RE: [Leica] FS: 35 1.4 aspherical (1st ver)

[Austin Franklin <austin@darkroom.com>]

[Austin] When I get one, and if you think you could do the tests in one 
day, I'll send it to you... or you can writeup the test setup you want, and 
I can send you the exposed the film (if that even works)...


- ----------
From: 	Dan Cardish
Sent: 	Friday, February 18, 2000 6:33 PM
To: 	leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: 	RE: [Leica] FS:  35 1.4 aspherical  (1st ver)


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
>
>
>
>
>