Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/09/26
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Paul Chefurka wrote: > > >From: Ogilvie, Simon [mailto:sogilvie@adaptivebroadband.com] > > >What it boils down to is this: > > > >Exactly how much "better" is the 35 Summicron ASPH > >than the previous non-ASPH, and in what areas is > >it considered "better"? > > IME, the ASPH is substantially sharper than the non-asph at 2.0, noticeably > sharper at 2.8, and a bit sharper at 4.0. At 2.0 and 2.8 it maintains its > center sharpness way out toward the corners, and has a higher macro-contrast > at these apertures as well. I think it has less flare than the older lens, > too. Erwin says it has less field curvature, but I've never noticed this - > I'll take his word for it (I don't test lenses, I just use 'em). I think > Erwin's report is accurate, but for my photographic tastes he understates > the improvements in the ASPH. > > Paul I recall Erwin waxing ecstatically about the field curvature flatness on the 35mm ASPH Summicron. But I'll admit to not being real sure as to what this means. It's not like flatness of field like on a macro lens… It's not like on a wide angle when things get round at the sides? or is it? I did go with the ASPH as I found Erwins report convincing and still do. But the ASPH does not in some ways replace it's predecessor. Instead of a super lightweight pancake almost type lens the ASPH is a heavyweight. I may at some point also pick up the pre non ASPH 35 Summicron because I take off all day with my camera walking; and seldom do i not stop down 2 or 3 when I shoot. mark rabiner