I just was in a reputable store that specializes in Leica in NYC and a well versed salesman told me that the 35/1.4 ASPH is significantly better than the 35/2.0 ASPH. Since I believe that the 35/2.0 ASPH is a lens " to die for" and use it 60 % or more of the time, I was amazed by his point of view. He was quite adamant in his position.

He showed me a huge (size of a poster), terrific picture on the wall that was taken with the 35mm/1.4 ASPH and said the 2.0 ASPH only begins to even out with the 1.4 ASPH at f8 and beyond. Is he for real or just a salesman try to make a sale ?

Edward

-- Edward S. (es323@msn.com), May 29, 2001

Answers

Edward,

I did hear the same thing about the Summilux being better than the Summicron. It might be true but I'm pretty sure they would even out around f/2.8, not f/8. If you dont need the extra stop, go with the Summicron ASPH.

-- Eric Laurence (Edgar1976@hotmail.com), May 29, 2001.

There's quite a bit on this on the Erwin Puts website. Also, there has been some previous discussion here. As I recall the general feeling is that the Lux is sharper in the center atf/2; but the 'Cron is sharper at the edges and more uniform across the field.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), May 29, 2001.

Bob said most of what I planned to - consider this a second.

In my limited tests the differences among the 'cron, 'cron ASPH, and 'lux ASPH were incremental at best. The ASPH 'cron improved on my non- ASPH at the corners - the centers were very close. The amazing thing about the ASPH 'lux is that it's at least as good as the 'cron with a whole additional f/stop.

I (personally) wouldn't trade up to the ASPH 'lux from either Summicron just to get a "better" lens - the quality change isn't worth the weight and cost alone. But for the extra f/stop WITHOUT a significant drop in quality I might. And there does seem to be a big leap in quality from the old Summilux to the new one.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), May 30, 2001.

Big Leap? No no no, Huge leap!

-- Eric Laurence (Edgar1976@hotmail.com), May 30, 2001.

Well - I didn't want to get flamed for exaggerating, or dissing the "classic" lens. How about "substantial"?

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), May 30, 2001.

I think the salesman is full of bulldust. His view is not supported by the facts. He's partiucularly mistaken about the comparison at f8 and beyond. Both lenses are stunning performers and the differences are hard to detect if at all. You really have to wonder about some of these sales people and how they get away with sprouting such nonsense.

-- Peter Cook (Ruy_Lopez@hotmail.com), May 30, 2001.

As I understand it, Leica lenses are getting past their best at f8 anyway.

Salesmen are _sales_men. Just doing his job, which is to sow insecurity and doubt in your mind.

-- rob appleby (rob@robertappleby.com), May 30, 2001.

For all practical purposes, the 35 summicron asph and the 35 summilux asph are functional identical in performance (an amazing statement to make about an f/1.4 lens BTW). Only get the summilux if you need the extra stop (and can afford it).

Cheers,

-- John Collier (jbcollier@powersurfr.com), May 30, 2001.

I second what John says. I sold my 35/2 ASPH for a 35/1.4 ASPH because I normally use the Tri-Elmar for most of my 35mm shots, so the Lux was more advantageous at 3 stops faster since I only use it at night or indoors. Performance-wise, the differences are subtle and you would need meticulous technique (slow film and tripod) to discern them with a loupe.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), May 30, 2001.

Having owned and compared the aforementioned lenses, I will second (third?) what John and Jay stated. For the samples I owned, I can add that the 'cron was noticeably sharper at the edges, and the 'lux was noticeably sharper in the center, however I am comparing them at an already very high level of performance. For my uses, speed won out, and I kept the 'lux... However, if you don't often have a need for f1.4 the 'cron is probably the better overall choice when comparing performance/cost/size.

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), May 30, 2001.

more or less they are equal. Read what says Edwin on this. But I personally proved the lux at 1.4 several times and never have been disapointed. It is simple magic!

-- joseph pelizza (breglumasi@hotmail.com), June 06, 2001.