Paul J Posted July 5, 2012 Share #101 Â Posted July 5, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Thanks very much. The Bokeh in that that shot of IWC is quite astonishing and while I am very fond of my FLE I do wish it's bokeh looked like this. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 5, 2012 Posted July 5, 2012 Hi Paul J, Take a look here disappointed by Summilux 35 FLE. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Paul J Posted July 5, 2012 Share #102  Posted July 5, 2012 Sorry to distract from the OP's question and thoughts. I will pop my 35 summilux ASPH. and 35 summilux ASPHERICAL (AA) on a tripod and take a few shots.  I have a friend who is awaiting a 35 Summilux FLE and I can borrow a 35 Summicron MkIV too. So will make these comparisons as some point.  What I can say is the first shots out of the Camera with the ASPHERICAL surprised me with just how 'interesting' and 3D it painted. I really, really like the 35 APSH. I think it's a wonderful lens and before trying the AA it was certainly my favourite lens. Unfortunately given the rarity and market price the AA its a shame this is so nice. There is no doubt the AA is the nicest lens I have and now and my favourite, judged on the way it paints.  I bought it with a view to trying, with the expectation of selling on given the value. Not sure I will part with it  I would really like to see this. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IWC Doppel Posted July 5, 2012 Share #103  Posted July 5, 2012 (edited) Hi All,  When I get home I will post pictures of the ASPH. and ASPHERICAL (AA) lenses side by side, I can do this with quite easily and quickly  I'll set the tripod up at the weekend and post side by side shots with the two lenses. The physical differneces are  Obviously the two Aspheical hand gound lenses on the AA AA 10g lighter AA a few mm longer Marking on the AA move from inches to feet The aperture ring is different The lens mounts and focus ring is different The AA has ASPHERICAL on the lens, the later (ASPH.) have ASPH. on the lens The AA has a different hood mount (Same hood as the 28 Cron) Edited July 5, 2012 by IWC Doppel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IWC Doppel Posted July 5, 2012 Share #104  Posted July 5, 2012 A quick shot already on my iphone. Sorry it's a little poor, you will see the AA on the left the ASPH. on the right. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/182785-disappointed-by-summilux-35-fle/?do=findComment&comment=2055991'>More sharing options...
01af Posted July 5, 2012 Share #105 Â Posted July 5, 2012 ... and ASPHERICAL (AA) lenses ... Just why do you feel the compulsion to establish an excrescent new name for something that already has a name? 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted July 5, 2012 Share #106 Â Posted July 5, 2012 When I get home I will post pictures of the ASPH. and ASPHERICAL (AA) lenses side by side, I can do this with quite easily and quickly... Â It's a minor point, but why are you referring to the 'ASPHERICAL' version as "AA"? The latter is usually shorthand for APO-ASPH lenses. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted July 5, 2012 Share #107 Â Posted July 5, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Just why do you feel the compulsion to establish an excrescent new name for something that already has a name? I'm inclined to agree because it potentially confuses issues. "AA" shorthand normally refers to an APO-ASPH lens rather than one with two aspherical elements. Â Pete. Â Oops, cross-posted with Ian. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted July 5, 2012 Share #108  Posted July 5, 2012 My guess is 35FLE, why ? It doesn't look a familar foot print and the bokeh to me in this shot looks a little odd, I'd be interested to see the answer !!  It was taken with the first Summilux ASPH (1994–2010 version). 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmradman Posted July 5, 2012 Share #109  Posted July 5, 2012 (edited) I am happy with mine 35mm f1.4, shot at ISO 1,000  Added bonus; mr nephew is doppelganger for Michael J Hussman (mjh).   Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Edited July 5, 2012 by mmradman 2 Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/182785-disappointed-by-summilux-35-fle/?do=findComment&comment=2056006'>More sharing options...
