Summicron 35 ASPH, worth the extra dough?

[mbaker]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm looking to get a 35 mm Summicron ASPH. But pre-asph versions are about 1,000 less... is the asph version worth the extra money?

[bill]

1000 what?

 

You may as well ask if you are a good enough photographer to be able to capitalise upon the performance improvement. Value is a subjective and very personal decision.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[peter_n]

Depends if you like sharp especially wide-open. The ASPH is a great lens but the pre-ASPH lenses are excellent in their own right. Go to flickr and look up 35 ASPH and 35 pre-ASPH tags and decide for yourself if you like the look of one over the other. I like and use both.

[mbaker]

I constantly shoot wide open (pretty much all I shoot) I want the subject to be sharp but I love bokeh.

[andym911]

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/people/128780-m8-snapshot-but-old-cron-lovely.html

 

here a recent post of mine with pre ASPH 35 Cron on an m8..

Plenty sharp IMO and gorgeous OOF areas, again in my opinion.

 

best

andy

[wizard]

I constantly shoot wide open (pretty much all I shoot)

 

If that is what you do, yes, then the asph IS worth the extra 1000, whatever they are. Its bokeh is fine, don't worry, go for it.

 

Andy

[andym911]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

sorry was not clear in my earlier post...NO is the answer...I too shoot wide, or nearly wide open most of the time

 

andy

[wizard]

sorry was not clear in my earlier post...NO is the answer...I too shoot wide, or nearly wide open most of the time

 

andy

 

Ahh, Andy, come on, if you shoot your lens wide open on an M8, the portions of the image where the pre-asph becomes soft will be cropped out anyway. It is another matter, however, if full format is concerned. I own both lenses, the pre-asph and the asph 2/35, and I LOVE the pre-asph (actually use it more often than the asph). But don't tell me the asph isn't better wide open. It is, and by a significant margin. So if shooting mostly wide open is of interest, there is no contest, the asph wins hands down.

 

Andy

[luigi bertolotti]

My only personal comparision is Asph vs. the FIRST un-asph... the 8-elements version: a giant step up.

[bocaburger]

Anyone can access the lab tests I suppose, which are the only quantified data. Otherwise it boils down to pure subjective opinion. As for mine (subjective opinion that is) I can only relate what I did. Owned the ASPH, sold the ASPH. I've got both a 3rd and 4th generation pre-ASPH. Did likewise with 21 and 90 ASPH's and 135 APO, sold them and kept their predecessors. Sold a 35 Summilux-ASPH too. Regrets? Yes, that I didn't keep them another couple years. Could've doubled my money. Again, pure subjectivity.

[andym911]

Ahh, Andy, come on, if you shoot your lens wide open on an M8, the portions of the image where the pre-asph becomes soft will be cropped out anyway. It is another matter, however, if full format is concerned. I own both lenses, the pre-asph and the asph 2/35, and I LOVE the pre-asph (actually use it more often than the asph). But don't tell me the asph isn't better wide open. It is, and by a significant margin. So if shooting mostly wide open is of interest, there is no contest, the asph wins hands down.

 

Andy

 

Hey....no question which lens is 'better' .....ASPH for sure.

The OP asked earlier for sharp images and nice bokeh...my version delivers that, therefore I would not spend 1k more on the ASPH lens that's all.

 

Just an opinion and I agree on the M8 its a different decision.

 

guess I am just sensitive to my own photographic competence.....meaning that ASPH or not will never be the deciding factor of whether my images are good or not:)

best

andy