35ASPH Lens Q's and using with glasses thoughts FWIW

[cebes_johnson]

Hello:

 

A couple quick questions off the typical route, perhaps. Could not

find answers via search. Apologies if asked all too often.

 

Received my first 35mm, a 'cron ASPH. Traded for my 50mm tabbed

version. It was flawless and one of the very last Wetzlar

versions..alas, I miss it , but the 35 is what I realize I need for

80% of my shooting.

 

At any rate, am a bit disappointed with condition, and have a couple

questions:

 

1) The bottom hlf of the aperture ring has quite a bit of slack, to

almost loose. Bothers me. Unlike the 3rd version 50 I had the

aperture ring screws are hidden. To unscrew the two halves of the

lens (fron t and rear element groupings, I apparently need a special

tool on the ASPH as I see two hidden/recessed notches while looking

down the lens from the business end of it.

 

Most likely would need a professional's touch, but am curious if

there are any suggestions from others who have attempted to tighten

the aperture ring.

 

2) Is it normal on the ASPH for the lens to turn past the scale at

the low end? This seems very strange. It locks and ligns normally at

infinity, however stops WAY past the low end of the scale, which

again, seems to defeat the purpose in some respects.

 

Normal?

 

I appreciate anyone's thoughts and help here.

 

Also, for those considering using a 35mm lens on a .72 magnification

M body, it IS doable.

 

This was a point of long debate for me, $$ was of course an issue as

well choosing the 50. As is was my first M body, and lens, I would

suggest to those trying to search for answers as I was, to become

familiar with the camera first for a year. Master the capapbilites

of the 50.

 

Those who say, the 50 is boring are wrong. THEY are boring and their

photography is lacking. Mastery of the capabilites of the 50 is not

an easy thing to do. I will not say I outgrew the 50, but the

capabilities of the 35 are ideal. It can do all a 50 can and

landscapes, etc.

 

If I began with a 35 I would not have learned nearly as much,

including far too much unecessary info, would not have learned

perspective, and composition as quickly I feel.

 

The 50 can teach a lot. Many pros say using the framelines, or

importance of framelines, is irrelevant. I disagree STRONGLY. It

teaches a great deal about composition using the framelines for

beginners.

 

Even with the 50, upon developing/printing, I was able to see far

more easily what my weaknesses are. Including too much info, no

clear subject, not "thinking the full frame", etc.

 

Once one gains experience, and begins to truly understand

composition principles, there is nothing wrong with cropping (which

I was so avidly against.)

 

So for those who can really afford only one lens and have .72 and

wear glasses, I would go for the 50 first, then the 35 is very

doable.

 

 

Framelines on the 35, for me, basically hit the entire finder. I

will definitely be cropping almost everything now however, but I see

what I want to capture, and I do it, the composition is in my mind's

eye, and I have nothing against cropping anymore (although I do

still have great respect lingering for full frame users. Perhaps I

am still immature.)

 

 

Anyway, my thoughts on the subject.

 

Happy holidays

C

[leslie_cheung]

>>> The bottom hlf of the aperture ring has quite a bit of

slack...<<<

 

not exactly sure what you are saying but if you mean that the

there's slack (loose?) past the f2 then it's normal I hear. I have

the lux asph and it slacks abit past 1.4 and the aperture ring is

more "loose" than all my other older leica glass.

 

>>>> Is it normal on the ASPH for the lens to turn past the scale

at the low end? <<<<

 

I don't have the cron asph but all my leicas slack pass their

closest distance scale.

 

>>>>If I began with a 35 I would not have learned nearly as

much, including far too much unecessary info, would not have

learned perspective, and composition as quickly I feel. <<<<

 

I always hear this from people started with 50mm and I

personally think it's bs. I don't see how or why people can't learn

perspective and composition starting with 35 or 28 or 85 or

21mm. It doesn't really matter which lenses you use or prefer

but use it well and frame appropriately. Cropping post exposure

is ok acourse but shooting with fullframe in mind make thing

easier imo.

