There is a Leica lens for sale right now marked: RARE Orig.Leica M 35mmf1.4 Aspheric. I know this lens was hand made in the early 90's and that they made around 2000 of 'em, but is it really worth a thousand bucks more that the current one? Are the new ones made by robots or something? I need a 35 for my M6 and money (in this rare case)is really no object. I don't want to collect the thing, I want to shoot with it. Anybody have a comment? Ebay waits for no man...

-- Steve Hoffman (musicmavin@earthlink.net), October 23, 2000

Answers

I am no technician and I am sure more qualified people will chime in on this. But I would doubt that hand assembly would have anything to do with 'better' image quality as the image is all in the glass. In the strange world of Leicas low quantity translates into collectible status.

-- Steve LeHuray (icommag@toad.net), October 23, 2000.

Steve,

The original 35 1.4 Summilux aspherical had nine elements, two of which were aspherical. The current Summilux has the same nine elements, but only one aspherical element. Whether this means better image quality for the first is debatable. My Leica books say the following about this issue:

"The use of only one aspherical lens element, thanks to new and more advanced production techniques, allowed for maintaining the same levels of quality as the precedent model even when wide open". (from Identifying Leica Lenses, by Sartorius.)

And:

"As a result of the new technology, this is the first Leica lens to employ a large glass element with an aspherical surface produced by ultra-high precision press forming rather than by grinding and polishing." (from Hove's Leica Pocket Book, 6th Edition.)

And from my Leica lens book re: the "limited production run of 2000":

"In the news bulletin 10414 of January, 1990, Leica announced that between 1990 and 1991 a special series of 2,000 units of the Summilux 35mm f/1.4 aspherical lenses would be produced and that consignment would begin in the second quarter of 1990. All of this led to the belief that it would have been a limited edition of only 2,000 units but instead, production continued regularly."

My Hove book does not give the number of earlier Summilux lenses produced. However, it seems that they made more than the 2000 units.

But, if money is no object.....

Good luck, Sergio.

-- Sergio Ortega (s.ortega@worldnet.att.net), October 23, 2000.

I doubt even Erwin Putts could tell the difference between them--if there is one. It sure won't be a day night comparison, as the current lens has basically set the standard for fast wide angle lenses. How much better can you make a lens? I'd buy the current less collectable one and pick up a 12mm Voigtlander or something else fun with the "change" left over.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), October 23, 2000.

Brian Bower, in his "The Leica Lens Book" (Davis & Charles, 1998) says about the newer (current) ASPH 35/1.4: "Performance of the ASPH lens is fully comparable with its very highly regarded and much more expensive predecessor." I cannot find any definitive comparisons, however. I suspect the higher cost of the earlier lens is largely due to the high labor involved in producing the 2 asph elements, versus "blank" production of the later 1 asph element.

-- Ken Shipman (kennyshipman@aol.com), October 24, 2000.

This comes up on the LUG every now and then and there is little or no difference between the two lenses optically. The older 35/1.4 Aspherical lens includes two ground aspherical elements while the later 35/1.4 Asph lens includes a single press moulded asherical element. The older technique of grinding aspherical elements had a high number of rejected elements and thus was very expensive to produce. This is what accounted for the limited production and high price as compared to the present 35/1.4 Asph lens. All Leica lenses are hand assembled and adjusted (expensive). I have the 35/14 Asph and I can assure you that the performance is breathtaking. Buy a new one; let the collectors squabble over the 35/1.4 Aspherical version.

Cheers

-- John Collier (jbcollier@home.com), October 24, 2000.