I've read through many postings re the quality and pros/cons on these two brothers, byt still have a last question before I decide which one I'll buy as my first step into Leica (though I already have a Minilux)

I know that the 'Lux is more expensive and is one stop faster. An obvious answer would be: get the 'Lux if you shoot at f1.4. I don't think I'll shoot at this stop all the times but I'm pretty sure I will shoot at f/2. My question is: is one step stop-down on 'Lux much sharper than the 'Cron at wide open? Is it worth to pay extra if the 'Cron lens already excels when shooting at f/2 (I mean better than 'Lux @ f/2)?

-- Fred Lee (leefred@cadvision.com), May 27, 2002

Answers

Oops! Sorry for double posting.

The two lenses that I'm referring to are both the latest ASPH version.

-- Fred Lee (leefred@cadvision.com), May 27, 2002.

I compared these lenses a while back (you can search the archives to find the post) and found my sample of the 'Lux to be slightly sharper in the center, and slightly softer at the corners, with the 'Cron being very "even" in resolution from corner to corner. These were tripod mounted test-target shots, and the differences were minor and at a very high level of performance. I don't think anybody could discern these differences in a hand-held comparison. So, for all practical intents, you can consider the 'Lux as a 'Cron with an extra stop.

:-),

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), May 27, 2002.

Besides weight, size and cost the other thing to consider is ease of use on your camera.

I'm referring to finding and turning the aperture ring. With 20 years of meterless M use being able to find and turn the ring wasn't an issue. On the M4/2/4-2 I very rarely ever reached for the ring while the camera was to my eye. Exposure was set before framing.

When I got a Hexar body (sold now) suddenly I was trying to find and turn the ring. I had tried the ASPH 'cron and lux and with a hood on the 'cron finding the ring was tough and I don't consider my hands large. Finding the aperture rind on the ASPH 'lux is no problem even with gloves. That sold me on the ASPH 'lux right there.

Both lenses are superb. Just an ergonomic look at both.

Neil

-- Neil Swanson (neilsphoto@yahoo.com), May 27, 2002.

I had the crom asph for a while, and now I have the lux. I did not do any tripod tests but I think the difference is shown also hand held. the cron does not suffer ANY loss of light in the edges, which gives it a very particular look comparing to any lense I know. it is just a certain character, that if you like, the lux cannot rival. I traded it for 1.4 reasons, but as for now I think that having both of them makes a grate deal of sense. to start with? If you have few lenses and just need a low light... get the lux. if you have few and want 35mm for general use, I think the cron (if you like its character) is better. if it is your first, I also think the cron is the one. the cron is a grate lens at f2. again, I don't say "better" and am not in the position to say. I only say it is a very unique lens, getting a totaly even negative, in edge to edge.

-- rami (rg272@columbia.edu), May 27, 2002.

'Lux at f/2 - is better than 'Cron at f/2 - is better than 'Lux at f/ 1.4

- but also a slight variation in fingerprint as noted here and on the other thread - the 'cron's corners are a little better.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), May 27, 2002.

A couple of years ago Erwin Puts was writing interesting articles for a Dutch magazine. He still writes, now for a different magazine, and his articles unfortunately now read as if they come from the Leica Propaganda Department.

However, as I wrote, a couple of years ago he produced some very good articles. In one of those he compared all of Leica's M 35mm lenses (1,4 and 2,0). This was before the current 35mm 'cron asph. His opinion was that the best was the (at that moment) last 35mm 'cron. It performed better at 2,0 than the 1,4 (non asph.).

-- Frank (frank_bunnik@hotmaoil.com), May 28, 2002.