Re: [Leica] 35 1.4 vs 35 2 ASPH was Summicron 2/35 pre-asph answers

[Jeff Alford <jalford1@pacbell.net>]

Jim,

Might I recommend that you check out Erwin Puts' web site at

 http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/leicahome.html

and that should answer your questions about the differences about these two
fine lenses. By the way, the black Summilux is actually 5 grams lighter than
the black Summicron ASPH.

> From: Jlaird@aol.com
> Reply-To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2000 22:49:33 -0400 (EDT)
> To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> Subject: Re: [Leica] 35 1.4 vs 35 2 ASPH was Summicron 2/35 pre-asph answers
> 
> In a message dated 06/02/2000 7:51:36 PM Central Daylight Time,
> deadman@jukebox.demon.co.uk writes:
> 
>> on 3/6/00 12:18 am, Jlaird@aol.com at Jlaird@aol.com wrote:
>> 
>>> On this subject (I hope) what are the relative merits of the 35 'cron 1.4
>>> ASPH over the 35 2 ASPH, besides the obvious one of one more stop. I've
>> seen
>>> nothing but praise on LUG for the 1.4 and I'm planning to buy a 35 soon.
>> 
>> Again I can't speak from experience with the 35/2 but the 35/1.4 is what
> you
>> might call a 'freeing' lens in the sense that you can shoot it as open as
>> you like and it just delivers impeccable images... sharp from corner to
>> corner, but more than that... lovely smooth tonality that you would expect
>> from Leica glass, amazing resistance to flare (shoot happily into the light
>> wide open... not many lenses can do that) and to top it all, a really nice
>> bokeh, not the 'glow' of the pre-asph lens, which is undoubtedly a function
>> of its 'faults', can't <snip>
> 
> But does the 35 2 ASPH have these same good virtues? I know the shallow dof
> of the 1.4 does have advantages, but is that worth $1000?? Question is...is
> the 35 2 just as good as the 1.4 OTHER than the extra stop? If so, then all I
> have to decide is if the extra speed (and weight) is worth it. Or am I
> missing something?
> 
> Jim