I used a Summicron -M 2/35 since some years and I am very content with it. I make nearly only b&w - pictures with Delta 100 and 400 (new). Now i want to know by your experience: why should I take an asph cron? I read in Erwin Puts book about the difference between them and about the Elmarit-R 2,8/35 and the Vatio-Elmar 4/35-70 and that the VE should be so much better than the Elmarit. I own both and I cannot see any difference on a 10 times enlargement, maybe a little at 15 times (only with Delta 100, not with 400). Now: what about the difference asph and pre really? Peter

-- Peter Lueck (elp.lueck@t-online.de), May 30, 2002

Answers

The last of the fourth version pre-asph 35/2 is very very good. I happily used one for years before trading it in on the 35/1.4 asph as I found myself constantly reaching for another stop. The asph lenses are truly stunning wide open and I noticed a difference right away.

Would I recommend trading a 35/2 pre-asph for a 35/2 asph? No. The pre-asph's performance in the most often used middle apertures is noticeably smoother. There is a good reason this lens is called the King of Bokeh. The pre-asph's wide open performance may slightly lag behind the asph but not enough to compensate for the loss of mid-aperture smoothness. Read Put's review of the 35/2 ore-asph again. He rates it very highly indeed.

-- John Collier (jbcollier@shaw.ca), May 30, 2002.

You say that you use the 35mm Summicron and are "very content with it", so in my mind, that should be all that matters. I use the last pre-aspheric Summicron, and when the new aspheric lens was introduced, I thought I'd upgrade. I borrowed one and after some thought on the subject, I kept my old lens. I too was content with my images made with it over the years.

I often find it funny how something can be "the best" and upon introduction of the next model, the previous version is derided..."man, you gotta get the new one!" In my comparisons of the two lenses, I found that for pure sharpness, f/4.0 is the point of equality for most subjects. For me, that is fine for most of my shooting. I might be in the minority, but I like the look of the old lens at f/2.0. There is something about the way the plane of focus dissolves into a strange blur (see photo). This modern lens still allows an "old" lens look, but with the ability (via the aperture ring) to make snappy images like those from current lenses. For me it gives the best of both worlds.

Again, it is personal.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), May 30, 2002.

If you are happy with your Pre ASPH cron, then you should keep it, or are you just curious what all the fuss is about? The cost difference between the 2 is a lot for a slight gain in performance, Id be more inclinded to go for a 35lux if you are hungry for another lens. Cheers!

-- Karl Yik (karl.yik@dk.com), May 30, 2002.

and the old one is a bit smaller and lighter!

-- stefan randlkofer (geesbert@yahoo.com), May 30, 2002.

Subject (OT) : comparison between VE 35-70 and E 35

You quote an EP's conclusion which is not corroborated by a serious FTM test. Since 1983, the french photographic review "Chasseur d'images" has made FTM tests whose methodology has been clearly exposed. The VE, at full aperture, is rated : "very good (4/5), very good (4/5). The elmarit (and the summicron) 35 are quoted : "Excellent (5/5), very good ".So, in practical conditions of use, both the lenses will give the same results.

-- Dominique Pellissier (DominicPell@aol.com), May 30, 2002.

Hi Peter: I went the other way. I bought my 35/2 asph first. It was tack sharp and very good overall. But when I did some side by side shooting with a friend who used the pre-35/2. I like his color and tonality better.I also notice his smoothness of transition from light to dark. We both shot Velvia and projected the slide to a 7 feet image for comparision. So I trade "down" to a pre-asph. I rather loss a bit sharpness for richer of color and tone. Don't get me wrong, the pre- asph is already very sharp. The ASPH has a little bit more contrast so that it appear snappier. Chi Cheung

-- chi chiung (chic@intergate.bc.ca), May 30, 2002.

Peter, I think Delta Pro 100 and 400 bring out the best in Leica lenses. I tried a 35mm ASPH Cron and saw little advantage over my version I Cron, and version II Lux, at around f/5.6 or smaller.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), May 30, 2002.

