[Leica] Tale of the elusive 35/1.4 non ASPH......

[lambroving at worldnet.att.net (William G. Lamb, III)]

Frank,

I'll buy that. It's the reason I use the 35/f2 ASPH on the ,58 MP.
Makes a very compact package. I shoot mainly 200 & 400 ISO
color negative, mainly Royal Supra Professional, which has
staggeringly fine grain and sharpness, given the speed. If you
are stuck on 100 ISO, I can see your need for 1.4.

You must REALLY travel light! :-) When I travel abroad, I usually
take three M's with 28, 35 & 50 mounted and a 21, 90 and 50 f2.8,
and maybe 15 rolls of film, all in one Fogg b-major with an attached
xylophone pouch. This works, even when travelling in an open sports
car. Running out the door, I just grab the MP with the 35 in the pouch.

I've tried taking less, but I often miss something then, even if the 21
& 90 get very light use.

Agree with Buzz about switching films, BTW.

Good Shooting!

William

At 08:49 AM 12/02/2004 -0800, you wrote:
>William... probably all true.  But I do not want the weight of the 35/1.4
>ASPH.  Remember that I already own one and know how well it performs.  It is
>just too heavy for travel for me.
>
>I use TMAX 100 almost exclusively.  I am really not interested in another
>film.  I have used TMX 400 and TriX, when I knew I was going to shoot a lot
>of dark scenes, but this is generally hard to plan for the traveller (
>rather than a pro).  Killing off a roll. to put in a different ASA film,
>causes the "loss" of 2 (partial) rolls.  When you are traveling with a
>limited amount of film, this too is unacceptable to me.
>
>It all goes back to what you need to accomplish your goal, knowing and
>living with some drawbacks.
>
>It ain't a perfect world.
>
>Note... for all those that argue the flare thing... there is a easy fix.
>Don't shoot with a light source in your picture with a flare intolerant
>lens.  Seems pretty straightforward.
>
>Frank Filippone
><mailto:red735i@earthlink.net>red735i@earthlink.net