Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/12/01

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

Subject: [Leica] Tale of the elusive 35/1.4 non ASPH......
From: luisripoll at telefonica.net (Luis Ripoll)
Date: Wed Dec 1 16:45:32 2004

Hi Frank,

I've found very interesting and I've much appreciate your comments, because
I absolutely agree your opinion and just at the moment I've received your
email I was examinating the first test film I've made on another lens I've
recently purchased for the same reasons as those you have, is an old and
nice Summilux 50mm (Chr),  No. 1897xxx, and I was just thinking why I need a
very expensive and some more perfect lens?, for me, for my personal taste
and use, perfection is no necessary, just overall good quality as Leica
generally gives. I was really surprised with the quality of this 40 years
old Lux.

When I have purchased my 35 Summicron, it was just appeared on the marked
the ASPH one and the seller asks me if I prefer this one, when I've see that
the ASPH was bigger, heavier, and more expensive than my dreamiest
Summicron, I refused it, and I remain very, very satisfied with it.

Actually I ask me sometimes if I should do the same as you, because when you
need 1,4, really you need, and I suppose that this aperture could be very
comfortable with a 35mm,  it has more depth of field than a 50.

Saludos cordiales,
Luis

-----Mensaje original-----
De: lug-bounces+luisripoll=telefonica.net@leica-users.org
[mailto:lug-bounces+luisripoll=telefonica.net@leica-users.org]En nombre de
Frank Filippone
Enviado el: jueves, 02 de diciembre de 2004 1:03
Para: Leica-Users-Group
Asunto: [Leica] Tale of the elusive 35/1.4 non ASPH......

Some of you are aware that I have been on the hunt for a non-ASPH 35/1.4.
It is light, and fast.  My 2 parameters of importance.  I own a 35/2 Classic
non-ASPH, and a 35/1.4 ASPH.  The ASPH is pretty heavy, and the F2 is ,
well, F2.  I shoot in pretty low light and use TMX100 almost exclusively.
So what seemed most appropriate was a 35/2 non-ASPH.  And thus, the hunt
began.

I must have bid on 100 of these lenses on Ebay..... no luck.  Did I mention
that I had set a limit on the purchase price?  That knocked out about 99% of
the lenses  on Ebay, and the other 1% was knocked out when I read of lousy
feedback or no prior sales.  So I kept looking, and advising the LUG of my
desires.   One of our esteemed members responded.  His lens was a bit older
than I wanted, so for a while I continued the Ebay route.  Finally I gave
in, sent off an email and waited for the response.  Ned Learned was a real
gentleman.  He sent the lens to me without any funds sent to him!  Totally
on consignment!  I wanted to try the lens out, to see if it would excite
me..... or drive me nuts with poor optics.

I received my chromes today.  I "tested" the 50 Summilux, 35 ASPH Summilux
and 35/2 Summicron along with Ned's lens.  I have had the 35'Cron the
longest, and I know that lens pretty well.  So it was the "standard"  by
which the lenses were compared.  I use a tripod and a M6TTL which was set to
only 2 shutter speeds, 1/500 and 1/1000.  It makes things easy that way. The
lenses were all tested wide open.  Why?  Because if I am buying the lens for
use in dim light, I need to trust the dark room response.  That means F1.4
( and F2 for the Cron).

The 50 and the other 35's all performed about the same.  The lenses are all
well saturated color wise, and had really good detail in leaves and other
foliage.  Surprisingly to me, the 50 and the ASPH showed up pretty
identically.  The 35 Cron was a built below on saturation.  The 35/1.4 LUX
was the "weak link".  It showed less color saturation and less detail in
the leaves that the other lenses.  Probably if I stepped the lens down,
these differences would go away.  But I am not into testing lenses
endlessly. You must make your best shot and decide.  This pretty much agrees
with the general opinion on this lens, so my "testing" must be pretty close.
The 35/2 is sharper wide open.  The 35'Lux is an overall better performing
lens.

Why am I keeping a lens that does not perform as well as others I have?
Because it is F1.4 and it is light.  And I do not believe I could find a
better lens in as good condition.  Overall I use F1.4 pretty infrequently.
But when I need it, I need it, and I want to trust it.

Thanks Ned for allowing me to test and review the lens.  I hope I was not
too big a pain in the behind.  But owning lenses like this is tough.  You
hear so many stories, some true others not, that it is hard to judge for
yourself the reality of a lens.  This one is better than I am, so it is a
keeper.

 Hunt over.  Gotta go out and shoot.

Frank Filippone
red735i@earthlink.net


_______________________________________________
Leica Users Group.
See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information



In reply to: Message from red735i at earthlink.net (Frank Filippone) ([Leica] Tale of the elusive 35/1.4 non ASPH......)