Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/03/14
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Dans un courrier daté du 14/03/00 18:59:24 Paris, Madrid, nickpaleo@geocities.com a écrit : << Basic question: Can anyone tell me the difference in image quality in practical shooting between new 2/35 asph and latest non-asph 2/35. I want to buy either, is it worth to spend extra money for asph, is it that different? Thank you. Nick P. >> Hey Nick , This is just what I've done 3 weeks ago: getting the Asph and dropping the non Asph . Decision was hard caus' the 35 / 2 no Asph was the lens I used the most . But I was on a Leica day in my area ( center of France ) and they offered good rebates on new stuff . After analizing my first slides shot with the Asph , I can tell you it is worth the change . I shot a pile of old grey wood at full aperture in the sun ( High speed though ) on Ektachrome 100 and the results are very very good , especialy on the sides . The definition is great everywhere . On the other hand , I think the non Asph 35 /2 ( latest non Asph ) has a too small diaph. ring . Hard to turn with my wide fingers when the shade is on . The diaph. ring on the Asph is bigger and easier to rotate . Regards Jo GOODTIMES