Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/04/30[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
2000-04-27-03:30:14 email@example.com: > At the moment, I am trying to decide between a 35 2.0 or 1.4. Other > than the obvious 1 stop difference, any differences between the two in > "look" or "feel" of the images produced? I'll assume you're referring to the brand-new ASPH flavors of each. I flat-out love the way the Summicron pictures look -- the Summicron ASPH seems to let out-of-focus areas have nearly the coherence of those from the pre-ASPH 35mm Summicron (which is also worth considering), and the Summicron is significantly less unwieldy -- both the lens itself and the hood strapped on front are bulkier. The Summilux ASPH sometimes renders out-of-focus areas in a kind of 'jangly' doubled way. Erwin's reviews (I hope I'm paraphrasing correctly, and I hope you've read them in full: http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/m/lenses/pages/l11879.html ) seem to imply as well that the Summicron is somewhat more consistent, from center all the way out into the corners. Having said all that, of my 35mm-lens use, I'd say that the Summilux gets about 90-95% and the Summicron the rest. It's just that handy to have the extra stop in reserve, and just how dramatically sharp whatever's in focus is at f/1.4 relative to everything else is just a visceral thing. A towering, landmark lens. So: no easy answer. Still depends mostly on how much time you spend in twilight or indoors.