Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/11/18
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I understand the arguments in favor of the late versions of the 35 Summicron - IF you don't need the extra stop. The Summicron is a lovely lens. I do not, however, understand the love affair with the original 35 Summilux. Yes, it is wonderfully compact. But it is a grossly inferior lens in terms of both "sharpness" and flare suppression. People can talk about bokeh all they want, but it you lose your subject to flare - which is a pretty common problem with that lens, who cares how glorious the bokeh is. The ASPH version of that lens is bigger and heavier - although not when compared to any other manufacturer's 35 1.4 ;-) - but it is tack sharp and virtually flare free, to the point that some people on this list insist that they regularly use it without a shade. The differences between the original 35 Summilux and the ASPH version are differences - big differences - of functionality. The differences between the late 35 Summicrons and the ASPH Summicrons are more differences of taste. -----Original Message----- From: lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org [mailto:lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of Rick Dykstra Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2004 3:45 PM To: Leica Users Group Subject: Re: [Leica] 35mm normal vs asph or aspherical lens Hi Paul, I have the 34/1.4 Aspherical and no experience of the other 35s. I love my lens. It is sharp when wide open, though depth is very limited of course. But it is this f 1.4 slice through space that is so sharp compared with the foreground and background that is blown away that makes for such extraordinary photos, especially of people at distances of around 1.5 to 3 meters. This lens was also perfect at a wedding I shot where a thunderstorm rolled in and the light was sucked away. The sky was dramatic so we went ahead with some set piece planned shots outside with old cars and old petrol bowsers as the rain just started. I was shooting at 1/15th and at f1.4 and arranged the bridal party so they'd be in the narrow focal plane. I wasn't sure it would work, but it did, and it was this lens that made it. An f2 lens would not have worked - a shutter speed of 1/8th is just too slow, for my shaky hands and for subjects that can't stand still. And I needed every bit of sharpness I could get. The 1.4 Asph gets my vote. I'm fascinated by the stories of the beautiful bokeh of the old 35/2 and 35/1.4 and one day I'll get one or both, just to see. But I doubt I would dump my Aspherical lens after being seduced by bokeh. my 2 cents. Rick Dykstra. On 18/11/2004, at 4:14 AM, PaulFeresten@aol.com wrote: > Could someone please tell me the difference in a normal vs aspherical > 35mmm > leica lens. I'm thinking of buying a 35mm 1.4 or 2.0 and am clueless. > > Thanks > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > _______________________________________________ Leica Users Group. See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information