I'm with Chi on this one. The 'Cron ASPH is a very sharp and contrasty lens and sometimes is little too contrasty especially with already high contrast film like Velvia. The pre ASPH has beautiful tonality and superior in many ways. Ultimately I find the 35mm Summilux ASPH to be a worthy compromise between the two and one stop faster.

-- ray tai (razerx@netvigator.com), May 30, 2002.

Hi and thanks for your answers: I'll stay with the pre.

-- Peter Lück (elp.lueck@t-online.de), May 31, 2002.

Hello Peter,

I went for the 35/2 ASPH a few months ago. Considered the new 35/1.4 ASPH but thought a $1000 for an extra stop too much + liked the 35/2 ASPH's compactness + plus I have an old 35/1.4 which is not great on the lens tests wide open but interesting. All of this, however, is by the way.

Now here is what I have to say about the 35/2ASPH and what I suggest for you.

The 35/2ASPH is a father knows best lens. It is perfect. No flare. Even tonality. Great contrast. Excellent color rendering. It is great even down to f16. Absolutely perfect. If verasimilitude is what you want that is the lens for you.

It does not have that "glow" of some of my older Leica lenses, including my flarey and soft wide open 35/1.4. The "glow" is the work of imperfection. It is this that you might miss by trading off the old 35/2.

So this is what I suggest. Keep the old 'cron 35/2. Get either the 35/2 or 35/1.4 ASPH. They are the same focal length but two very different lenses with very different fingerprints.

Mind you, the new 35/2 ASPH shoots rings around your old lens wide open, especially off-center. It is noticable. But the old lens will have a certain touch that you miss.

You might consider a 35/1.4 ASPH--which is better at f2 than the 35/2 ASPH.

Hope this helps.

Best,

Alex

-- Alex Shishin (shishin@pp.iij4-u.or.jp), June 02, 2002.

For several years I used a 35mm cron RF on a M3. IMO the lens was very desireable. At middle and wider apertures the OOF areas were smooth and creamy. At wide open, the light fall off at the corners disappointed me. The loss of contrast during viewing and focusing due to the "bug eyes" really was a detractor for low light work.

I finally decided to move on from the M3 and during one of it's long repair outages, I purchased a M6 and 35mm ASPH cron. For a while, I ran them side by side, trying to decide between the OOF performance of the older formula to the great wide open performance of the new ASPH. The latter won out and I no longer have either the M3 body or lens for that body. I do have a 50mm lux that still gives me the OOF qualities if I decide that's what I'm really looking for, but I just use and depend on the 35mm ASPH so much wide open that it is the reasonable choice for me. My only regrets were that the .58x bodies were announced about a year after my "new" .72x. I'd used the M3 for 20 years before buying the M6, only a few "geological seconds" later would have given me the "perfect" combo. .58x and 35mm.

For wide open shooting, I really like the evenness of the full field illumination of the 35mm ASPH cron. The resolution and contrast, while not really the issue for me over the prior lens, is outstanding. I'm comparing a several generations old cron to the most recent. Some of my statements may not apply across all versions.

Regards, Roger

-- Roger Bunting (leica35@yahoo.com), June 04, 2002.

Hi Peter, I'm a little late on this one. It's good to hear you have chosen to stick with the 4th version 'cron. I too like others had the ASPH 'cron first. but after reading several threads and seeing images in leica world shot with the 4th, i took the plunge. i did a side by side b&W test against my ASPH and i can say that at the moment the 4th is travelling with me for b&w work, while the ASPH is on the shelf. several things i noticed. the 4th is much smoother in the OOF renditions, has better micro detail and less contrast. the images have a special visual quality. the ASPH is a bit too contrasty i think and the mid-tones and shadows detail tends to clump up in low light condition work. its sharper yes wspecially to the edges but i think it destroys the naturalness of an image, compared to its predecessor anyway. its a case of max. character vs. max sharpness. as for colur work i jhavent done a side by side colour slide test. i suspect the ASPH may be more color correct but the 4th may produce more pleasing images. will have to see. but you shoot mostly b&w, so its not an issue. happy shooting!

-- sparkie (sparkie@mailcity.com), June 05, 2002.