Re: 35mm lenses compared?

["O.J. Anshus" <otto@cs.uit.no>]

> From: asjordan@attmail.com (Andrew S Jordan)
> Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 20:58:17 +0000
> Subject: 35mm lenses compared?
>
<snip> 
> 
> I have done my own crude tests (courtesy of a loaner from a major dealer)
> between the 1.4 asph and standard Summilux  using Kodacolor 100 film. The 4x6
> prints are indistingushable except at ~f2.4 where the version 2 asph exhibits
> a more pleasing contrast on a child's face. Above f4 the difference between
> the two lenses is minute. At 10X magnification the negatives with the asph are
> slightly more contrasty, as seen by the improved definition of shingles and
> fine print in shadow areas. Whether this slight advantage is maintained in
> comparison with the current(7 element) Summicron I don't know but it is
> apparent with the previous(6 element) version.

About 2 years ago I swapped my 35 Summicron with the latest 35 Summilux
aspherical (1 aspherical surface). Before doing this I also tried 2
different Summicrons (black, and silver) and a titanium Summilux
non-aspherical, all of the latest versions. I probably got the first, or
at least one of the first, asphericals to hit Norway.

Some of the results I found were:

- -The aspherical lens had less vignetting than the other lenses.
- -The black Summicron had less vignetting than the "silver" Summicron.
- -The Summilux had slightly less vignetting at f2 than the Summicrons. 
- -The two Summicrons had quite a lot of coma (and about the same amount
of coma), while the asperical had very close to no coma at all. I don't
remember right now the result for the Summilux.
- -All lenses had ghosting when including strong light sources (the sun,
street lamps) in the picture.  
- -The difference in picture resolution between 1.4 and 2 is quite large
on the aspherical.

> All in all, the second version of the 35mm f1.4 aspheric won't get you to
> photographic Nirvana. Consequently, setting the steep price of the 35 asph
> aside, I and perhaps other LUGgers are currently undecided between the f1.4
> asph,f2 Summicron or the forthcoming f2 Summicron asph(if very low light
> performance is not a top priority). Mr. Puts and other experts can you help?

I will not discuss the more subjective impressions I had of color,
contrast, etc. when using the lenses, but having an M6 advertised by
Leica themselves as great for doing available light picture taking
implies using the lenses at 1.4 and 2 quite often. To me, the coma and
the vignetting of the non aspherical lenses did not feel to be
acceptable. And in practice, I take pictures for instance at lectures,
and indoors where the vignetting at f1.4 to f2.8 is quite significant in
the non aspherical lenses. 

I am very happy with the aspherical Summilux, and I would buy it again.

However, I am not happy at all with the sun shade. The one which came
with the lens keeps getting dislocated if I bump into it or lift the
lens by it (I still have the Leica literature bragging about the new
lens shade, and that the lens could be lifted securely by grabbing just
the sun shade. This was pure nonsense, and Leica has produced a
replacement sun shade). Therefore, I got the new lens shade with a
locking collar (I also had to pay alost $100 to finance Leicas failure
to produce a functional sun shade the first time). The new lens shade
has a big locking collar ending up close to the aperature ring when the
sun shade is mounted. It is big, ugly, and more importantly prevents you
from using the aperature ring easily. With gloves you can forget about
controlling the aperature securely. Why oh why didn't Leica just modify
the sun shade of the original aspherical 35 (with 2 aspherical surfaces)
instead of selling me two half done sun shade projects? 

> 
>                 Andrew Jordan
>                 Clark,NJ

Otto