I am planning on expanding my M lenses to include a 35mm lens. I am considering the last 35/2 Summicron vs the 35/2 Asph. I have read "tests" by Erwin Putts, but I would really like to hear some "hands on" opinions from people who have used the lenses extensively. Pros/Cons? I am attracted to the non-asph version because it is smaller/lighter, but wonder whether the ASPH version really has such superior image quality that I should get it instead.

Also, can the USA Passport warranty transferable to a new owner?

-- Steve Rosenblum (stevierose@yahoo.com), January 18, 2002

Answers

Steve:

As I'm sure you can tell from the archives, your 1st question comes up regularly (click here for an example).

As to your 2nd question, the USA Passport warranty is not officially transferable--it is only issued to the original purchaser (whose identity is confirmed w/the dealer). However, there is really nothing to stop the new owner from working w/the original owner so that, if necessary, the new owner can return the lens to the original owner & have him/her send it back to Leica USA for repair (call it a "loan w/an option to buy"). On that note, if you decide to go w/the ASPH., contact me off-list & maybe we can make a deal!

-- Chris Chen (Washington, DC) (furcafe@cris.com), January 18, 2002.

This has to be one of the most asked questions on the subject of lenses. Go to the links below and read the other opinions.

Me? I had the last version of the non-aspheric model for about a decade before the ASPH model was introduced. I thought about upgrading, but after looking at my photos made with the regular model... I kept it. The new version is said to be an improvement at the wider apertures, but I never felt slighted with mine and I do shoot at f/2.0 quite a lot. If I didn't already have this lens, I might consider the new Aspheric version, but I did have it, so I spent the money on film. I hate to bring up the "B" word, but the 4th version that I have has the best out of focus rendition for a semi-wide lens that I have ever seen. I shoot at f/2.0 even in good light just to exploit this. Yes, the 4th version is really small, and it makes the M camera handy for a carry everywhere tool.

click

click

and click again

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), January 18, 2002.

Steve

I have a Summicron M 35/2 ASPH silver. The result is stunning and I use it most of the time. I haven't used non-ASPH one so there is no comparison.

-- Su Yang (suyang63@hotmail.com), January 18, 2002.

IMHO, the 35cron asph is on par with the 50 cron wide opened.

The pre-asph 35 cron is on par with the Voigtlander 35 1.7 ultron asph wide opened.

I should think that if finance is not an issue, get the 35 asph cron. Its that good.

-- Travis koh (polar@cyberdude.com), January 18, 2002.

No question here, buy the last Summicron. It is compact and perfect for the M. The ASPH is considerably larger and not as attractive on the camera. Trust me, you won't be able to tell the difference unless your Mr. Puts. That the used prices of both these lenses is about the same tells the story.

-- Bob Haight (rhaigh5748@aol.com), January 18, 2002.

Have you consider the ´lux asph.; it is twice the size of the ´cron 4th version; but a stop faster; I own the 4th ´cron and don´t feel a need to go for the ´cron asph, but will love to have the ´lux asph.

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), January 18, 2002.

I think the quality of the new asph lenses is very evident even in handheld snaps at lowish shutter speeds. They have a different look, the edges stand out very sharply and the fine detail is extraordinarily crisp and seductive. They make things look almost hyper real. I think they're wonderful, and I never use a tripod (for practical reasons). I also have a 50/2 and it does not have this quality, although it's a perfectly good lens. The 35/1.4 and 24/2.8 asphs are in a different class.

As to bulk and so on, that's the biggest red herring I've ever heard. All these lenses are small compared to anything on an SLR. Oh yes, I forgot: the 35/1.4 is also very _heavy_ - not.

If you're going for Leica and can afford it, go for the best lenses. The 35/1.4 asph is the best there is, by a very long way. Unless you're into bokeh or other arcane... stuff.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), January 18, 2002.

I had a silver 35 Summicron-ASPH and while its performance was indeed stunning, the weight of the lens, in my opinion, made it awkward to use. Not only was it heavy, but it just didn't seem to balance well on my M6. I looked at a display M6 with a black model of the same lens and it felt entirely different. I have thus traded my silver 'cron for a new black one, whose arrival I anxiously await. For me, while performance of a lens is important, the equipment has to be fun to use. It has to feel "right" in your hands. This may explain why some Leica users, myself included, rave about the "feel" of their vintage Leicas. Personally, my favorite cameras are my M3 and M2. This is entirely subjective, but you may want to consider this when you buy your 35mm lens.

Dennis

-- Dennis Couvillion (couvilaw@aol.com), January 18, 2002.