[jerry_lehrer]

Cebes,

 

Congratulations on your 35 acquisition! The 50mm has always been my LEAST used lens. I much prefer the 35mm with the .72 viewfinder. The

4th version, pre-Asph is my choice. 8x10 prints show me no advantage

of the Asph over the pre.

 

If I have to go tighter, I always have the 90mm f2.0. Of course with

my R Leica I do use a zoom, but have never checked to see if it was

set at 50mm.

 

Jerry

[scott_mcloughlin]

Fifty is nifty! I guess after years of P&S 35mm FL cameras, 50 just seems kind of exotic to me or something :-) But I do appreciate the 50 for closer-up pictures of people.

 

And the Leica 28/2 just fits so conveniently in my jacket pocket if I need something wider :-)

[cebes_johnson]

Thank you both for your replies.

 

@Leslie: Although your post was helpful, the ring itself, the bottom half, is a bit loose and sloppy. On my 3rd version 50'cron the screws were exposed and allowed for tightening if necessary. On the ASPH, all is hidden. ie. the ring is tightened from the inside, or while apart.

 

Would like to see if it is possible to tighten it up/take the two halves apart, to access these screws without a special tool. Or, any other suggestions.

 

It may justifiably be an error in learning, and I can see what you're saying. However, personally it did make a difference for me. From where I am now, it does make little sense, yet starting out, like taking up painting for example, it seems truly beneficial to limit things as much as possible.

 

It is so easy to include too much info. with the wide angles. The 50 truly made me think my compositions as it was required to a larger extent with the limited "canvas" space. I believe I saved time and learned more quickly beginning with it than if I would have the 35.

 

And there is truth to this mentality. For example, painters (Rembrandt for example) started out painting only small canvases/panels. Many painters do and it is taught in many schools as it is quite enough to bring everything together on a small canvas prior to tackling some large canvas. One would become easily daunted, an never finish. On e needs to start with a small canvas in order to learn the concepts and FINISH it on a smaller scale prior to undertaking a larger.

 

 

I feel the analogy works identically for photography. At least it did for me. And I am a painter, so it perhaps was more logical as a result of this.

 

@Jerry:

 

 

Thanks! It truly is an outstanding all around optic. As I said, 80% if not more of what i want to do can be done with it. Of course others would be nice (the 35/90 I realize is the ideal combo), but I can afford only one lens at the moment.

 

The 50 had a lot of heart though. I wish I did not have to part with it in order to obtain this one.

 

 

There was a post not too long ago, where someone quoted a Japanese optic specialist who said something to the effect, "that the percentage of average shots is greater with the 50 than with other wider angle lenses, yet the percentage of really great shots once the optic is truly mastered is higher than with any other optic."

 

Of course this may be rather totally subjective notion, and anyone can argue this, however, one can see perhaps the point in , yes, HCB's work who of course used mostly a 50, as did many of the great masters of photography who used predominantly the 50.

 

Maybe BS, there were few other lenses available in the ealry years, but I believe can understand what he was saying.

 

Who knows. But the 50 is a great optic, and for some reason (although perhaps wrong and ignorant as I am still at the lower end of the learning curve) the above still holds true with me yet.

 

I used to be a staunch supporter of always printing full frame, everything else was cheating. Laugh if you will, I know it is ignorant now, but I actually feel this perspective helped me learn some things.

 

Using the 35 at .72 with glasses, I have basically my entire field of view through the finder, and I can allow myself to only compose one time, in my mind beforehand and get the ever so fleeting moments I so adore, instead of trying to frame the damn thing running back and forth trying to get it all in. Just crop the damn thing afterwards teh way my mind saw and wanted it.

 

I am finding it difficult to get used to getting twice as close now to obtain the same shots i could twice the distance away with the 50...

 

 

A very welcomed change overall, I can get whatever else I want while I travel (landscape, alleys, etc. where otherwise I could not back up enough). But I am glad I had the 50, and wish I still did.

[cebes_johnson]

I am very sorry.

 

I found the loose aperture ring on ASPH under a new search, and much discussed already:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=004sfN

 

 

C