Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/03/29

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

Subject: Re: [Leica] 35 asph Summicron
From: "B. D. Colen" <>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 10:20:25 -0500
References: <>

> on 3/28/01 8:28 PM, John M. Holcomb at wrote:
> > Point well taken!

Actually, somewhat foolish point, if I may say so..;-)

As JD points out below, each of the films mentioned has its draw
backs...and there are many situations where the extra stop saves the day
- - assuming you are a low-light shooter. 

Further, I use Tri-X almost exclusively, and prefer to just use a single
film when shooting. The difference between the f 2 and 1.4 may well be
the difference between rating the film at 400 or 800 or 1200 or
1600...And it may also be the difference between getting and not getting
the image.

But, hey, if you have no use for a 1.4, don't spend the extra money. But
the 35 SUmmilux ASPH, like the Summicron, is an amazingly good lens. You
don't compromise to get the extra stop...

B. D.

> >
> > But seriously, with films like Delta 3200, Provia 400, and Supra 800, how
> > useful is "the extra stop?"
> well, it all depends on how marginal the light is you generally shoot in. I
> use it all the time but others might not. D3200 isn't a real 3200, Supra 800
> is grainy as hell, provia 400 I haven't tried. But for my standard films
> like APX400 I'm glad of the stop. Which isn't for a moment to say the 35/2
> asph isn't a world beating lens.
> --
> John Brownlow

In reply to: Message from Johnny Deadman <> (Re: [Leica] 35 asph Summicron)