Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/11/17
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]PaulFeresten@aol.com wrote: > Could someone please tell me the difference in a normal vs aspherical > 35mmm > leica lens. I'm thinking of buying a 35mm 1.4 or 2.0 and am clueless. > > Thanks > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > Hi Paul, The asph. versions are the latest designs. They are already fully usable at full aperture and give very good sharpness and contrast. Some people say they also give less pleasant bokeh. If you want/need the highest quality at full aperture, asph is the way to go. The last (fourth i think) version of the non-asph summicron is also a very good lens. At full aperture this lens will be a bit less sharp and less contrasty than the asph. But if you stop down a few stops you won't see any difference with the asph. Bokeh however is supposed to be better. If I had to buy one now I'd go for the non-asph. The non-asph summilux however is quit an old design from the sixties. Stopped down it is a very nice lens, lots of bokeh, but at full aperture it is very soft. I have this lens myself and I use it as a summicron with full aperture only as an escape when it is really necessary. If I had to choose now I'd really would go for the asph. There is of course also the question of money. The asph are expensive and can hardly be found in cheap 'user' condition. The former models can be found for much less. Best regards, Michiel Fokkema