Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/11/18
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Sorry, let me rephrase What I meant to say was that the lenses, irrespective of their spherical/aspherical nature, are all beautiful my 35 is an ASPH. I love the shots from it, but the point, however badly put was....... I don't believe one should buy an ASPH lens because someone tells you it is better, art is subjective. I also don't believe that one should spend a prohibitive amount of money if in reality one can't afford it. Before the ASPH elements were used in Leitz lenses, the non APSH lens was not considered a bad lens that should instead have had an ASPH reconfiguration. And I honestly believe that the difference between the two is that they make pictures with light, both of which are very nice but are incredibly different in price. Honestly I could not advise a friend who was *interested* in buying a Leitz lens to spend over a US 1000 for something he/she may not end up using/enjoying. There are people out there who buy Leitz stuff and then don't like it. It just "aint for them". Yesterday I gave some friends their wedding photos, which I shot with my 50/f2 from '68. The tonal range is awesome, the pictures sharp, yet soft where they should be. They loved them. The lens cost 350 bucks. All I was tryng to state (albeit badly) was that Paul should buy something not TOO EXPENSIVE and see if he likes it. I can not honestly say the ASPH 35 is better than the NON ASPH (I have used my friends NON and I still loved the images). I wish people would stop asking "which one is better" there is no better, just different. So I apologise for offense if any was taken. John......You also can not deny that an increase in price for ASPH vs NON is justified.......considering you get less glass ;) Alex _________________________________________________________________ SEEK: Now with over 50,000 dream jobs! Click here: http://ninemsn.seek.com.au?hotmail