I looked at all existing threads, especially John Chan's on the 24, and Paul Chefurka's on the 28 and 35. But no one has done the three-way shootout at the O.K. corral among these several lenses.

Some of my issues are: I like the 24mm on my Nikon; but not sure I want to bother with the external finder on the M. I have the 21 SA and use it less than other lenses; I think it has to do with not liking the separate finder. Still a good focal length, the 24, and it gets strong reviews. And, the 24 finder is said to have less distortion than my 21 finder.

I have the 28mm version III, and I'm not unhappy about anything but the way it blocks the finder. Can be a royal compositional nuisance. Is the 28mm f/2 shorter & less obstuctive?

I have the 35mm Version I Summicron and the version II pre=ASPH 35mm Lux. The Lux is rather soft wide open, but nice and compact, and f/1.4 still there when I need it. Probably don't ever want to sell the Chrome Summicron version I. No particular complaint with its performance, either. The Lux is no slouch when stopped down, either. If I buy a 35 ASPH Cron, then I may wind up with 3 35's. Hard to part with this stuff.

Complicating factor: Local dealer has 35 ASPH Cron with hood, front hood cap, rear cap, case, and front lens cap, mint condition as far as I can see, for $1000.00. On hold for me till Saturday. I'm swayed by Paul's talk of infinite delicate shades of whatever, and someone else's recent talk of crsip edges, with this lens. (Probably also true of other APSH's, though?)

Final thought: It could be more important for the widest lens to be the sharpest, in order to retain fine detail at the lower image magnification.

So, without being held responsible for making my decision for me, who wants to compare these lenses for me, or offer any other helpful input? I like to shoot landscape, travel, architecture, & cityscape.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), January 24, 2002

Answers

Bob, if I had to do it all over again I would have the 28 2.8 as a backup wideangle for when the 35 lux just isn't enough in terms of coverage. FWIW I really hate the concept of accessory finders (but that probably has more to do with my facial anatomy than anything else). For my type of people photography I would've had to get 1 m from the main subjects to make striking environmental portraits and that's just too close for comfort most of the time. Looking back... I think I would've been alot better served with the excellent 28 2.8 in my stable.

Of course, take everything I say with a grain of salt.

-- John (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), January 24, 2002.

Hey Bob,

You buy 'em and send 'em my way, and I'll be happy to do a detailed comparitive analysis for ya. (lol)

Seriously, while people have individual preferences among models available within a given focal length, along with the real differences in characteristics, I really think the focal length choice is a matter of your shooting style.

I just bought a used 24mm, and while I've only exposed a couple of rolls of film with it so far, I've been quite impressed. But, I lean toward the non-exagerated perspective end of the spectrum. The auxiliary finder is a touch troublesome, but not impossible to get used to. For me, the angle of view with a 28mm is just too close to the 35mm, hence the choice of the 24mm.

-- Ralph Barker (rbarker@pacbell.net), January 25, 2002.

The finder for the 24 is the same optically as the now discontinued 21 finder. If your 21 finder is one of the old metal ones, the newer plastic finders are better optically.

The third version of the 28/2.8 had two hoods. The later lenses came a hood which had a viewfinder cutout. If yours does not have the cutout, you might find a later hood the answer to your prayers.

I am not sure that anyone can help you with actual lens selection. Everyone has different preferences in focal length selection and my dream outfit may well realize your worst nightmares. Do not think about different coverages but concentrate on the changing relationship between the fore and back grounds that the different angles of view bring. You are much closer to your subject with a 21 as opposed to a 28 for instance.

-- John Collier (jbcollier@powersurfr.com), January 25, 2002.

Bob:

I don't know if this will help you or not, but FWIW I own all three of the lenses you are referring to... They are all great performers, and in essence there is no significant distinction in optical performance other than their fields of view. I think it simply boils down to costs, and what perspective best coinsides with your personal shooting style.

:) Cheers,

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), January 25, 2002.

I should have clarified I was referring to the 24, 28 and 35 aspherics in the above post, as you mentioned several other lenses as well.

