Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/05/09
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]It depends how much of your shooting is done at f/2.8 and wider. If you want tack-sharp pics at 2.0 and 2.8, the ASPH is the way to go - it's visibly better at these apertures than the old lens. If you do most of your shooting at 4.0 or smaller, I'd say the lenses are about equal. All that aside, I traded up to the ASPH for the security of knowing that all faults in the photos are now unequivocally mine :-) This lens is as good as a 35 ever gets. Paul Chefurka >-----Original Message----- >From: Bill Satterfield [mailto:cwsat@cyberhighway.net] >Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2000 2:30 PM >To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us >Subject: [Leica] 35/2 vs 35/2 asph > > >I have the non- asph. Is the asph worth trading up to? Any differences >enough to justify the trade >