I have been very well served by the 135/2.5 (in black & white). And also by the 35/3.5 for the few shots (maybe 20) I took with it. I have not checked the negatives with a microscope and don't think I will ever do it as I react to the photographs "globally": are they interesting or not?
There are a few factors that can make a photo look uninteresting (bad timimg, bad composition, flare, etc.) and they are overwhelming compared to qualities like definition, because all those lenses we are talking about have a very good resolving power. The difference between them is very small.
35/3.5 has indeed a very high resolving power, it is a known fact, so if you intend to do big enlargments, it might be better to have a bit more definition (100 lines compared to 80).
But it could be more important to try to fix other important parameters like using best lens aperture (and a tripod) or fast enough speed (if without a tripod), or using a hood (not necessary with the 35/3.5).
You can make a photo for the front page of a magazine with 35/3.5 but also with the supposedly worse 28/2.8 (M or A). These two are still very good lenses.
If Salgado got his Leica gear robbed and used,for a few days (before getting new gear), a locally found Spotmatic + 55/2, he would make as nice photos and most people wouldn't notice a difference (unless they knew about it -- a kind of placebo effect...).
But I understand you would like to grab the best for your photo bag and feel confident because of that. It's not a bad idea.
So, do yourself a favor, buy the 35/3.5 and know you can use it at any aperture and against the light source, and go for the pic, the one your friends will remember.
Kind regards,
Andre
Is K35/3.5 better than your K135/2.5? I also own it and wonder. Alek Uz�ytkownik Andre Langevin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisa?:Andre wrote:Having said that, K35/3.5 is in a special class. It is one of the highest resolution lens ever made, and have no flare even with spot lights in front of you. But rather big and slow.How is it wide open? Pl�lI used it twice during shows with spot lights in front of me, wide open (with Tri-X at 1000) and still no flare and good contrast. I don't think I have scanned at 2700 dpi any of the photos I did with this lens in order to really check definition. (I took most photos with a 85/1.8 and a 135/2.5). The ultimate test would be a slow slide scanned at 4000 dpi. Anyway, it is probably one of the safest lens to use wide open. In the same league as recent FA wide angles. Andre ----------------r-e-k-l-a-m-a----------------- Masz dos�c� p?acenia prowizji bankowi ? mBank - za?�z� konto http://epieniadze.onet.pl/mbank
--
