I have used this lens in Costa Rica and several other occasions and the results are good. The lens together with the R8 is relative heavy but it fits good in my hands and the weight is not an issue. I have read some comments about this lens which are saying that the old Elmarit 2,8/35mm should be better at same aperture. I do not understand this comments, if I look trough the camera and measure a flat even enlighted wall once with spot metering and than with integral the differnce between the lenses is more than 1 stop!!! Even my old Agenieux 35-70 has lower vignetting. And also the overall sharpness is much better than the elmarit 35. The R35 lux costs a lot of money and I had goodluck at that time to get one secondhand and I must say somewhere is the money hidden in this lens otherwise there would not be this difference to the Elmarit. In my opinion the lens is realy superb. That the ASPH for the M is better I belive.. no doubt! But I think the difference must be seeken. However I am very happy with this lens and vignetting is practically not noticable for normal humans.

What are your experience with this lens?

-- Salvatore Reitano (reitanosalvatore@hotmail.com), November 16, 2001

Answers

Some people feel the 35/1.4R is even better than the 35/1.4 Asph-M.

Cheers,

-- John Collier (jbcollier@powersurfr.com), November 16, 2001.

At double weigth (310g. vs. 630g.), double size and 1 more element, the Žlux R has lots of advantages to be a "better" lens.

Please now that we rarely talk about this lenses, can some one make coments on diferences among other 35/1.4, including Nikkor and M non- asph, as well as other brands.

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), November 16, 2001.

I owned the 35/1.4-R for a period. My idea was to have a similar setup as with my M system (Tri-Elmar + 35/1.4ASPH for low-light)in the R (35-70/4 + 35/1.4). Optically the 35/1.4-R was not at all disappointing because I found it at least equal to the E55-version 35/2.8 I owned at the same time, at similar apertures. The vignetting at f/1.4 and f/2 are decidedly more than the 35/1.4ASPH-M, as is evidence of curvature of field. Since the bulk of my use is scenic photography, the vignetting and field curvature were deciding factors in my selling the lens. The weight and size were a second consideration. I sold both the 35/1.4 and 35/2.8 and purchased a 35/2 which in terms of size and performance ended up a resonable compromise and a better solution for my personal needs.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), November 16, 2001.

I have a non ROM 35 1.4 and R7, I got some fantastic shots indoor handheld, the sharpness at f2.0 was great.

-- Mansur Hussain (radiotools@hotmail.com), November 20, 2001.

Salvatore

I am glad to hear that the lens is good. I suspect it is. I considered buying one but went with the Summicron-R 35mm instead as it was cheaper and lighter. The Summicron is excellent and has all the characteristics that give Leica lenses their good name, but I would suspect the Summilux to be a good lens because it dates from the same vintage as the 80mm Summilux and this is about my favorite R lens.

The Summicron-R is a bit weak in the corners as f 2-2.8 and its performance is very similar to the pre-asph Summicron-M of 1979.

I certainly would consider getting a 1.4 R if I felt I needed one, but so far I have not felt the need for an 1.4 lens of 35mm.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), November 21, 2001.

Robin

I also thougth about having the chron but as I already had the Elmarit and had no real fast lens I decieded to look for the lux. And it was a good decision.

Thanks to all for your comments

Cheers

-- Salvatore Reitano (reitanosalvatore@hotmail.com), November 22, 2001.