Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/03/15
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]The ASPH is so good that I wouldn't pay another $1500 for the letters "erical" to be added to the beauty ring. Almost identical optics, the sole big difference being one pressed vs. one ground element (or some such picayune issue). I just had a bit of T400CN done on a Frontier machine (all scanning and direct digital output to photo paper) of some shots I did last week with the ASPH and my Hexar. The (grainless) prints looked impossibly sharp; I took a 15x loupe to them and then scanned them at 50x - un-frigging-believable. I had been using the ASPH with really contrasty, grainy stuff like Neopan 1600, so I never fully grasped just how incredible a lens it is. On the "back focus" issue, I did shoot a bunch of frames with a skyline focused at infinity (real life: 1 mile), and believe you me, the window frames and even some of the wider stone seams (these are truly miniscule at that distance) were in focus at f/1.4, so whatever my latest Hexar is set to, it's correct. A lot of people piss on T400CN, but shot at 400 (um, it will shoulder at 200), it has great tonal range and no grain to speak of. It's like all the great things about TMY120 with none of the archival life. But really a big step up from any 400-speed conventional film. Dante On Saturday, March 15, 2003, at 06:02 PM, Dan C wrote: > I have the 1st version aspherical, and I actually use it (though I do > have > the box somewhere if I ever needed it). > > One way to tell the difference is that the 1st version has a knurled > focus > ring in addition to the focus tab, whereas I beleive that the ASPH > version > only has the tab. > > dan c. > > At 05:53 PM 15-03-03 -0500, Edward Caliguri wrote: >> He's right -- I have them both (the Aspherical sitting in it's >> Original box. >> not a useful ray of light has passed through it since it's a >> collector thing >> now. But if you WERE to look VERY hard for differences --- and you >> were are >> optical expert -- you MAY see more shadow detail IF ANY used wide >> open, in >> certain situations. In other words -- no difference -- unless you >> collect. >> Ed >> >>>> >>>> According to Erwin Puts: >>>> http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/overview/listm.html , there are >>>> two >>>> versions of the 35 Summilux Aspherical: 1992-1194 and "Current." Is >>>> the >>>> only way to tell the difference is by the serial #? How about >>>> performance? >>>> The 35 Summilux ASPH supposes to be amazing. Is it similar between >>>> these >>>> two versions, or are both so good that it doesn't matter? >>>> >>>> Thanks >>> - -- >>> To unsubscribe, see >>> http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html >> >> -- >> To unsubscribe, see >> http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html >> > -- > To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html > > ____________ Dante Stella http://www.dantestella.com - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html