Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/09/26

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

Subject: RE: [Leica] 35 Summicrons
From: Buzz Hausner <Buzz@marianmanor.org>
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 10:34:59 -0400

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