[Leica] 35mm normal vs asph or aspherical lens

[michiel.fokkema at wanadoo.nl (Michiel Fokkema)]

B. D. Colen wrote:
> 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.
> 

I agree with you on the sharpnes, but I never noticed excessive flare in 
my 35 summilux non-asph. But as I said in another mail, if I have to 
choose now I surely would go for the asph, based on the better sharpness.

Best regards,

Michiel Fokkema