Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/08/30
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
Dear Dan - At the risk of my sounding stupid, would you please
expain to me in simple terms what you mean by the "gross spher-
ically aberational look". I am not being facetious but after over
50 years of professional photography, I would like to know how
the aspherical results differ from the spherical.
As a photographer of the "old school" where "Leica Glow"
meant the emphasis on the out of focus part of the of the image
through the use of glass not as fully corrected as the Zeiss glass,
I cant understand how this minor correction of an already "state
of the art" lens could be visable unless compared side by side.
********************************Marvin Moss*********************************
In a message dated 97-08-30 09:42:20 EDT, you write:
<<
I have both the non asph and the 1st version aspherical. If you REALLY
like that gross spherically aberational look of the non asph 35 at 1.4,
then who am I to argue, but for me it rarely adds to a picture. I guess we
have different tastes. On the other hand, for ordinary shooting I love
that old lens. I still have it, in spite of the superiority of the newer
aspherical.
>>