One of our local shop is selling a Leica 35mm 1.4 asphericals for more than USD4k.The lens is labelled with the words asphericals rather than the usual ASPH. She said the lens has two aspheric elements. The lens looks cool and big. Does anyone know this particular lens ?
DPR Forum
Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a photography forum with people from all over the world freely sharing their knowledge and love of photography. Everybody is welcome, from beginners to the experienced professional. Whether it is Medium Format, fullframe, APS-C, MFT or smaller formats. Digital or film. DPRF is a forum for everybody and for every format.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!
Summicron 4th versus Summicron ASPH
- Thread starter red1
- Start date
Joseph,
Just browsing old topics and noticed your post about very expensive 'two element' 35mm aspheric lenses.
I was reading about them very recently - I think they are possibly early ashperic summilux lenses, which had two hand-ground aspheric elements (hence the extra cost) instead of one moulded asph element.
They are allegedly 'better' - although this may be one of those Leica myths!
http://www.kbcamera.com/summilux35mm.htm
Regards,
James
Just browsing old topics and noticed your post about very expensive 'two element' 35mm aspheric lenses.
I was reading about them very recently - I think they are possibly early ashperic summilux lenses, which had two hand-ground aspheric elements (hence the extra cost) instead of one moulded asph element.
They are allegedly 'better' - although this may be one of those Leica myths!
http://www.kbcamera.com/summilux35mm.htm
Regards,
James
Thanx James.
No matter how good the 35 1.4 ASPH or 35 1.4 ASPHERICALS, I am happy with my chrome 35 2 ASPH Summicrons.
Despite the fact that Leica is going to have a partial frammed digital M7, I am not to keen with this idea. I really wish they can have a full frammed one.
No matter how good the 35 1.4 ASPH or 35 1.4 ASPHERICALS, I am happy with my chrome 35 2 ASPH Summicrons.
Despite the fact that Leica is going to have a partial frammed digital M7, I am not to keen with this idea. I really wish they can have a full frammed one.
Joseph -
Yes, I'm not sold on digital in terms of Leica yet. Its not really why I bought a Leica, plus I love working on film to be honest. Its interesting looking at the test photos that Jim Arnold took (which are great - so much better to have something to see than trying to describe effects of different lenses). I had been wondering if I was missing something not having an aspheric (I have a V4 summicron too) and had wondered about upgrading at a later stage. To my eye, the V4 is more pleasing in those test shots, although I can see that the aspheric might be technically better in some shots. I'm now wanting a 50 and 90, although I'm considering a 75 instead of the 90, because it sounds like a good focal length for portraits. I don't suppose there are any more comparitive lens test pictures posted anywhere? What is the subjective difference in quality between summicron and summilux lenlses?
James
Yes, I'm not sold on digital in terms of Leica yet. Its not really why I bought a Leica, plus I love working on film to be honest. Its interesting looking at the test photos that Jim Arnold took (which are great - so much better to have something to see than trying to describe effects of different lenses). I had been wondering if I was missing something not having an aspheric (I have a V4 summicron too) and had wondered about upgrading at a later stage. To my eye, the V4 is more pleasing in those test shots, although I can see that the aspheric might be technically better in some shots. I'm now wanting a 50 and 90, although I'm considering a 75 instead of the 90, because it sounds like a good focal length for portraits. I don't suppose there are any more comparitive lens test pictures posted anywhere? What is the subjective difference in quality between summicron and summilux lenlses?
James
Many people have discussed the various 75s and 90s in www.photo.net. If you type some key words in search you will find plenty of comparsions.
Though there are plenty of them, I find there are important difference between 90 and 75 not commonly discussed.
This one was taken with 75 2 ASPH at f 2.8 made to 8X11 print then photographed with my Sony R1 at f11 with studio flash. You can tell it is from 75 2 at 2.8 because the bokeh has the typical shape.
With the 75, you could focus in distance shorter than 1 meter. At this position, the cheek looks bigger, the face has a roundish look. It does make the subject looks younger and gives the viewer an intimate feeling because you are looking at the subject at a nearer distance. This feature distinguish it from 90 which can focus down to 1 meter. At the shorter distance, 75 is superior to 90 in producing an intimate feeling to the viewer.
When you are using the 75 at distance more than 1 meter, it behaves exactly like the 90, it makes the subject smaller.
The second one is taken with M90 2 ASPH at f2. The distance is 1 meter. At this distance, the subject looks more distal, the face looks more real and has a mature look. In fact, 90mm at 1 meter can be used for clinical photos when the face has to look normal and real.
I chose the newer M75 2 instead of the 75 lux because I prefer to use f2. If I have the 75 lux, I would use it at 1.4 but I don't like the 1.4. f2 of the 75 lux is not as good as the f2 of 75 2. 75 2 also has a better bokeh.
M90 2 ASPH is sharper and more contrasty than the old version of M90 2 at f2 and higher f no.
Though there are plenty of them, I find there are important difference between 90 and 75 not commonly discussed.
This one was taken with 75 2 ASPH at f 2.8 made to 8X11 print then photographed with my Sony R1 at f11 with studio flash. You can tell it is from 75 2 at 2.8 because the bokeh has the typical shape.
With the 75, you could focus in distance shorter than 1 meter. At this position, the cheek looks bigger, the face has a roundish look. It does make the subject looks younger and gives the viewer an intimate feeling because you are looking at the subject at a nearer distance. This feature distinguish it from 90 which can focus down to 1 meter. At the shorter distance, 75 is superior to 90 in producing an intimate feeling to the viewer.
When you are using the 75 at distance more than 1 meter, it behaves exactly like the 90, it makes the subject smaller.
The second one is taken with M90 2 ASPH at f2. The distance is 1 meter. At this distance, the subject looks more distal, the face looks more real and has a mature look. In fact, 90mm at 1 meter can be used for clinical photos when the face has to look normal and real.
I chose the newer M75 2 instead of the 75 lux because I prefer to use f2. If I have the 75 lux, I would use it at 1.4 but I don't like the 1.4. f2 of the 75 lux is not as good as the f2 of 75 2. 75 2 also has a better bokeh.
M90 2 ASPH is sharper and more contrasty than the old version of M90 2 at f2 and higher f no.
Thanks Joseph, that's very interesting. I can certainly see the greater three-dimensionality of the 75 (which I would expect) in your photos. I guess they are different lenses for different applications. I think I would probably prefer the 75 for general purposes (I could see myself ideally having a good 35 and a good 75 in my bag. I think I'd be more comfortable using the 90 with my .72 rangefinder too, having used a 90 a friend lent me recently - the framelines for the 90 are very small and the 75 framelines look more workable, although I'd probably get used to it. However, economics might dictate that I go for the 35, 50, 90 combo to star t with, since used 75s are very expensive still compared to the non-asph 50s and 90s out there, even ones in mint condition. I'll have to save up for a while if I want one of the new 75 apo lenses (which I do!). James
The photos are shown to show the difference in perspective of the two lenses, but I do agree that 75 is more versatile. There are plenty of good and economical 90 around, I mean M90 2.8. Get a 2nd handed magnifier as well. I always use the magnifier on my .85 and .9 M3. Sometimes I even use two magnifiers together. It makes the frame a lot bigger.
The new Zeiss Ikon is also a good alternative, I heard that you can put Nikon magnifier on it.
The new Zeiss Ikon is also a good alternative, I heard that you can put Nikon magnifier on it.