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), January 25, 2002.

Bob:

I wouldn't argue with Jack's experience ("They're all equal...") since I haven't done a head-to-head among the 3 ASPHs you mention.

I DO think the 24 is a greater advance over the older 21s (in resolution) than the ASPH 28 and 35 are advances over THEIR predecessors (if that makes sense). Especially over the non ASPH 21 f/ 2.8 at the corners, but also clearly a little crisper at the center.

I've shot a few pictures with the 28 'cron in stores and have yet to see results that are optically better than MY V.III 28 Elmarit. (This doesn't mean they aren't out there, just that I've never seen 'em.)

One way in which the 28 'cron DOES stand out - most 28 f/2s for SLRs produce 'half-moon' OOF circles near the corners wide-open, sort of like the 50 Noct (coma or just vignetting I can't tell). The M 28 does not. It produces very clean backgrounds very similar to the 35 f/2s.

Both the current 28s (without hoods) block the viewfinder a lot less than the v.3 Elmarit. (John: the v.3 Elmarit blocks a large part of the viewfinder with no hood at all! It's a BIG sucker - roughly as big as the early pre-production 21 f/2.8s - in fact I think they may even share some barrel parts, sinc they're from the same era.) The V.III was designed before M-bosies had built-in 28 finders, so size wasn't apparently considered an issue.

To get to your deadline question: I just haven't seen enough difference between the ASPH 35 f/2 and my pre-ASPH 35 to make a change worth it. I don't know how it compares to your early 'cron. The price sounds good, but maybe the $1000 would go better towards a 24 since you're already all stocked up with 35s?

The 24 and 35 ASPHs have the 'new' Leica color balance - a notch pinker/bluer than my c.1980 lenses. I haven't shot color with the 28, but I'd expect it to be the same, since every other current lens I've tried (35 1.4ASPH, 90 SAA, 90 2.8) seems to have the 'new' color.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), January 25, 2002.

Bob,

I saw a 35 ASPH, Lux on ebay go for $1199. It's not much bigger than the 2.0 ASPH, so I'd wait for another 1.4.

-- chris chen (chrischen@msn.com), January 25, 2002.

Hey Jack,

Could I borrow your 28 mm F2 ASPH?

...I promise I won't short sell it!

;-)

-- John (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), January 25, 2002.

Thanks for all the answers so far. Some more thoughts:

If I get the 28, I can only use it Sans aux finder on my M6. OTOH, it will block the finder less.

If I get the 35, I can use it on the M2 & M6 both.

If I get the 24, I can use it on those, plus the M3, since it has to be used with Aux. finder anyhow. I could even finance it by dumping the 21 SA f/3.4.

Since I take a lot of pictorial shots stopped down to 5.6 or so anyhow, relying on zone focus and hyperfocal distance, etc. for DOF, many of my pictures don't have a single most important plane of sharp focus. So am I really going to see a difference with an ASPH? Andy says its hard to see the difference with the 35, in any case.

Again, thanks for all the help.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), January 25, 2002.

RE: whether I'll really notice a difference, Rob Appleby wrote, on the 18th,

"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."

That sort of influences me to at least get one of them. Probably a 35 or 24.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), January 25, 2002.

Bob, I have the 21 ASPH, 35 Summicron ASPH, and the 90 SAA lenses. All are quality performers. The 35 is a great lens, but you already have two 35's; if it was my choice, I would go for a different focal length - probably the 24. Unless there are qualities with your present lenses that you wish to improve. JMHO You pays your money, and you makes your choice.

-- David (pagedt@chartertn.net), January 25, 2002.

Bob: for your use (landscape, travel etc.) the Tri-Elmar makes a lot of sense. You don't need any faster, you get 3 focal lengths without switching lenses, and the sharpness and contrast is phenomenal. The only place you will see the primes sing for their suppers is at the wide apertures which you aren't going to be shooting at anyway. I say keep the 21 S/A, it's a great lens and very compact; sell the 35/1.4 non-ASPH and buy a 1st-gen Tri-Elmar which you can find for around $1100 give or take. Ideally you could at some point sell the 35/2 and buy up to a 35/1.4ASPH. Those lenses plus a 135/4 and you've got an ideal outfit for your subject preferences.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), January 25, 2002.

