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

[red735i at earthlink.net (Frank Filippone)]

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