Re: Questions from a re-newbie

[Thomas Pastorello <tmp@mailbox.syr.edu>]

   Dear Richard,
      My experience with the ASPH's versus the most recent of their
   traditionl counterparts leads me to confirm your impressions and
   wonder if Leica, by seemingly going over to a full ASPH line,
   is not giving up their one great advantage in high quality lens
   production:  That Leica look and feel.  I must admit that I'm a
   bit of a traditionalist in all things, but I can't ignore what I
   see in my images.
      The 35/1.4 Aspherical is a magnificient image maker in terms of
   sharpness, contrast, resolution and even flare control, but misses
   what I call the 3-D molding quality of the 35/1.4 non-Asph.  The
   out-of-focus parts of a narrow depth-of-field image taken with
   the non-Asph still has contrast and dimentionality.  With the Asph,
   it looks out-of-focus and flat (as with the Nikkors).  It seems to
   me that one uses Leica over Nikkor essentially for available light
   work; then why pay twice + more for a lens that simply mimics
   another high quality lens of lower expense?
      The new 24/2.8 ASPH has the same problem (and, in addition,
   has a flare problem).  Because of that I do not plan to buy the 21mm
   ASPH.  I love the look and feel of my late version 21.  My favorite
   lens, in terms of that special Leica quality, is my 35/2.0 Summicron
   non- Asph.  Obviously, I won't be trading it in for the 35/2.0 ASPH.
      This is just one non-expert user's opinion.

                         Tom Pastorello 

On Sat, 15 Nov 1997, Richard W. Hemingway wrote:

>  Art,
> 
>  
> >3) Though I've already ordered the f/2.0 35mm Asph what are your 
> >thoughts on
> >the two 35mm f/2 lenses?
>  
> I have owned both the 35/1.4 ASPH and the 35/2.0, but not the new ASPH
> 2.0. I presently own the 35/2.0 rather than the 1.4 ASPH because I like
> the images and look that it gives.  It is the main reason I have come
> back to Leica twice and now stay here.  Like a dope it seems that I have
> to do everything at least twice before I learn.
> 
> The 35/1.4 ASPH is a great lens with great correction, but, for some
> reason it has never excited me.  I don't know if the 35/2.0 ASPH is an
> improvement on the old 35/2.0 from an image standpoint.  I understand it
> may be some sharper (although the old 35/2.0 seems plenty sharp to me)
> and have a little more contrast.  I imagine it has less coma.
> 
> 
> Richard Hemingway
> Norman, OK
>