Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/02/18
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Show me the beef! I own the first version aspherical. If someone would be so kind as to lend me the 2nd version ASPH lens, I will gladly make a comparison between them. Otherwise, I have seen no scientific test results (nor field studies) made of the first version aspherical, from Erwin or anyone else. So it is pretty tough to claim that one is better than the other. Theoretical coniderations about one versus two aspherical surfaces mean nothing. Show me the photographs (or MTF charts). Dan C. At 05:34 PM 18-02-00 -0500, Austin Franklin wrote: >And I quote: > >"The first Summilux 35mm ASPH possessed two aspheric surfaces, polished >with the normal technology available. It had 9 elements and had a limited >production run of 2000 lenses at a price in 1990/91 that made Leica lovers >faint. In 1994 The second version has been inroduced, now as a normal >production lens. Still 9 lenselements, but a different design (different >surface and different technique, pressed). pressing is cheaper than >polishing, but the change from two to one surface has been explained by >Zeiss, who maintain that two aspherics generate more problems than they >solve. Leica now seems to agree. > >So...either both Zeiss and Leica are lying, or the first version IS >optically inferior to the second version.... > > >Austin Franklin wrote: > >> Right, but they supposedly aren't as optically good as the second >version, > >This simply not true. > >Lucien > > > > >