I have/had few 35's over the years, including a Zeiss, Voitlander Konica Hex and an older Canon and Nikkor, all of em flare when you expose the lens straight to light. Some a little more than others (Voitlander and Nikkor). i tend to think that folks are over blowing the flare problems with cron here. Personally I like mine and I like it more then Voitlander, the Zeiss and in digital, the nikkor (I like the nikkor slightly more when I shoot film). The Canon wasn't that great to start with. The cron asph (for me) has been great, espeically once I learned what you can really do with it.
Lux vs Cron question: On the used market, the cron asph is 40%-50% the price of a used lux asph. I sdimply don't have the money for $3500-$4k lens. And having taken a few workshops with some fairly well known folsk, all of them had 35mm f2 cron asph as their prime lens.
Originally Posted by Larry Cloetta
I like that photo^^^^^as it is very striking, and would agree that you have done an admirable job working with the characteristics of the lens, something I never managed to that extent (just sold mine). But, I have a hard time believing that Leica themselves really believe that this is a good thing, or something that was designed into the lens intentionally. In my mind, owning the lens, even though there were obviously some positives, defending the flare behavior to myself always felt like The Emperorís New Clothes. Itís just really difficult to see it as anything but an unfortunate flaw in the design or execution (coatings) of the lens. I had to admit to myself, that it was behavior I would never make excuses for had it been in an M42 Pentax lens.
50mm V5 ASPH Summicron, same thing, though I havenít sold that one.
Original question, given the choice, Iíd personally opt for the Summilux FLE for the same money, but they each have their virtues.