Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/09/09

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

Subject: Re: Why not consider a prime 35mm Summilux - [Leica] 35mm 2.0 ASPH question (M mount)
From: "Steven Blutter" <steven2244@ameritech.net>
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 10:32:29 -0500
References: <MABBJEOKKCAJBDGFGOHIAENHEJAA.cec@vbe.com>

I did:
1. cost - $1000+ for 1 stop I believe is excessive
2. why and how often would one (or me in specific) shoot a 35 @f1.4?  2.0 is
plenty fast for me.  If I were shooting something that required the extra
stop - I can always either brace myself or use a support, like a tripod.
I also can't think of an instance that I would need a narrow depth of field
in a wide lens, though the idea is intriguing.  It wouldn't be all that
narrow anyway.
3. 39mm filter size - I shoot a lot of black & white (yellow & orange) and
for color I use both polarizers (reg. & circular) and don't want to rebuy
all that stuff.  and lens caps, shades, etc.
4. I'm not sure, but I assume the non-asph 2.0 (gen IV) is lighter than a
1.4.  I'll have the thing around my neck all day sometimes - plus the
compactness...

Sometimes more expensive is better - sometimes not - depending on use.

Thanks for asking
Steven




- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Charles E Cason Jr" <cec@vbe.com>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 9:42 AM
Subject: RE: [Leica] 35mm 2.0 ASPH question (M mount)


> Steve:  ?   There is a
> lot to be said for this lens.
>
> The Rev Canon Charles E Cason Jr
> 1805 Arlington Drive
> Oshkosh, WI  54904
>
> mailto:cec@vbe.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of
> Steven Blutter
> Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 6:54 AM
> To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> Subject: Re: [Leica] 35mm 2.0 ASPH question (M mount)
>
> I agree - and that's what I'm in the market for (2.0, black,
> Wetzlar)
> Do you know where I might look?
> Thanks
> Steven
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dennis Painter" <dennis@hale-pohaku.com>
> To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 12:42 AM
> Subject: Re: [Leica] 35mm 2.0 ASPH question (M mount)
>
>
> > No link at the bottom of the page.
> >
> > Erwin (for whatever it is worth to the reader), said:
> >
> > "...distortion is not visible"
> >
> > That is wrt the Summicron-M (IV) introduced 1979 (the
> pre-ASPH)
> >
> > And for your current lens, said:
> >
> > "Distortion is negligible."
> >
> > The Summicron (I) introduced 1958
> >
> > ASPHs
> >
> > f/2.0 "...distortion is only visible at the far out
> zones."
> >
> > f/1.4 "...distortion is visible."
> >
> > Sounds like for your low distortion needs the (IV) version
> would be
> better.
> >
> > Dennis
> >
> > Steven Blutter wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > > I'm in the market for the newest version IF I can be
> assured that there
> is
> > > less distortion than my current one:
> > > http://www.sblutter.com/35mm_summi.htm Its an older
> version with mount
> for
> > > M3 google eyes and I haven't upgraded to ASPH yet.
> > >
> > > (and please take a peek at my new Ireland pics - link at
> bottom, all
> shot
> > > with an old 50 summi collapsable on a 0.85 M6)
> > >
> > > Any comments?
> > > Thanks - new returnee to list
> > > Steven
> > >
> > > I should probably run a roll 1/2 & 1/2 and the store...
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > To unsubscribe, see
> http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html
> >
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, see
> http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html
>


- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

In reply to: Message from "Charles E Cason Jr" <cec@vbe.com> (RE: [Leica] 35mm 2.0 ASPH question (M mount))