Bob:

You asked: >Since I take a lot of pictorial shots stopped down to 5.6 or so anyhow, relying on zone focus and hyperfocal distance, etc. for DOF, many of my pictures don't have a single most important plane of sharp focus. So am I really going to see a difference with an ASPH?<

IMO, it is difficult to see any significant improvement in optical performance at f5.6 and above between the current line-up of aspherics when compared to their pre-aspheric predecessors. (I'm sure the difference is still there, but it is at such a high level that you need a tripod and test targets to see it.) And in truth, it would be difficult for me to justify the extra cost of an upgrade for the relatively small gains the aspherics deliver at f4 if I already owned their immediate predecessors.

John: Yes, you may borrow my 28 at any time...

:) Cheers,

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), January 25, 2002.

I have one of the later hoods for the v. 3 28 elmarit which I can part with since I sold the lens. I had the 1st vers. 35 summicron chrome and I sold it when one of the posters here tempted me with a 35 asph lux. Now I have the 4th vers pre asph cron and the lux and have trouble deciding which one to take with me. The 35 pre asph cron is a very good lens and the 35 lux is better at 2.0 and best at 1.4. I also use the 21 pre asph and the 28 4th v. If I change anything it will be to get the 28 cron although I don't see how it can be much better than the elmarit. I have always used the external finder on my M2/3 so it is natural to me and the new plastic finder I got recently is better than the metal one so I sold it. I had a 24 with an Olympus system and it was a great lens but for now I think I'll keep the 21 & 28. Cheers!

-- Don (wgpinc@yahoo.com), January 25, 2002.

"Now I have the 4th vers pre asph cron and the lux and have trouble deciding which one to take with me."

This observation from Don is useful. I think I'd have the same problem. Should I take the ASPH? The old chrome Cron? The pre-ASPH Lux in case of low light?

Don, I do have a shade for the 28. Is yours of the ventilated see- through kind? Mine isn't.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), January 25, 2002.

Bob: Just FYI, I checked again today. The 24 ASPH blocks just about the same portion of viewfinder as the 28 v.3. The 24 is wider (55 filter) but a little shorter. The rim falls just outside the lower right corner of the 50mm frame. (or where the corner would be if the frames HAD corners - but that's a different thread.)

The .58 viewfinder ignoring the frame lines is a perfect match for the 24, in case you want to avoid the external finder. And the 24 brings up the 35/135 frames, which are far enough away from the edge to be less distracting than the 28 frames.

So now you can worry about whether to get a new body as well - just to add to your agony. 8^)

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), January 25, 2002.

Thanks Andy. I won't have to agonize over a body, though. I walked into the store Saturday, 15 minutes before closing time. They brought out the 35 ASPH Cron they had set aside for me. I pulled out my Master Card and it's mine! Had lots of fun shooting with it on Sunday. Will see the chromes by Thursday. Can't wait.

It was Rob Appleby's remarks I think that swayed me the most. So it's your fault, Rob. ;-)))

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), January 28, 2002.

saw your various q's about the asph. New book in prep may help answer some of these when it's finally published - if I can get through the mountain of comparative shots!

There is a significant difference between the regular 35 summicron up to the last 'normal' version and the asph lenses. It is correct that wide open the asph objective has the edge on corners in large blow ups (16X20) anything less and you won't see it. The normal lenses offer a more rounded rendition in colour, more pleasing to some of us. Asph tends to be a little contrasty. More coming soon. rega

-- jonathan eastland (ajaxpics@freezone.co.uk), January 31, 2002.

further but unrelated. I dropped an m6 from shoulder height onton the tarmac just recently. The attached 21-24-28 v/f sheared off just above the foot base where it joins the turret. Two minute machine screws are all that hold this great piece of kit together - they saved the came

-- jonathan eastland (ajaxpics@freezone.co.uk), January 31, 2002.