wayne seltzer wrote: freaklikeme wrote: wayne seltzer wrote:
A little too much SA for my tastes. I think I prefer the asph m 35 lux better snd my RX1 35/2 and CY 35/1.4. But if you like dreamy glow then its your kind of lens.
My feeling is that, if I want to lose the glow, I can stop it down, but I can\'t make the lux ASPH glow. That and I\'m just not that demanding. It\'s a lens that makes me want to shoot with it, and that\'s enough for me.
Fair enough then.
Does this lens have the FC that I think the 35 lux asph has?
This pre asph version does not have FLE which they sdded to the new lux and it looks like this lens is not as sharp closeup than it is farther away distsnces and infinity.
That is one thing I like with the RX1 35/2, it is sharp up close and far away.
I haven\'t shot with the FLE, just the first ASPH, and the FC was about the same between it and the pre-ASPH. Actually, there\'s not really an objective measure where the APSH isn\'t equal or better. Sharpness, flare, CA, distortion, resolutiuon and vignetting are all technically in favor of the ASPH. More subjective measures (bokeh, color pallet, contrast, and the way the aberrations in the pre-A work with specific types of light) to me, favor the pre-A.
I like Richard\'s use of the word \"harsh\" above. That\'s how I feel about the ASPH. The Lux-R 35 is a nice compromise between the two, with the pallet of the ASPH and SA that\'s solidly between the two. That\'s my second favorite 35.
