Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/04/17

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

Subject: [Leica] Re: LUG Digest, Vol 27, Issue 103
From: pklein at (Peter Klein)
Date: Sat Apr 17 15:54:19 2004

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.


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.