Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/11/07
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Henning, While in theory that may be the case, I'm not convinced that the LEICA pressed asphericals are the equal of the ground versions. In many pictures I've seen from Frank's lens the results are superior to my 35/2 ASPH. Particularly in bright sunlight the results are smoother and the colors don't become "blocked" in the higher contrast. My 28 ASPH has no bad manners that I've yet detected, but I'm never quite sure what I'm going to get with either of my 35/2 ASPH's. (In all other circumstances, my 35/2's perform just fine.) Maybe this is just a Leica "thing"? William At 07:49 AM 11/07/2004 -0800, you wrote: >At 9:28 AM -0500 11/7/04, William G. Lamb, III wrote: >>Frank, >> >>Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe several sources state that the 28 >>ASPH also has a ground aspherical element. It is currently my fave. That >>first 35 Lux ASPH is pretty rare, isn't it? Do you know how many were >>made? It might be a plus that the 50 ASPH now has a ground Aspherical >>surface. Wonder whether it's true. Irwin's initial review stated that the >>element is pressed. >> >>William > >For a user it doesn't matter in the least whether an aspheric element is >ground or pressed. The only thing that the user notices is that the price >generally is higher for a lens with ground elements.