Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/12/06

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] 35/1.4 PRE-ASPH vs 35/2 PRE-ASPH
From: ISILVERMN@aol.com
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 21:36:39 EST

Jem Kime wrote:

> Dante,
> As many of us have said, the early 35 Summilux is such a wonderful lens but
> it has a different set of criteria to the present (asph) version. Don't try
> the newspaper on the wall test as you'll think its poor, it's curved field
> makes such a test worthless, but if you want the closest bokeh (look) to a
> Noctilux at F1 then this, I think, is as close as it gets.
> Lovely for dark clubs and pubs, etc.
> The curved field comes toward you at the corners which can be handy when
> placing foreground interest near you. Unlike the lens fitted to the Olympus
> Pen W (Wide) which worked in the opposite way, I'd photographed a sequence
> of posts some eighteen inches away yet at the top corners I could count the
> bricks on houses that were 400 yds distant!
>
> regards,
> Jem

Interesting perspective, this.

I bought my first Leica, an M4, when I was working my way through college as 
a camera salesman. I placed an order for the camera with the 35 f/1.4 
Summilux.  A few weeks later, I received a phone call at my college dorm from 
a Leitz representative who wanted to discuss my choice of lens, as he had 
correctly assumed that the Summilux would be used as a "normal" lens.  In 
his, and Leitz' opinion, unless I really needed the speed and could accept 
the particular (curved field} characteristics of the Summilux, I would be 
much happier with the f/2 'cron.  I took his advice and never regretted the 
decision.

VBR,

Ira Silverman