Information on pre-asph 35 summilux

[geri_brandimarte2]

I was considering the addition of the 35 summilux Asph when I purchase a pre-asph version for peanuts from a collegue who had no need for it. Can anyone tell me what version I have(#2391202) and any comments by those who have same version or any other experience using this lense. Thank you, Geri

[steve_barnett2]

You seem to have a 1970 version. I had one of these and found it

impossible to use because of the ergonomics alone. I could never

find the two grips on the aperture ring quickly, because the lens

hood always got in the way. And because of the incredible flare that

the lens produces, a lens hood is essential IMHO. However its not

all bad. The lens is very compact without the hood, and the flare

can be used to advantage if you want a 'dreamy' look.

[charles_c._stirk_jr.]

. I don't know the version but have it as 1969-70 vintage lens ,

from a list acquired from here (Lens serial number source:

Identifying Leica Lenses, Ghester

Sartorius, 1999, ISBN 0-8174-4027-5).

 

<p>

 

As some one who made the leap to the asph with out any

regrets .

I would still recomend sticking with the older lens unless you

have found a difincy in the older example para your experance .

 

<p>

 

The great thing about leica glass is that it has been great for a

long time an a thirty year old lens is still up to par and in many

regards beter then the current crop of offerings by other

companys

[stewart_weir]

i have a 1966 summilux and love it...even though im selling it when

its fixed because ive just got the 28 asph. its a great lens and does

make the m body a lot more pocket friendly...disagree with the

ergonomics. use it often and you will get used to it

[Rob F.]

It's fairly soft wide open. Stopped down, it gives my 35mm Summicron

a run for its money. Contrast is very fine, color is great. And you

won't move the aperture control by accident while focusing.

[david_killick]

I had one once: very compact but noticeably a lot softer wide open;

that's why they developed the Asph. But then again, you can take moody

pictures of your friends in dimly lit restaurants, and if you're not

paying too much, you've scored a bargain!

[steve_barnett2]

I would like to add that I would buy one again if the price was

right, it does make some great pictures. I have just been through my

old negs and the strange glow/flare was annoying at the time (I

wanted to be able to use the f1.4 aperture without any additional

flare as it was all theatre photography, and flare was bad enough in

itself from the lighting grid). But I can see that the flare in the

right circumstances does make for some wonderful pictures. I also

agree that stopped down it is very sharp.

[roberto_watson_garc_a]

yes and you can only focus it close to 1mt, vs .70mt or less of the

new asph, I have small hands and fine ergonomic rigth,; you hardly

move f/stops by accident.I like it but I joint the ones that prefer a

flareless 1.4.

[Alex_Es]

Oh heavens, Geri,

 

<p>

 

The pre-asph. 'lux 35/1.4! I have one and I am keeping it in spite of

its many minuses. Yes, the ergonomics is a pain with the hood. It is

much better if you stick the hood on with double sided tape. The

flare is there--not wonderful in the sunlight. A bit soft wide open.

Still its signature is pleasant if you know how to use the lens. I

just got the 'cron 35/2 ASPH and it runs rings around the old 'lux.

But the old 'lux will never leave me. I am already planning to shoot

with it at night in Paris.

 

<p>

 

Am wondering, Geri, did you get a hood with it? What about a

filter?

[geri_brandimarte2]

Alex, when I bought it I did not get a hood or a filter with it.