Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/06/02

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] 35 1.4 vs 35 2 ASPH was Summicron 2/35 pre-asph answers
From: Jlaird@aol.com
Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 00:48:48 EDT

In a message dated 06/02/2000 11:08:32 PM Central Daylight Time, 
jalford1@pacbell.net writes:

> Jim,
>  
>  Might I recommend that you check out Erwin Puts' web site at
>  
>   http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/leicahome.html
>  
>  and that should answer your questions about the differences about these two
>  fine lenses. By the way, the black Summilux is actually 5 grams lighter 
than
>  the black Summicron ASPH.

Thanks for your input, I appreciate it. I've read Erwin Puts analysis in 
depth, and I quote:

"Summicron-M ASPH 35mm and Summilux-M ASPH 35mm have a different fingerprint 
and therefore a diffferent audience and photographic capabilities. 
If you need F/1,4 there is no alternative. If F/2,0 is enough for you the 
flavour of Summicron-M ASPH 35mm and its price/volume are very attractive. In 
performance it and its sibling Summilux-M ASPH 35mm are in the same league."

So my question is...why does the Summilux seem to be so much more desirable 
that the Summicron...what is the difference between the 'fingerprint' and 
'audience' of the two lenses. Ok, maybe I'm nit picking. I wish I could try 
out both lenses on my own on a trial basis, but my dealer doesn't have a 
Summilux. Maybe I'll just have to flip a lot of coins. ;-)

Jim