Leica 35mm Asph vs non-asph

[tyler]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have the 35mm Summicorn 2.0 (version iv) and love it.

 

Is the 35mm ASPH 2.0 THAT much better and is it larger than the lens I have?

 

thanks

 

 

tv

[gjames9142]

The answers are no and yes, in that order. I have a sense that you don't realize how good the version 4 is until you put it in front of the demanding sensor of the M9.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[tyler]

I really DO LOVE the version IV but just wondered if I was missing something by not getting the ASPH version. If it is larger--forget it--I love the small size of the version IV.

 

I have an older (12 years) Summilux 35mm 1.4, but I like using the version IV better.

 

Thanks for the info.

 

tv

[H. James Wolf]

It's not much larger, if at all, but it is heavier. Flare is more controlled with the ASPH, and it may be a bit sharper, but in day-to-day use, if you like your version IV, stick with it.

[wizard]

... and it may be a bit sharper, ....

 

Wide open, yes, the asph is sharper, but from f4 onwards, there is no detectable difference. My version iv is incredibly sharp stopped down. And I do love its small size (use it way more often than the asph, which I also own). Flare control, however, is significantly better with the asph.

 

Andy

[gjames9142]

I have found that much of the flare problem with the IV is caused by having a UV filter.

[wizard]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have found that much of the flare problem with the IV is caused by having a UV filter.

 

True, a UV filter (or any filter for that matter) does not help in this regard. But my asph has no flare problems at all even with a UV filter mounted.

 

Andy

[andybarton]

Mine neither. A Leica branded filter sits on the front all the time.

[yanidel]

The answers are no and yes, in that order. I have a sense that you don't realize how good the version 4 is until you put it in front of the demanding sensor of the M9.

Yet it is in front of the M9 that you will realize that corners are much softer than the asph version until F4. No big deal but if one wants perfect sharpness on the whole field, the asph is definitely a better option.

[iShutterbug]

I just shot film with them but I much prefered the asph over the iv, and so I sold the latter. I really liked the bokeh of the asph--even though the iv was supposed to be the "bokeh king." The asph was like a macro lens in that it was evenly sharp across the frame, whereas the iv was a little soft in the corners. I decided the iv would be better for people or portraits (which I don't do much), and the asph for that and landscape and architecture (which I like to do). I spent some time comparing bokehs of the shots I took and the asph always came out on top, but maybe that was just my style and/or the copies I had. I shot with and without [clean, Leitz] uv filters for my comparisons and noticed no difference there.

[farnz]

In contrast to Shutterbug I shot both on film and prefer the v. IV for its micro-contrast and creamy out-of-focus areas even though it vignettes a little more. I liked the asph very much but I like the v. IV more.

 

Pete.