[Leica] 35mm normal vs asph or aspherical lens

[rdcb37 at dodo.com.au (Rick Dykstra)]

Hi Paul,

I have the 34/1.4 Aspherical and no experience of the other 35s.  I 
love my lens.  It is sharp when wide open, though depth is very limited 
of course.  But it is this f 1.4 slice through space that is so sharp 
compared with the foreground and background that is blown away that 
makes for such extraordinary photos, especially of people at distances 
of around 1.5 to 3 meters.

This lens was also perfect at a wedding I shot where a thunderstorm 
rolled in and the light was sucked away.  The sky was dramatic so we 
went ahead with some set piece planned shots outside with old cars and 
old petrol  bowsers as the rain just started.  I was shooting at 1/15th 
and at f1.4 and arranged the bridal party so they'd be in the narrow 
focal plane.  I wasn't sure it would work, but it did, and it was this 
lens that made it.  An f2 lens would not have worked - a shutter speed 
of 1/8th is just too slow, for my shaky hands and for subjects that 
can't stand still.  And I needed every bit of sharpness I could get.  
The 1.4 Asph gets my vote.

I'm fascinated by the stories of the beautiful bokeh of the old 35/2 
and 35/1.4 and one day I'll get one or both, just to see.  But I doubt 
I would dump my Aspherical lens after being seduced by bokeh.

my 2 cents.

Rick Dykstra.

  On 18/11/2004, at 4:14 AM, 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
>