IWC Doppel Posted July 5, 2012 Share #110  Posted July 5, 2012 It was taken with the first Summilux ASPH (1994–2010 version).  Well I am surprised, I havent seen an image simlar in terms of Bokeh regarding the distant trees and the horizon, I havent shot the same scene either Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IWC Doppel Posted July 5, 2012 Share #111  Posted July 5, 2012 Just why do you feel the compulsion to establish an excrescent new name for something that already has a name?  The only compulsion is to reduce typing, Erwin as people know often reduced the full names and calls The summilux SX, Noctilux NX and Mr Huff chose the (AA) for the ASPHERICAL The Leica 35 Summilux Double ASPHERICAL (AA) Lens Review – A Classic full of Magic! | STEVE HUFF PHOTOS  Probably not the best acronym given there a rather scary marure dating advert on his site.....  Would people be offended if I used DA if the AA is now used elsewhere ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted July 5, 2012 Share #112 Â Posted July 5, 2012 It seems the AA moniker is widely used to describe the double aspherical elements. I have seen it being described as such all over the net. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 5, 2012 Share #113 Â Posted July 5, 2012 AA can easily be confused with the Apo Summicron ASPH 90, which is commonly called AA as well. In general I find acronyms like SX, FLE, SE, NX, VE, etc. practical, as opposed to Lux, Cron and Noct which always get my hackles up,as it suggests, to my ear, a pretension of belonging to some kind of in-crowd of connoisseurs. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 5, 2012 Share #114 Â Posted July 5, 2012 As I said, I won't fight anybody over the exact value as I am not inclined to do the math, but what you are seeing at pixel level is the resolution of the sensor, not DOF. Take an image at 1.4 and one at 16, and if you blow it up far enough, the apparent "DOF" will be (nearly, to allow for aberrations) the same. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IWC Doppel Posted July 5, 2012 Share #115 Â Posted July 5, 2012 I'll refer as 35ASPH and 35AA, hope all okay with that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted July 5, 2012 Share #116 Â Posted July 5, 2012 (edited) AA can easily be confused with the Apo Summicron ASPH 90, which is commonly called AA as well. In general I find acronyms like SX, FLE, SE, NX, VE, etc. practical, as opposed to Lux, Cron and Noct which always get my hackles up,as it suggests, to my ear, a pretension of belonging to some kind of in-crowd of connoisseurs. Â It's funny what reactions such things have on us. I find the SX, FLE, SE etc more annoying as it sounds like a Toyota or something equally frugal or clunky or sensible. These things are far more offensive to me! In general though I don't like abbreviations but sometimes slip up and am guilty of saying Lux on the occasion and it is just to save on typing at times. Â As far as in crowds go, I just don't let that sort of nonsense get to me. Its pretty obvious when someone is posturing with gear and quite easily ignored. Edited July 5, 2012 by Paul J 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted July 5, 2012 Share #117  Posted July 5, 2012 Cron and Lux are comprehensible at least but AA?, XE?, VE? The acronym mania must be à la mode i guess. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted July 5, 2012 Share #118  Posted July 5, 2012 Cron and Lux are comprehensible at least but AA?, XE?, VE? The acronym mania must be à la mode i guess.  That's my thought as well ... using Leica catalogue number would make it a lot easier.  The latest 35 lux is 11663, the last 35 lux 11874 ... 2 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted July 5, 2012 Share #119  Posted July 5, 2012 That's my thought as well ... using Leica catalogue number would make it a lot easier. The latest 35 lux is 11663, the last 35 lux 11874 ...  call me crazy but couldn't we just name it the official name?  Summilux Summilux Aspherical Summilux Asph Summilux Asph FLE  Anyone found abbreviating Aspherical to asph will be punished, tortured and/or shot.  I always feel like a geeky trainspotter quoting numbers. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted July 5, 2012 Share #120 Â Posted July 5, 2012 (edited) What's wrong with calling them by their given names? It at least gives those with English as their second language a fighting chance of understanding what's being discussed and it's not like most of us couldn't do with a little extra typing practice. Â Pete. Â Edit: Oops cross-posted. Edited July 5, 2012 by farnz Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now