Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/07/30
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I tried the following with a 35mm Summilux-M Aspherical and a 35mm Summilux-M non-ASPH (last version). I used them both on an M6, on tripod, to take the same subject matter pictures, both set at f1.4. In one case I used 3 statues lined up in a diagonal to the camera/film plane, i.e., at various distances: 3 feet, 4 1/2 feet and 6 feet. At first glance, the print from the aspherical looked superior. It had snap (more dramatic contrast). After savoring the prints, I came to clearly prefer the non-asph. Why? Please forgive my use of the word, but the non-asph had better bokeh. The out of focus areas (the 2nd and 3rd statues) had a soft, clear 3-dimensional molding to them. The same out of focus areas in the asph print looked terrible. Not only harsh looking -- the images actually broke up (typical of Nikkor lenses). The third statue actually had a double outline. In terms of the total images, the non-asph consistently beat the asph for every type of subject matter. My own conclusion and decision has been to not use asphs. I enjoy the last version of the 90 Summicron, 28 and 21 Elmarits, etc. They have better bokeh and do not flare. My 24 asph flared so badly, I traded it in. When I want more snap as well a good bokeh from my non-asph Summilux 35 at f1.4, I simply scan the images and elevate contrast in Adobe. Beyond f1.4, the images already have excellent contrast. For what it's worth or not worth, I share these subjectively objective experiments with you. Tom __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better http://health.yahoo.com - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html