RE: [Leica] 35/2 ASPH vs. 35/1.4 ASPH

["bdcolen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net>]

Right, Henry - Robert Capa, W. Eugene Smith, Larry Burrows, Henri Huet, Gilles Peres, Philip Jones-Griffiths, Eugene Richards, Susan Meiselas,and Sabastio Salgado - just to name a few photojournalists, are "technocrats." And people who shoot rocks in their backyards are "artists."

ROFLOL!

- -----Original Message-----
From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us] On Behalf Of Henry Ting
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 4:02 PM
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: RE: [Leica] 35/2 ASPH vs. 35/1.4 ASPH


Thanks Tom.
Your comment on the 35mm Cron is right on. I have both
the ASPH and the previous version and indeed, the ASPH
is a lens for the technocrats and the pre-ASPH more of
an artist's lens. 

- --- TTAbrahams@aol.com wrote:
> I have had the 35/1,2 for two months now and I have
> shot about 60-70 rolls of black/white with it
> (Tri-X, Acros, Delta 100 and 400 and Tech Pan). I
> also have the 35/1,4 Asph (2nd generation), the 35/2
> Asph. and the classic 35/2 and 35/1,4. The weather
> has been co-operating here in the North-West so I
> have shot in March gloom, in April sunshine and a
> variety of shots indoors. I have also been doing a
> test of a developer that supposedly gives very sharp
> and smooth contrast results so the reason for
> testing 35’s was valid (at least in my mind).
> At the moment my take on the various lenses is as
> follows:
> 
> 35/1,2 Voigtlander Aspheric: As sharp as the 35/1,4
> Aspheric is at 1,4 at 1,2. You gain ½ stop with
> this lens, something that can be critical in
> low-light. Contrast is lower wide open than the
> 35/1,4 but goes up by f2/2,8 and stays even all the
> way to f22. It is a heavy lens (450 grams) but with
> the classic style knurling and large diameter barrel
> it is surprisingly comfortable to hold (if not to
> carry). Extremely resistant to flare, which is
> critical for low light lenses as you more often than
> not shoot in dim interiors with bright spotlights in
> the picture area. It is a special purpose lens, just
> like the Noctilux or Summilux 75, but when you need
> it, there is no substitute. Dramatic drop-off on the sharpness plane 
> at 1,2. It makes the subject “pop” and the back-ground goes 
> “fuzzy” very quickly. Bokeh is quite smooth, but typical for
> Japanese lenses.
> 
> 35/1,4 Leica Aspheric: Used to be the bench mark
> lens for fast 35’s. I have had mine since it was
> announced long time ago. Very sharp and contrasty,
> but not very well corrected for flare. Mine went
> back to Solms for a rebuild in 1998 after it started
> to flare badly enough to be useless. I never got an explanation what 
> had happened, but after 6 month it was back in my hands and has 
> behaved well ever since. Still you have to watch for strong lights at
> the edges. Wide-open performance is very good, sharp
> and contrasty, but that also means some burning and
> dodging when printing black/white as the contrast is
> almost too high. Less dramatic drop-off of sharpness
> than the 35/1,2 and a fairly unpleasant “Bokeh”.
> It almost looks like digital pixilation and lacks
> smoothness. The 35/1,4 Asph. weighs less than the
> 35/1,2, but not by much and it is a bit smaller.
> However, it does have a focusing tab which makes it
> quick to focus. I am not sure that the benefits of
> the 35/1,2 outweigh!
> s those of the 35/1,4 Asph. if you already have the
> 1.4 lens, but if you are in the market for an
> ultra-fast 35 I would look at 35/1,2.
> 
> 35/2 Aspheric: This is a strange lens. It is very
> sharp and contrasty, but it has a very unpleasant “texture” to the 
> image. “Bokeh” is strongly “pixilated” and very edgy. It is 
> also a heavy lens compared to the old 35/2 and it feels clumsy.
> It has a very high sharpness wide-open, probably as
> good as any other 35 lens. Not very sensitive to
> flare and contrast is “printable” although high.
> Noticeably sharper wide open than the old 35/2, but
> it lacks the smoothness in the image. I call it a
> “technical” lens the way it translates a 3D
> world into a flat plane.
> 
> 35/2 Classic: I have several versions of this lens
> (I do not trade or sell 35’s!) and it remains one
> of my favourite. Smooth quality and, in most cases,
> more than enough sharpness. Earlier 8 element lenses
> are more sensitive to flare, but they do have a “signature” that 
> modern lenses lack. The post 1980 version of this lens is probably my 
> favourite. Small, lightweight and consistent in performance. It
> is easy to pull a 16x20 from a Tri-X neg with this
> lens. The “Bokeh” is the epitome of smoothness;
> you go from a sharp plane to a creamy smoothness in
> a seamless transition. There are certain lenses in
> the Leica arsenal that are classics in my mind. The
> 21/3,4, the 50/2 DR, the 75/1,4 and above all the
> 35/2. The 35/1,4’s and the 35/1,2 are lenses for
> the time when the f2 is too slow.  The 35/2 Classic
> is the perfect “walk-about” lens on a M2 or a
> 0,58 M6/M7/MP.
> 
> 35/1,4 Old style. The first version with the OLLUX
> hood was not very good. Wide-open it exhibited Bokeh
> and sometimes only Bokeh! The 2nd generation of this
> lens is not a bad lens, It has a very smooth
> tonality and, although not super-sharp wide open, it
> is usable at f1,4. It is just about the same size as
> the 35/2 Classic and you do get a stop more speed
> out of it. It has one of the more interesting
> qualities when it comes to field of sharpness, it
> curves somewhat and that gives it a quality all its
> own. If you shoot wide-open and focus at 10 feet,
> the corners are sharp at 7-8 feet and the sharpness “curves” to 
> the center.
> 
> One of the unsung lenses in the Leica production is
> the 35/2,8 Summaron. If you don’t need the speed,
> this is a great lens. Remember that to get high
> speed performance in a lens something usually got to
> give (size, weight or mid f-stop performance). The
> 35/2,8 is as sharp as the other 35’s at f4 and 5,6
> and sometimes I suspect that they are sharper than
> the “faster” counterparts. They are also usually
> cheaper and in better condition than the used
> 35/2’s and 1,4’s as they most likely were bought
> by non-professionals and treated much more gently. I
> have a couple of these lenses and what always
> strikes me is the close-up performance (0,7 to 1,5
> meters), noticeably better than the 35/2’s or
> 1,4’s.
> 
> All of these statements are based on my own
> experience with these lenses; the results are based
> on my style of shooting, handheld and with
> black/white medium speed films (400 ASA). This said,
> I think that I could survive for a long time with a
> M2 and a 35/2 Classic and a bag full of Tri-X. It is
> amazing what you can coax out of a negative shot
> with this combination!
> Now I am going out to shoot a couple of rolls of
> Tech-Pan with a M2 and my old 35/1,4. The sun is
> beating down on the beach and life is good.
> Tom A
> 
> Tom Abrahamsson
> Vancouver, BC
> Canada
> www.rapidwinder.com
> --
> To unsubscribe, see
http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com
- --
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