[Leica] Re: 35/1.4 ASPH vs Noct

[drodgers@nextlink.com]

Three-years ago I targeted three lenses that I wanted to complete my M
system. They were the 21/2.8 ASPH, the 35/1.4 ASPH and the Noctilux. I felt
that these three lenses were unique to the M system. The 21 probably the
best ultra wide angle available in 35mm. The 35/1.4 may be the best in that
focal length as well. Similar lenses can be found in SLR's but they are
big, so these two lenses have a size advantage. Finally there's the
Noctilux, unique for it's maximum aperture.

I purchased the 21 ASPH right away (in fact, I traded a 21 SA M) and I've
never regretted the move. Now I'm struggling to decide on the next lens.
What has me perplexed is the fact that I have a 50/1.4 Summilux M and I use
it  a great deal, in fact more than any other M lens. It seems to be a good
mix of all the qualities I want. It's relatively small, but still
relatively fast. I'm certain the 35/1.4 ASPH would be noticably better at
maximum aperture. For me that's not a big deal in b/w, but I think it is
significant for chrome film; and lately I've been shooting more of the
latter.

I say that it's not important in b/w because I don't think many b/w films
outside of tech pan are good enough to show the difference between a 35/1.4
ASPH M and a 50/1.4 Summilux M. Perhaps the only film I shoot that might is
Delta 100, and then the difference is going to be marginal (read
insignificant for me). However, with films like the E100s or Provia I think
the difference is significant.

Regarding the Noctilux, yes I'd gain a stop but at a price. The Noct is a
much bigger lens and I doubt if I'd carry it with me at all times like I do
the 50 Summilux M.

Help me out here. Which lens does everyone think is the lens to get? A
35/1.4 ASPH or a Noctilux.

David