Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/07/24
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Peter, Ted has already answered your question very well. I will just add my personal experience. I was in a similar situation in late 98, except that I think my non-ASPH Summicron was the version before yours. I had an opportunity to get the ASPH at a great price. Better yet, I had the chance to borrow an ASPH and conduct my own tests. I took a series of pictures of a statue on Fuji Velvia, with the M6 mounted on a heavy tripod. Given this tripod and the subject, any possibility of movement was eliminated (the wind was not blowing and I was of course using a cable release). I went through all apertures with both lenses and later looked at the slides on a light table with a high-quality loupe. I could see a difference in resolution at f2 and a tiny difference at f2.8. >From f4 on I could not perceive any difference between the two lenses. I decided to go for the ASPH, partly because I felt like it (so much for rationality) and partly because I do shoot a lot wide open. So, my advice to you is to upgrade only if f2 is an aperture that you use a significant portion of the time. By the way, the ASPH is somewhat bigger, but I assume you already knew that. It is not an issue for me, but may be for you. Nathan Peter Zak wrote: > I've found a 35mm Summicron for sale - which has made me seriously think > about trading up from my last model non-ASPH 35mm Summicron. > > Is there any feedback on this move, bearing in mind that all comments are > biased to justify the $$ just spent. > > Are the ASPH's really that good ? > > Any suggestions welcome. > > Regards, > > Peter Zak. - -- Nathan Wajsman Herrliberg (ZH), Switzerland e-mail: wajsman@webshuttle.ch General photo site: http://belgiangator.tripod.com/ Belgium photo site: http://members.xoom.com/wajsman/ Motorcycle site: http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Downs/1704/