Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/04/17[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
I came to the same conclusion, Rei. I swallowed hard and got the 35 Summilux Asph a while back, and have no regrets whatsoever. But when I saw how good the 90 pre-Asph 'Cron was, I did a head-to-head comparison with a borrowed 90 AA using real things I often photograph. I also did some tripod testing of the various stops on distant subjects on Provia. The 90 AA was unbelievable at f/2, but once stopped down at all, the difference was not significant for the things I photograph. There was one added bonus. At f/2, the AA seems to have less depth of field than the pre-Asph. A graph of distance vs. the the sharpness of focus would probably be a very sharp peak with steep "skirts" for the AA. For the pre-Asph, it's more like a (pardon the expression) bell curve. This means that two people 20 feet away might both seem in acceptable focus with the pre-Asph, but one would look slightly out of focus with the AA. I think that if I end up doing a lot more stage and concert photography, I'll eventually get the 90 AA. Especially if they pay me. For now, the pre-Asph is just fine. --Peter At 09:09 AM 4/17/04 -0700, you wrote: >yes, i owned both the 35 lux and 90 cron in non asph versions >before i got the asph updates. 35 lux: BIG difference - (which >does not however subtract from the charm of the older 1961 version), >90 lux AA: much much smaller difference. i think the gen III version >(pre asph E55) of the 90 cron is a great value at about half the price >of the AA.