I'm still into ASPH research although I've read everything here on this (I think), also that from Erwin Puts etc. My eyes are 54 and I see too that their qualitative ascertation is nothing in comparison with technical analysis etc. I don't really need high speed lenses, and I only want crisp resolution and contrast e.g. for landscape and architecture, not any smoothness and bokehs for portaits etc.

So what's the problem? Salesmen told me that it all depends on the focal length. Can anybody here tell me something good or bad about their own personal knowledge and/or experience about the improvement(s) of M ASPHs towards the last generation of non-ASPHs? I'm interested in *comparisons*: what is the difference you see here between wide angle pairs (ASPH <-> non-ASPH) versus telephoto pairs (ASPH <-> non-ASPH). For example, if I need an M 21 mm and an M 2.0/90 mm, which could more easily be a non-ASPH (second hand) and which *should definitely* be an ASPH (new)?

Thanks for your help here. Hope you're not sick and tired of all this ASPH sermon stuff.

Mike

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), May 30, 2001

Answers

I don't have a lot of 'tech' info at my disposal, so I'll just give you my personal observations. I've used primarily the 35 and 90 M's, both Asph and non and find that stopped down 1 to 2 stops I truly could not tell the diffenence. Wide open the Asph's definitely have the edge, especially in (no pun intended) edge sharpness. I have seen no discernable difference in contrast or flare control, which I think is more a by-product of the coatings. Especially with the 35, if you don't do a lot of max-aperture shooting, I'd go with the latest non asph glass. Having said this I would like to comment on the R F4 35-70, which, though for some reason not advertised as such has Asph elements. This is the sharpest Zoom I have ever used. Many have berated it because for the same price as a Nikkor or Canon A/F Zoom of this focal lenght you only get an F4 as oppossed to 2.8, but I've used all three and the Leica (I know, it's a Kyrocera), wins hands down in every way. A suberb lens and I wonder how much is due to design, and how much due to the Asph elements. So a question - does Asph make more of a difference in complicated zoom lens design??

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), May 30, 2001.

The ASPH lenses represent the latest generation of lens design technology in other respects than simply containing aspheric elements. There are plenty of aspheric lenses on the market by various manufacturers which are entry-level consumer-grade optics with less-than-remarkable performance. In the case of Leica, their optical quality was already at such a level that in most cases the improvements in the ASPH versions were mostly noticeable at the widest stops, with more contrast and less vignetting and some improvement in edge sharpness. Whether they are "worth it" is up to the individual photographer, his style, subject, film choice, etc.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), May 30, 2001.

Either of the 35mm ASPH lenses are worth getting in comparison to their non-ASPH predecessors. The Summilux especially is leagues ahead, and I found the Summicron ASPH to be better than the previous version at 2.0 and 2.8.

As far as the 90's are concerned, I went from a current Elmarit-M to an AA Summicron because I wanted the wider aperture. If I had not wanted that, I wouldn't have switched - the 90 Elmarit is a fabulous lens.

The way I read Erwin's comments, the current 21 ASPH is the one to get - he maintains (in his usual cautious language) that it is significantly better than the non-ASPH that came before it.

The new 135/3.4 ASPH may not, however, be much better then its Tele- Elmar predecessor.

Remember that a lens doesn't have to have aspheric elements to be good. The 135/4.0, the 90/2.8 the 50/2.0, and especially the 75/1.4 all achieved great distinction despite their handicap of purely spherical elements. Consider each lens as an individual case. The implementation technology is not an automatic indicator of quality (or lack of it).

-- Paul Chefurka (paul_chefurka@pmc-sierra.com), May 30, 2001.

As I recall Erwin's comments, the new 3.4/135 is miles better than the old 2.8, while the 21/3.4 is still a worthy lens, although beaten by the asph 21. He doesn't rate the 21/4 very highly.

I'll agree with Paul that the 35/1.4 asph is a revelation at any aperture.

-- rob appleby (rob@robertappleby.com), May 30, 2001.