" FLAW " in the summicron 35 F/2 asph ???

I own new 35 F/2 asph(current) and I search from old topic

 

and found somebody prefer 35 F/2 pre-asph more than 35 F/2 asph

 

What is the flow or weakness in the summicron 35 f/2 asph

 

BOKEH or Very High Contrast...........etc.

 

with your experience, Please critique the 35 F/2 asph

 

if The 35 f/2 pre-asph is better, I will buy it from second hand Shop

 

Thank You, and pardon for poor english............ :-)<div></div>

The only flaw in the 35 f/2 ASPH is that it's heavier than the previous versions, and a little larger.

 

IMHO it has 'bokeh' as good or better than the previous version at f/2.

 

It has slightly higher contrast than the previous version.

 

I own the previous version. I would not upgrade to the ASPH f/2 since it is heavier and only slightly sharper/contrastier, and I also have a f/1.4 ASPH for f/1.4-f/2 work when needed.

 

But if you already have the f/2 ASPH, the only reason to change is if you want a slightly smaller lens that is 40% lighter - 160g vs. 250g.

I've had both and kept the pre-Asph. The difference in weight and size is noticeable, performance isn't.

It's a flawless lens Kamol. Use it well.

No flaws Kamol.

However, these 2 lens have totally different signatures. Some prefer the old and some the new. It really depends on the individual.

It would not make much sense (unless you are overflowing with spare money) to go buy a different lens based on someone else's feeling about it. Are you not enjoying the quality of the lens you have now? If it is not giving you what you want, that is one thing, but if it is, keep it and use it.<P>

 

I have the last generation Summicron (pre-aspheric), and when the new lens came out, I was able to shoot some comparisons against my lens. For my use, the older lens was perfectly fine. If I had never had a Leica 35mm lens, I might very well had just gone with the current Summicron, and once I did, I would not second guess that choice. The old "grass is greener" thing can keep you forever experimenting versus shooting.<P>

 

But since you asked... this is a shot made with the pre-aspheric Summicron and an crop from the middle. It is as I said a fine lens for general photography.<P>

 

<center>

<img src="http://www.photo.net/photodb/image-display?photo_id=1163156&size=md">

</center><P><div></div>

Sorry, I posted the wrong image for the crop. Here it is.<div></div>

The summicron 35 F/2 has allways beem one of the best over all

lens in Leica land . I switced from a 1970's vesion 3 I think , to

the current asph and noticed a small improvement in sharpness

mostly in the corners .

 

A friend did real world test between version 3 , 4 ,and the curent

asph and basicly how I would decribe the differances as so

small incrimental optical improvements over the last 30 years

but not so different as to cause any real need to switch up back

ect. .

 

Also take into acount that a 30 year old summicron 35 F/2 is

much better overall then a nikon 35mm lens or any current

nikon zoom set at 35mm.

 

The 35mm Summicron as a rule just rocks....

The only flaw in the ASPH is that it hasn't been chosen by the Leica Lore Committee as one of their icons, like the "4th gen pre-ASPH", the "tabbed" 50/2, the DR, and the Noctilux. In reality the 4th-gen and it's predecessors have lower contrast and much less corner sharpness until f/4 than the ASPH; and is equal to the 3rd-gen optically but inferior to it mechanically. It's legendary status is due only to what I call the "pack mentality" of Leica users. When the alpha wolves canonize a lens, everyone has to "see the light" or be branded a lousy photographer.

Jay, the pre-Asph lens has gotten me some pretty damn amazing shots from a technical standpoint. I don't usually do tests, but I tested the 4th version side by side with the Asph and I couldn't tell them apart at this enlargement even wide open. I don't know what kind of nuanced shooting you're doing. From what I understand you don't even print your own work. I'd like to know how you come up with these conclusions.

 

The 4th generation pre-Asph is a great lens, matching the Asph in shooting, and doing it at considerably less size and weight.

"at this enlargement"

 

Sorry, meaning- 12x18" image size. (printed on a V-35 Leitz enlarger)

I recently purchased the 4th generation version of this lens after spending 2 years using the ASPH version. These two lens are VERY different in their performance. This is my 'practical' arm chair experience - The pre-ASPH vignettes like a bastard and is very soft wide open. The lens also tends to flare more often then the ASPH. The ASPH performance is unbelievable wide open, very sharp and no vignetting with very little if any flare problem. The 'flatness of field' characteristic of the ASPH is readably recognizable in my pictures with respect to the 4th version pictures. The clear 'performance' leader is unquestionably the ASPH. Having said that, the 4th version of this lens has such a unique 'signature' that it becomes a lens like no other. Almost a specialty lens that's used for the unique qualities that it possesses. Its a very different lens then the ASPH. My experience is that the only thing in common with the ASPH is the focal length.

Wow, you're seeing things I sure don't. If I forgot which print was shot with what I'd just as likely as not misidentify them.

I've had both, kept the pre-asph, mostly for its handling characteristics -- the asph is noticeably bigger (but only by a little), and I had simply too many good years with the older one. A preference issue.

 

BUT, 1:1 comparison, the Asph is indeed optically "superior" -- especially in flare issues, and corner resolution wide open. At f4-5.6 or smaller the difference is pretty small, however. I did not think the Bokeh issues were that different --even slightly preferring the asph (which, unlike some of the other new lenses, does not have a signifcant difference from the old characteristics). If you've got the asph, keep it and love it. You won't beat it with current lenses, new or old.

 

There was another issue -- the old 35 f2 compared much better than the old 35 1.4, even at same apertures -- but now the newer 35 f2 asph does not outperform the new 35 1.4 asph. So, the newer f2 asph is not so specially placed and revered, as it is not considered quite the generation leader that the older one was.

Thanks For Everyone

 

:-)