photophile Posted January 8, 2008 Share #1 Posted January 8, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) I would like some advice. I use an m6 - 21, 35 50 and 90 crons. all older, non asph. is it worth the purchase of a 35 cron asph and selling the older version..the asph seems to have more "snap" than mine. pros and cons. all comments welcome. thanks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 8, 2008 Posted January 8, 2008 Hi photophile, Take a look here asph or not?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
sparkie Posted January 8, 2008 Share #2 Posted January 8, 2008 me personally i like the non-asph glass. especially the pre-asph versions of lenses just before the ASPH ones. eg the 90/2.0 pre-ASPH and 35/2.0 pre-ASPH lenses are fantastic lenses. excellent sharpness, smooth bokeh, great imaging character. For B&W this is a hands down winner for me. For colour work perhaps the newer glass is more colour accurate the new ASPH lenses are 'technically' better lenses. ie more flare suppression, more corrected for aberations etc etc.. but you kind of end up with quite clinical images, generally more contrast and quite harsh bokeh (on some lenses). the question is.. just how much more sharpness do you need? horses for courses i guess. beg or borrow and test both out, get some prints. Lay them side by side and thn decide which you the look od best Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted January 8, 2008 Share #3 Posted January 8, 2008 The asph is shaper and more contrasty but i don't like its bokeh that i find too harsh personally. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBA Posted January 8, 2008 Share #4 Posted January 8, 2008 I am starting out with asph lenses (35 and 90 crons so far, 50 lux next), but if I already had a battery of non-asph lenses, I don't think I would be anxious to cash them in for a marginal improvement in performance. Of course, the decision would depend on your style and specific photographic goals. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wizard Posted January 8, 2008 Share #5 Posted January 8, 2008 My advice would be, if you mainly or at least often use your lenses at or near full aperture, then go for the asph versions, as it is there where they excel. If however f4 - f8 is where you use your lenses most, I see no real reason to swap lenses. Bokeh is a very personal thing. For example, the Summicron 90 asph has often been criticized for a somewhat harsh bokeh, but I find my own sample to render oof areas in a very pleasant way, and color rendition is beyond reproach. The only Leica lens that according to my own experience produces somewhat harsh pictures is the current Elmar-M 50mm lens, notably a non-asph lens! Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted January 8, 2008 Share #6 Posted January 8, 2008 ...Bokeh is a very personal thing. For example, the Summicron 90 asph has often been criticized for a somewhat harsh bokeh, but I find my own sample to render oof areas in a very pleasant way, and color rendition is beyond reproach. The only Leica lens that according to my own experience produces somewhat harsh pictures is the current Elmar-M 50mm lens, notably a non-asph lens!... Surprising indeed! Would you be so kind as showing us any pic from the current Elmar with a harsh bokeh? Never seen this so far i must say. Edit: This one has been shot with the current Elmar 50. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wizard Posted January 8, 2008 Share #7 Posted January 8, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) LCT, I didn't say the current Elmar produces a harsh bokeh, what I meant was that its way of rendering could be characterised as 'harsh'. Very contrasty, very sharp and colors probably not as finely differentiated as with, say, a current Summicron. The Elmar in my view and experience etches lines into the emulsion, which may benefit certain subjects, but may be a bit on the harsh side with others. Don't get me wrong, I do like the current Elmar (I even have two of them, one chrome and one black ), but for me this is the 'harshest' lens in my stable of Leica lenses. Sorry, no possibility to upload any pictures, I do not even own a scanner, and if I would, I would have to learn scanning first, which is the real obstacle (as it consumes a lot of time I do not have). Cheers, Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted January 8, 2008 Share #8 Posted January 8, 2008 ...what I meant was that its way of rendering could be characterised as 'harsh'. Very contrasty, very sharp and colors probably not as finely differentiated as with, say, a current Summicron... I would not say harsh personally but i agree that the Elmar is much contrasty and saturate if not as sharp as the 50/1.4 asph though, now it is somewhat funny that you say this and you defend the 35/2 asph which is very close but has a not-so-smooth, to say the least, bokeh. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joop van Heijgen Posted January 8, 2008 Share #9 Posted January 8, 2008 I am starting out with asph lenses (35 and 90 crons so far, 50 lux next), but if I already had a battery of non-asph lenses, I don't think I would be anxious to cash them in for a marginal improvement in performance. Of course, the decision would depend on your style and specific photographic goals. 