I have just purchased a second hand M6 classic and a Summilux 35. I bought it from a friend, and thought I was getting the newer "ASPH" version. When I recieved it (from intertate)to my surprise and delight, it was the limited production "ASPHERICAL" version. I know the differences between specs-wise, but want to know if anyone out there knows about any tests comparing them, or any real-world experience with the two in comparison. I am yet to see my results. I do understand that the version I have has two hand grinded elements rather than the newer one moulded element, which is cheaper to produce. Information I have read suggests that the performance of the earlier original "Aspherical" is superior, but I would think by only a small margin if so.

I am also interested in knowing the value/price comparison of these two lenses. Any comments appreciated.

-- Kronik (leicashot@hotmail.com), January 06, 2002

Answers

You have a collector's item worth about $3500 US if in excellent shape. Purportedly, it is not as good as performer as the current asph version, although I have not ever compared them personally. Were it mine, I would lock it away or sell it and get a current asph version to use.

:) Cheers,

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), January 06, 2002.

I had a chance to do a side by side test of the two lenses years ago. The first version gives more shadow details.I also like the color rendition of the first version better(personal taste).

-- Chi Cheung (chic@intergate.bc.ca), January 06, 2002.

I agree with Jack here. Sell the ASPHERICAL (not to a dealer!), buy a new gray-market or mint used ASPH, and buy the second lens of your choice with the difference...or, you got the M6 for free and then some, depending on how you want to look at it. Wish I ever had that kind of luck!

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), January 06, 2002.

Kronik

I have the 35 mm/1.4 Aspherical first version. As far as I am aware, the only outwardly visible differences in the Aspherical (#11873) vs ASPH (#11874) lenses are that: 1) the first version lens is engraved "Aspherical" rather than "ASPH." on the front ring; 2) there is a slight difference in the lens weights; and 3) all first version lenses have Serial Numbers of 346xxxx; while second version lenses have considerably higher SNs. The box (if there is one) for the version 1 lens should state the model number as 11873. I don't believe there is much difference, if any, in the optical performance of the two lenses.

Consider yourself very fortunate if you received the 35/1.4 Aspherical version 1 lens. It is hard to believe anyone could make this mistake, since the first version lenses were so much more expensive than the second version. The actual number of Vers. 1 lenses issued is not known, but is though to be less than 1000. The Leica market is in a big slump, so this lens (in mint condition with shade and caps) is now worth about $ 3500-4000. But it has been as high as $ 5000-7000 in the past, so if you hold onto the lens, it should be worth significantly more when the market recovers.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), January 06, 2002.

Thanks for the info guys. At this point I am only trying to establish the price/performance differnces, and intend to use the lens well. Keep them comming.....

-- Kronik (leicashot@hotmail.com), January 06, 2002.

No first hand experience, (not many first versions out there), but from Erwin Puts' "Leica Lens Compendium", when comparing the first version to the second, more mass produced model.

For the second version (ASPH):

"Generally this lens performs in an identical way to the "Aspherical" version. There are a few subtle differences: The ASPH has slightly lower contrast on axis, but a more even performance in the field at apertures f/1.4 and f/2. From f/2.8 both are equal in image quality.

"Vignetting is slightly higher, with 2.5 stops, and distortion is visible.

"The fingerprint differences are really small, if measurable and I would not be put to the test to identify which lens is used when presented with some pictures."

For your version (ASPHERICAL):

"At full aperture we note a high overall contrast and that very fine details are recorded with fidelity and high clarity on axis (image height 10mm). From there the quality is reduced gradually and at the corners the details are fuzzy. At f/2.0 the contrast improves visibly and the definition of very fine detail is crisp, excepting the outer zones where these details are becoming softer, but still with good visibility. At this aperture it is ahead of the Summicron ASPH at f/2.0.

"Flare is well suppressed but at the widest aperture there is some internal reflections that become visible as secondary images. Vignetting is about 2 stops and distortion is visible."

End Quotes...

There are a couple of other factors in the price differential. Your model has two aspherical surfaces, made the old (expensive) way ground and polished, while the new version dispensed with one of those elements and produced the single aspherical element by a process called blank pressing, which allowed a mass production that could never have been accomplished with the first version. I remember reading in 1990 that Leica intended to produce only 2000 of the lenses that you have, and I read that that number may not have been reached... you are definitely in possession of a future collectible.

I am not a big collector myself, but if I found myself in the same situation that you are in... that lens would be put away, and I'd get another user Summilux. You probably would not loose anything optically, but in ten or twenty years that lens might finance a lot of things. Just look at the prices of limited production Leica gear for sale. It would be hard to ignore the future value of that lens, especially when you can get a perfect substitute without compromise.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), January 07, 2002.

If I was in your shoes and this friend is a good friend I would sell the lens and split the profit with him.

-- ray tai (razerx@netvigator.com), January 07, 2002.

Ray, I like that solomonical observation.

-- Lutz Konermann (lutz@konermann.net), January 07, 2002.

Me too, but nobody listens to Solomon anymore these days ...

Best wishes

-- K. G. Wolf (k.g.wolf@web.de), January 07, 2002.