35mm Choices

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

You mean the 35/2 v4 # 11310 or 11311 i guess. Been using one since the eightees and i still do. Compared to my recently acquired 35/2 asph its main strengths are its small size and a lesser contrast for those who like that. Its weaknesses a higher sensitiveness to flare and a bit of softness at f/2. Color wise i don't see significant differences aside from contrast but i shoot raw. I find bokeh generally more contrasty with the asph but the v4's may be sharper from time to time contrary to its reputation.

[Advertisement]

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

[IWC Doppel]

Yes the pre asph last model summicron before the current asph I am not at home to check the part number on the box. I will investigate the colours a little more, both RAW straight to LR, the MkIV shows a different colour temp on LR3 uncoded vs the asph coded 'on + UV/IR.

 

I wonder about bokeh on film vs digital, the reason I say that is my brother tried an asph on his M6 when they came out and much preferred the bokeh of his MkIV which he bout from new in 1998.

[gjames9142]

I will reiterate my point about digital photography. The inherent colour rendering of a lens can be changed with remarkable precision with the colour temperature slider. It doesn't matter that much. If you are concerned with the out-of-focus characteristics, fine. Post production allows for a huge range of "looks" independent of innate lens characteristics. I suppose resolution matters, because you can't change that by sharpening. Contrast will also cause blowing of highlights. But any of the lenses you are considering will be fine. I like Leica gear, but my new Zeiss is sharper than anything I have owned. Not sure whether I really like it, though.