35 Aspherical

[stephen_w.]

Please check this:

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=30063&item=3874392402&rd=1#ebayphotohosting

 

Were these made in 2002 (3461942) when the Euro was introduced?

Please notice the serial number.

 

Definitly odd. My 392xxxx is marked only ASPH.

 

I'm not interested, just curious.

[Rob F.]

Stephen, I'm not sure if this is what you are asking, but the lens marked "Aspherical" preceded the ASPH. It had two hand-ground aspherical surfaces. The current ASPH has only one aspherical surface, produced by hot-pressing and molding the glass.

[Rob F.]

The "aspherical" was made from 1989 to 1994; the ASPH, from 1994 to present. The earlier one is a collector's item, while the current one is the shooter.

[stephen_w.]

My point:

 

Were the originals made as late as either the serial number and the introduction of the Euro in 2002? I realize the Euro sticker could be made for the first version aspherical, but the serial number indicates a relatively late manufacture.

[ben z]

"Were these made in 2002 (3461942)"

 

Ser# 3461942 dates it to 1988, not 2002.

[shambrick007]

Stephen, that sticker could have been printed up at any time.

[eliot_rosen1]

The Aspherical lens (version 1 with two hand ground and polished surfaces) were made in the early 1990s. Production stopped before the planned run of 2000 lenses because it was so difficult and took so long to make the aspherical lenses to the proper specifications. No one knows how many were actually made, but the best estimate is fewer than 1,000 (not the 2000 number that many people parrot from reading some website).

 

Apparently, when they stopped making the version 1 lens, they had quite a few very expensive barrels left, so they redesigned the lens to a formula with only one aspherical surface that was glass molded rather than hand ground. The new lens (introduced around 1994) was labeled "ASPH." rather than "Aspherical" and the catalog number was changed from 11873 (version 1) to 11874 (version 2), to indicate that it was a different lens. The newer one was cheaper to produce and the price was lowered.

[rgh]

This 'Aspherical' is within the general serial number range and made in 1988 (starting 3459071 - Puts, Compendium). You'd be very hard pressed to see any difference in the 2 versions in practical photography from the text reports I've read, but physically they are a bit different. The 1st version has 2 features I like; a combination both grooved focus ring with tab, and a clip on lens hood. But I can't say I'd want to pay the premium for what is now a collector's 1st version (originally a 'super lens' designed TO USE of course). As for the price tag... just because there is a Euro price now doesn't mean it has anything to do with an original [if any] late 80s price tag.

[sandy.]

I have some exchange with this dealer from the former East Berlin and all I can say is buyers beware. Be very afraid !

[jo_l_cahane]

I have both versions, and the differences i could figure are

 

1st is slightly shorter and more practical to use.

 

It has some more d馩nition in the center and the DOF seems a little more extended

[moritz_nienburg]

Stephen W.

 

IMHO the price is quite high. I got mine for less. Do you see the red circle next to the serial number and the red "Austellungsware" label underneath the price tag? This does mean thats an used Leica factory demo lens.

 

Regards Moritz

[ben z]

"and the DOF seems a little more extended"

 

Could you please explain how one 35mm lens can have more DOF than another at the same apertures and set distances?

[brunom]

Ben z

 

I believe that the optical design of a lens can alter [slightly] the DOF of a lens, at different aperture to a seemingly same type of lens. Don't think it would make any really large change though.

 

Bruno

[jo_l_cahane]

Ben, i have not the technical background to answer your question, but it is a fact and you

see it

On this forum Lutz Konermann posted test pictures where showing the same between a

summilux 35 and asph

 

At first glance you feel it, the non asph is less " tiring " for the eyes, more confortable

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=003N7w

[jo_l_cahane]

Sorry for my english, i just re-read my previous post and my ears feel now red and hot !

[frederick_muller]

The Leica Lens Compendium by Puts also speaks about this. Apparently it has to do with the abruptness of the change from the sharpest plane of focus to out of focus areas ... in the older lenses, the transition is smoother and more gradual. In the the more modern lenses, it's a very abrupt, hard transition. I don't have the technical expertise to understand the phenomenon completely yet, but it does make some sense to me.

 

From pages 89-90:

 

"New or recently redesigned Leica lenses have a steeper transition from focus to defocus areas ... Leica designers use all their creativity and expertise to design wide aperture lenses with outstanding in-focus imagery. A more pronounced out-of-focus area helps to concentrate the visual attention on the correctly focussed plane."

[eliot_rosen1]

Frederick. Some of the newer lenses are so sharp that objects in the plane of focus look like they are etched into the image. I always thought that this effect was simply due to the fact that the newer lenses are sharper than the older ones. Since there is only one plane of greatest sharpness, the discrimination between that plane and the background would be greater. I could be wrong about it. There could be more to it. May objects outside of the focal plane actually do break up more readily in the newer lenses than in the older ones. Not certain which explanation is correct.

[frederick_muller]

This is probably a topic for another thread, but I would certainly like to understand better the interplay between the phenomenon discussed here, depth of field, depth of focus, and bokeh.