Re: [Leica] 35 1.4 vs 35 2 ASPH was Summicron 2/35 pre-asph answers

[Jlaird@aol.com]

In a message dated 06/02/2000 7:51:36 PM Central Daylight Time, 
deadman@jukebox.demon.co.uk writes:

> on 3/6/00 12:18 am, Jlaird@aol.com at Jlaird@aol.com wrote:
>  
>  > On this subject (I hope) what are the relative merits of the 35 'cron 1.4
>  > ASPH over the 35 2 ASPH, besides the obvious one of one more stop. I've 
> seen
>  > nothing but praise on LUG for the 1.4 and I'm planning to buy a 35 soon.
>  
>  Again I can't speak from experience with the 35/2 but the 35/1.4 is what 
you
>  might call a 'freeing' lens in the sense that you can shoot it as open as
>  you like and it just delivers impeccable images... sharp from corner to
>  corner, but more than that... lovely smooth tonality that you would expect
>  from Leica glass, amazing resistance to flare (shoot happily into the light
>  wide open... not many lenses can do that) and to top it all, a really nice
>  bokeh, not the 'glow' of the pre-asph lens, which is undoubtedly a function
>  of its 'faults', can't <snip>

But does the 35 2 ASPH have these same good virtues? I know the shallow dof 
of the 1.4 does have advantages, but is that worth $1000?? Question is...is 
the 35 2 just as good as the 1.4 OTHER than the extra stop? If so, then all I 
have to decide is if the extra speed (and weight) is worth it. Or am I 
missing something?

Jim