Steve:

I have the 35mm Summicron ASPH and use it regularly. It is a stunning performer at f2. It is at peak optical performance by f4/f5.6. If you can afford it, get the 35mm Summilux ASPH. There are some Hong Kong dealers who sell it new on EBAY with International warranty for the same price as a new Summicron ASPH with USA warranty.

-- Muhammad Chishty (applemac97@aol.com), January 18, 2002.

I have a silver chrome 35mm Summicron ASPH that I use with a chrome M6 TTL 0.72. Weight of the camera or lens has never been a problem! Just compare a M camera or lens with a 35mm SLR!

-- Muhammad Chishty (applemac97@aol.com), January 18, 2002.

I don't have a 35/2 ASPH, so my thoughts will have to be limited. The silver is heavier than the black. As I understand the story, to chrome it Leica had to use brass. The black lens uses a light alloy.

You might want to check out what the Jan./Feb. Chasseur d'Images (p. 177) has to say about the 35/2 ASPH. They gave it five stars, their highest rating, both under "Note technique" and "Cote d'amour."

I use an old Summilux 35/1.4 with awkward lens shade and close focus limited to 1 meter. At 180 g. its portability is great. But I'm geared up to get the 35/2 ASPH. I'll keep the old Summilux.

Some related stuff. Erwin Putts has very high regard for Konica's new non aspherical 35/2 but admonishes us not to use it on our Leicas because of a slight difference in thickness between the Konica and Leica mounts, making for a degredation of contrast and edge sharpness, visible at high magnification.

Konica has just come out with a tiny screw mount 35/2 (120 g.) which it is selling for a pretty penny. (Abt 100,000 yen.) It only focuses down to 0.09 meters.

Chasseur d'Images also gave high ratings (four stars) to the Voigtlander Color Skopar Classic 35/2.5. It focuses down to 0.07 meters. I have one in black. Had to repaint the feet numbers from near invisible red to yellow-orange.

-- Alex Shishin (shishin@pp.iij4-u.or.jp), January 18, 2002.

If you are in the market for the 35f2 of either the last version of pre-Asph or Aspheric then go for the latter. Firstly as already noted they go for very similar prices secondhand and secondly after using both for sometime, without question the Asph is far superior at f2- 2.8 in terms of contrast,sharpness and flatness of field, also the old version that I had vignetted to an unacceptable degree at f2. I know some users think that the out of focus rendition of the Pre- Asph is smoother but I don,t, at f2 the whole image is smooth (not sharp).

-- Gary Yeowell (gary@yeowell.fsnet.co.uk), January 18, 2002.

Gary's right, so right I bought mine off of him! The ASPH is wonderful - it was my favorite lens for a long time. The only reason I don't use it now is because I have a 1.4. SO if anyone in the UK is in the market for a fantastic silver 35/2 ASPH please contact me off list.

Cheers

Matt

-- Matthew Pulzer (pulzer@dial.pipex.com), January 18, 2002.

Steve; I recomend this click to see Richard Palmer´s example of 35/2 pre asph at 2.8 and other for the 35/2 asph one. This thank´s to Richard.

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), January 18, 2002.

First Alex Shishin: Since your from Japan you should be well schooled in the metric system. You did this in the thread started regarding the DR Summicron. 0.03 meters equals 3 cm, where you meant 0.30 meters, which equals 30 cm.

I would recommend the fourth version Summicron for:

Price [buy film, or eyepiece magnifier with the extra dough 8>)]

Size (handling is important)

Quality (seldom will see a difference)

-- Chris Chen (chrischen@msn.com), January 19, 2002.

Steve We all extole the virtues of equipment we own, Im no exception. I have tried both lens with Kodachrome 64 and saw little diference except at f2 and then it was minimal.The, fourth version is IMHO the superlative 35/2 'Cron. Nearly the performance of the ASPH model and a light, compact, beautiful fit on the M. These can be had in Canadian or German build in the 800 - 1000 range and worth it. I paid 950 for a mint late German model and cant say enough good things about it. I also have a friend who will swear similar allegiance to his ASPH 35/2.

-- (RDixon@stny.rr.com), February 11, 2002.

I bought a 35mm ASPH Cron and took it back the following week, because the only difference I could find was that it wasn't as sharp in the center as my Version I 35 Cron, or my version II pre-ASPH Lux. However, as a mostly pictorial photographer, I generally use f/4 to f/8 range; f/2 is used a bit less often. I understand that this is where the ASPH excels: at the widest apertures. If you don't need f/2 or at least 2.8 much, maybe you'd be better served with the version IV.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), February 11, 2002.