Quick test - rare "Aspherical" 35 f/1.4

[andy_piper2]

Local store has an example of the rare 1st-edition 35mm f/1.4

"Aspherical" (as opposed to ASPH) lens. Couldn't resist doing a drive-

by test against the ASPH.

 

(For those who don't know - Leica made c. 1000 "Aspherical" 35 f/1.4s

with 2 hand-ground aspheric surfaces about 1990. Decided the hand-

grinding was too expensive, so they dropped the design and went back to

the computer screen to develop the ASPH, which has one moulded/pressed

aspherical surface. The optical layout is roughly similar (both

versions have concave front/rear elements)

 

Optically - well, see the attached image. The ASPH is a bit softer in

the center but holds up in the corners a bit better. Whcih more or less

matches Erwin Puts' descriptions.

 

The "Aspherical" is just-noticeably lighter, about 1mm shorter, more

comfortable on the camera, (if you can afford the $2000 (collectible)

price difference). A bare hint yellower image (but not enough to show

on-screen). It has a less-sculptured focus tab than the current lens,

and also has knurling on the focus ring as well as the aperture ring,

which can make for confusion.

 

technical: Pan F on a tripod, scanned 2700dpi, actual pixels visible in

this image.<div></div>

[harry_soletsky1]

Note the Aspherical 35 was not hand ground. It was made on the same grinding machine that was used to make the 50mm f1.2 Noctilux. The problem was there were lots of rejects and it was never an economically viable proposition. The molded pressed system was viable and at present adds very little relatively to the cost of manufacture.

[chip l.]

Am I missing something, or the results mixed?

 

In the first shots it seems that they should havestayed the course...

[stephen_w.]

I think the were losing money on each piece, a la SL-2.

[mike_scecina2]

How do you confirm that two different lenses are precisely focused in a test like this? I

hope not with just your eye and the rangefinder metering field, ie the "patch".

[stephen_w.]

Mike,

 

Although, Prof. Andy doesn't give exposure information, rare considering Andy, I wouldn't question his method.

 

Wide open, at what looks like 3-4 m, the depth of focus should be sufficient for the test a planer objects.

[james_.1]

Interesting results, keep them coming! I find the aspherical image more desirable naturally, but having shot my 35mm f/1.4 asph with pan f and provia 100 f, the results I get astound me. Wonder if production variation plays a role here.

[jerry_pfile1]

Nit picking to be certain, but the didn't cost that much more to produce individually.

 

The problem and hence the end costs of production, was that they had such a high reject rate. Same problem a few years later with the 35-70 Vario-Elmar f/2.8 R.

 

Best,

 

Jerry

[shambrick007]

" I hope not with just your eye and the rangefinder metering field, ie the "patch"."<p>I understand what Mike's getting at, but since that's how the camera is designed to be used....

[Rob F.]

Why didn't they keep the original design, and substitute pressed surfaces for ground ones?