'but if I already had a battery of non-asph lenses, I don't think I would be anxious to cash them in for a marginal improvement in performance.' Indeed, a waste of money! For most films at ISO 100 you can't see any difference! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wizard Posted January 8, 2008 Share #10 Posted January 8, 2008 ...now it is somewhat funny that you say this and you defend the 35/2 asph which is very close but has a not-so-smooth, to say the least, bokeh. Above I was refering to the 90/2 asph, not the 35/2 asph, but as a matter of fact I do like the rendering of both of these lenses (and of the 50/1.4 asph as well), no matter what other people say. Regards, Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted January 8, 2008 Share #11 Posted January 8, 2008 Matter of tastes of course. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gyoung Posted January 8, 2008 Share #12 Posted January 8, 2008 'but if I already had a battery of non-asph lenses, I don't think I would be anxious to cash them in for a marginal improvement in performance.' Indeed, a waste of money! For most films at ISO 100 you can't see any difference! I have an original type 35 Summicron for the M3 which I have had for a long time, when I got the M6 I also got an aspheric 35 Summicron, the M3 one looks rather large on the M6. While 'testing' can show differences, normal use (for me) involves mostly hand held landscape and interiors and the differences are not normally apparent. Large apertures usually mean slow shutter speeds, and then camera shake negates any improvement in resolution. Gerry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
engelfangen Posted January 8, 2008 Share #13 Posted January 8, 2008 Summicron 35mm. what do you think about the bokeh, asph or non-asph? ;-) 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/42113-asph-or-not/?do=findComment&comment=445990'>More sharing options...
wizard Posted January 8, 2008 Share #14 Posted January 8, 2008 That must be the asph. Hard to say something on bokeh without a direct comparison, but the version IV Summicron will likely be a bit softer in the oof areas. Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
harmsr Posted January 8, 2008 Share #15 Posted January 8, 2008 Marc, That is the non-asph. It has those strangely distorted circular highlights in the OOF area which I don't like. The asph although it is often times too contrasty does not exhibit this. In my opinion the new asph has a smoother or more pleasing OOF area. Best, Ray Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wizard Posted January 8, 2008 Share #16 Posted January 8, 2008 Hmmh, I do use the version IV Summicron quite a lot, never noticed distorted circular highlights so far, but perhaps I wasn't paying attention. That'll be interesting, Marc, which one was it? Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joop van Heijgen Posted January 8, 2008 Share #17 Posted January 8, 2008 Hmmh, I do use the version IV Summicron quite a lot, never noticed distorted circular highlights so far, but perhaps I wasn't paying attention. That'll be interesting, Marc, which one was it? Andy I do use the version lll Summicron 35 and I find this type more beautiful than version IV. Specially the 'bokeh' is more soft and has no distorted circulair highlights! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
engelfangen Posted January 8, 2008 Share #18 Posted January 8, 2008 Hi, it's the asph Summicron @ 2 or 2,8. I think the main difference between the asph and the 1. version Summicron that I have is the sharpness at the corners (a non-asph would show the little stones on the left side softer) and the darker corners (with the older version). The impression of the bokeh depends also much on the film and developer. This photo was taken with FP4 @100 in D76 1+1 20°C 11min. I like to use the asph with a "softer" film like the FP4 and to use the 1v with a "harder" film like the Acros. Someone wrote about a photo of the 1v/Acros combo that I posted in the forum, that "he don't like the big contrast of this new leica lenses" ;-). For me the new asph Summicron is open much better (less light fall and sharper corners) than the first version, but if I have enough light outside (from 5,6 up) I like to use my first Version Summicron too. best regards Marc Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
harmsr Posted January 8, 2008 Share #19 Posted January 8, 2008 Ok - I'm wrong & very surprised. That type of bokeh is what I saw out of the pre-asph cron and did not like, which is why I went for the asph cron. My asph cron has never given me that type of bokeh, as exhibited on the highlighted tree leaves in the background. Ray Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
photophile Posted January 9, 2008 Author Share #20 Posted January 9, 2008 to all of you..my sincerest thanks. I shall continue to use my current stock of lenses as I have come to the conclusion that the resulting increase in corner sharpness appear to be limited to the wider aperatures...and the remain differences are probably more esoteric than the financial outlay would negate. besides, regretably, much of my ( b&W ) film is now scanned prior to printing..and the resulting loss of quality would cancel out the difference between asph and non ( I think that would be true ). your input was indeed very helpful. now...do i take the money i did not spend on the asph and buy an m8....but that is for another time yet again.. be well all. CH Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.