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

[Guy Bennett <guybnt@idt.net>]

>"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... [sniiiiiiiip]
>
>Jim


i would wager that the lux 'seems so much more desirable' because:

- - it's got the extra stop
- - it costs $1000 more

at least, that's what i felt when i was choosing a 35. in the end, i went
with the summicron because i just couldn't justify spending $1000 for the
extra stop! for the same reason, i opted for the summicron 50 over the
summilux (a silly thought, when you consider the $1000s i've blown on
various leica nic-nacs). in both cases, i couldn't be happier with my
decision.

to come back to the 35s, while i can't comment on the summilux, i can say
that the summicron is a fantastic lens: it gives crisp, eye-tingling images
at all stops. wide-open it's great; at 5.6 or 8 it's great; bokeh is
beautiful; and all that in a small package. my one complaint: this lens may
be *too* sharp. (i actually met a leica user who traded back to the
pre-asph version for this reason.)

i'll also say that i very frequently shoot in low light, and subsequently
use both the 35 and the 50 at 2.0 most of the time. maybe it's because i
never had the extra stop but quite honestly, i don't miss it. i'll shoot
handheld down to 1/15 - even 1/8 if i've had a drink - and never say to
myself, 'now if i only had that extra stop...' where i miss the extra
speed, is with the 24 and 90/2.8s.

guy