Besides sharpness, have you noticed a different look to your Asph lenses? In other words, would someone be able to detect a difference in color saturation, contrast, and other subjective qualities if you compared two slides side by side, one from a non-APO/Asph lens such as the 50 Summicron and an Asph lens such as the 35 Summicron Asph?

-- Bob (robljones@home.com), April 06, 2001

Answers

Response to Is there an APO/Asph “look”?

I find the ASPH lenses to be have better macro contrast ("snap" , if you will) and higher colour saturation than the 50. This isn't based on any formal comparison, but my feeling is that the 50 Summicron-M has been left behind by the newer lenses, especially at larger apertures. As a result the 50 stays in the bag a lot more these days. The new lenses may or may not be sharper (i.e. have higher resolution) than the 50, but they certainly give a greater subjective impression of sharpness to me.

I haven't tried the 21 (I'm not a superwide shooter) and the only other ASPH lens that I didn't like as much as the 50 was the 24. With that lens I got the occasional odd "look" to things like bare tree branches against hazy skies. My refusal to come to terms with it probably says more about me than the lens itself, though.

Nowadays I usually use the 50 setting on my 3E rather than the Summicron.

-- Paul Chefurka (paul_chefurka@pmc-sierra.com), April 06, 2001.

Response to Is there an APO/Asph “look”?

I own 3 ASPH M lenses, the 21, 35/1.4 and Tri-Elmar, and used to own a 35/2 ASPH; I also have the 135/3.4 APO-Telyt. The 21 and 35/1.4 are big improvements over their non-ASPH predecessors, in edge sharpness, overall contrast at wider apertures, distortion and flare suppression. The 35/2 has a bit better center-to-edge consistency that it's predecessor, but not so dramatic as with the 21 and 35/1.4. The 135/3.4 APO-Telyt is indistiguishable from the f/4 Tele-Elmar at any aperture in any way mortal eyes can detect, and I am sorry I wasted my money. The current 50 Summicron is a lens I think would be even harder to see any improvement over than the 135 Tele-Elmar, so I would not buy an APO-ASPH or new-version 50/2 until I'd tested it against the old one.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), April 06, 2001.

Response to Is there an APO/Asph “look”?

Bob:

When I compared three Leica 35 lenses (asph cron, asph lux, and non- asph cron) aside from sharpness and flare, I found little difference in "the look" between these lenses. (They were all great, and the images "look" a lot better to me for example, than those from my Nikon.) I'll even go a little further by saying that IMO, "the look" of images from my asph lux is more different than "the looks" of both the asph and non-asph crons. However, when flare entered the equation, the non-asph cron took on its own unique look due to the extra flare present; contrast was lowered a bit, and the images seemed to lack the "pop" of either of the asph versions. Also, I think it is important for me to add that the differences I am talking about were very small overall, and that I compared these lenses using Provia only; you might get an entirely different result if you compared "the looks" using B&W film.

As far as making a general statement regarding "the look" of asph vs non-asph lenses, again IMO, I don't think think there is much difference. I own the 24 asph, 90 asph, and both 35's, as well as a noctilux, 50 cron and 90 TE. The Noctilux has its own unique look - no question - but really only below f4. However, lens perspectives aside, I really don't see much difference in "the look" between my Leica lenses - differences in sharpness and flare suppression, yes; but in "the look", no.

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), April 08, 2001.