Earlier lenses were pleasantly soft for the first one or two stops and
we
>learned to work creatively within the bounds of that fault. In short, many
>photographers learned to exploit the weakness of the lens. But that
weakness
>is truly just that if you need sharp, high contrast, well-saturated images
>taken wide open in difficult lighting situations.
>   I don't mean these comments to challenge your work nor your view of
>photographic image-making, but rather, to point out another perspective on
>what a good lens should do - and one which I happen to embrace.
>Bob Figlio