Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/09/26
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]On the other hand, if your optimization function includes a kit which can be carried in one's pocket you can't beat the pre-aspheric. I own both and prefer the pre-aspheric because of its portability in addition to its wonderful image quality which I freely admit isn't up to the micro hoo-ha of the aspheric. It all depends upon what you, the individual photographer, wants in her or his gear. Buzz Hausner - -----Original Message----- From: Paul Chefurka [mailto:Paul_Chefurka@pmc-sierra.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2000 9:50 AM To: 'leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us' Subject: RE: [Leica] 35 Summicrons (was Re: Voigtlander Ultra-Wide - Helia r 12mm f/5.6 Aspherical) >From: Ogilvie, Simon [mailto:sogilvie@adaptivebroadband.com] >What it boils down to is this: > >Exactly how much "better" is the 35 Summicron ASPH >than the previous non-ASPH, and in what areas is >it considered "better"? IME, the ASPH is substantially sharper than the non-asph at 2.0, noticeably sharper at 2.8, and a bit sharper at 4.0. At 2.0 and 2.8 it maintains its center sharpness way out toward the corners, and has a higher macro-contrast at these apertures as well. I think it has less flare than the older lens, too. Erwin says it has less field curvature, but I've never noticed this - I'll take his word for it (I don't test lenses, I just use 'em). I think Erwin's report is accurate, but for my photographic tastes he understates the improvements in the ASPH. Paul