Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/12/06

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

Subject: Re: [Leica] 35/1.4 PRE-ASPH vs 35/2 PRE-ASPH
From: Dante A Stella <dante@umich.edu>
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 08:00:35 -0500
References: <01C05F6C.EE731500.jem.kime@cwcom.net>

Maybe I can get them to loan it to me to explore this.  Sounds interesting...

Jem Kime wrote:

> Dante,
> As many of us have said, the early 35 Summilux is such a wonderful lens but
> it has a different set of criteria to the present (asph) version. Don't try
> the newspaper on the wall test as you'll think its poor, it's curved field
> makes such a test worthless, but if you want the closest bokeh (look) to a
> Noctilux at F1 then this, I think, is as close as it gets.
> Lovely for dark clubs and pubs, etc.
> The curved field comes toward you at the corners which can be handy when
> placing foreground interest near you. Unlike the lens fitted to the Olympus
> Pen W (Wide) which worked in the opposite way, I'd photographed a sequence
> of posts some eighteen inches away yet at the top corners I could count the
> bricks on houses that were 400 yds distant!
>
> regards,
> Jem
> -----Original Message-----
> From:   Dante A Stella [SMTP:dante@umich.edu]
>
> Has anyone done a comparison?  How bad is the 35/1.4 pre-aspherical
> version wide open?  I am thinking about getting some extra light but not
> as expensively as the 35/1.4 ASPH.  Erwin's comparative evaluations
> disappeared when he started the new site.
>
> Thanks
> Dante

In reply to: Message from Jem Kime <jem.kime@cwcom.net> (RE: [Leica] 35/1.4 PRE-ASPH vs 35/2 PRE-ASPH)