Re: [Leica] Re: Re: 35/1.4 ASPH vs Noct

[Dan Cardish <dcardish@microtec.net>]

IMHO, a 35 a much different look than a 50, regardless of aperture size.
It seems to me that you are comparing apples with oranges.

Dan C.

At 05:16 PM 05-03-00 -0800, drodgers@nextlink.com wrote:
>
>I neglected to add in my last message that I bought a  50/1.4 Summilux M
>as an interim step until I could afford to buy either a 35/1.4 ASPH and the
>Noct. I  found a used 50/1.4 Summilux for substantially less than the price
>of the other two lenses. In retrospect I must say that the 50/1.4 Summilux
>has performed admirably well. So well, in fact, it really took away my
>desire for the other two lenses.
>
>I guess this evaluation regarding the other two lenses resulted form recent
>case of "low-light-itis". But that I mean that I tasked myself with
>shooting at maximum aperture (not always really low light). I had only the
>50 Summilux, but again it performed extremely well. So the evaluation is
>really between three lenses, 50/1.4 Summilux, or the 35/1.4 ASPH and Noct.
>I really only have first hand experience with the 50/1.4, and in truth it's
>a lens I'd hate to be without.
>
>I'm concerned about the size of the Noctilux. One of the biggest draws of
>the Leica M is it's small size. I'm just not certain how much I'd use a
>lens that's three times the size of the 50/1.4 Summilux. (Even the
>Voigtlander 50/1.5 Nokton is bitter than the 50/1.4 Summilux).
>
>I have no concerns regarding the 35/1.4 ASPH. Except that I wonder how much
>better it might perform than my 50/1.4 Summilux. Has anyone used both and
>how do the two compare in practice?
>
>I just wish there was some way to try the other lenses before actually
>buying them.
>
>David
>
>
>