This topic is in the 2014 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2014Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
p.22 #1Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
It would be very interesting to see the FE in action! 
Also we should take into consideration that the ZM is designed as a rangefinder lens, and a lot of effort has been made to reduce focus shift to the minimum, and consequently SA. Definitely a bad thing for bokeh, but not exclusively this ZM problem. The leica 35 fle has the same problem. The non fle has nice bokeh but is very difficult to use on a rangefinder due to focus shift.
Also we should take into consideration that the ZM is designed as a rangefinder lens, and a lot of effort has been made to reduce focus shift to the minimum, and consequently SA. Definitely a bad thing for bokeh, but not exclusively this ZM problem. The leica 35 fle has the same problem. The non fle has nice bokeh but is very difficult to use on a rangefinder due to focus shift.
Mar 26, 2015 at 02:15 AM
p.22 #2Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
Edward, you have great eyes about lens, I totally agree with what you say. I don't want people get me wrong. I said once and will say it again, this is wonderful tool.
Mar 26, 2015 at 10:30 AM
p.22 #3Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
Zhangyue, I fully understand your point of view and that of Jonas. Smooth bokeh is important for you. As a rangefinder user, the ZM remains currently the best choice available. For an A7 user, there are obviously other choices, one of which is the new FE that might offer nicer bokeh, as well as a multitude of SLR lenses. Luckily for me, my style of shooting isn't really affected by bokeh, smooth or not
Mar 26, 2015 at 10:45 AM
p.22 #4Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
philber wrote:
One more bokeh pic for Jonas to dislike, wide open. And one portrait for Steve (you didn' specify human portrait, did you?). It is a 60%-ish crop.
Very nice samples and I very much appreciate the peacock portrait. A great example of 3D in a portrait. With regard tot he bokeh, yes it can look a bit harsh at times, but I think it is mostly neutral bokeh which is what you expect in a very well corrected lens. In much the same way the Otus 55 has neutral bokeh that can look harsh at times (the right distances) this lens does too. In a post about a year ago, The Suede explained why that has to be the case, but I can't remember the explanation well enough to even attempt to summarize it.
I think Edward is right that a lens needs a bit of SA wide open to have the best bokeh (or perhaps I should say that I agree with his preference since there really isn't a right or wrong on what makes good bokeh) and this lens doesn't have enough SA to have anything other than neutral bokeh. Of course some people prefer neutral bokeh to the bokeh that benefits from some uncorrected SA and these people will very much appreciate this lens.
I wonder, however, given sebboh's recent modification of the FLE in the C/Y 35 f/1.4 in which moving the FLE away from the sensor very noticeably improves the bokeh, (and it seems to do so by increasing SA to me) if the ZM 35 f/1.4 might not produce better bokeh if you had a helicoid adapter and moved it a bit away from the sensor. This might really improve its performance. It would be cool if someone would give it a try and perhaps Derek (sebboh) can comment on whether he has moved the FLE closer or further from the sensor, but I thought it was further. I would be very handy if we could improve the bokeh just by changing the extension with a helicoid adapter.
One more bokeh pic for Jonas to dislike, wide open. And one portrait for Steve (you didn' specify human portrait, did you?). It is a 60%-ish crop.
Very nice samples and I very much appreciate the peacock portrait. A great example of 3D in a portrait. With regard tot he bokeh, yes it can look a bit harsh at times, but I think it is mostly neutral bokeh which is what you expect in a very well corrected lens. In much the same way the Otus 55 has neutral bokeh that can look harsh at times (the right distances) this lens does too. In a post about a year ago, The Suede explained why that has to be the case, but I can't remember the explanation well enough to even attempt to summarize it.
I think Edward is right that a lens needs a bit of SA wide open to have the best bokeh (or perhaps I should say that I agree with his preference since there really isn't a right or wrong on what makes good bokeh) and this lens doesn't have enough SA to have anything other than neutral bokeh. Of course some people prefer neutral bokeh to the bokeh that benefits from some uncorrected SA and these people will very much appreciate this lens.
I wonder, however, given sebboh's recent modification of the FLE in the C/Y 35 f/1.4 in which moving the FLE away from the sensor very noticeably improves the bokeh, (and it seems to do so by increasing SA to me) if the ZM 35 f/1.4 might not produce better bokeh if you had a helicoid adapter and moved it a bit away from the sensor. This might really improve its performance. It would be cool if someone would give it a try and perhaps Derek (sebboh) can comment on whether he has moved the FLE closer or further from the sensor, but I thought it was further. I would be very handy if we could improve the bokeh just by changing the extension with a helicoid adapter.
Mar 26, 2015 at 10:56 AM
p.22 #5Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
Steve Spencer wrote:
Very nice samples and I very much appreciate the peacock portrait. A great example of 3D in a portrait. With regard tot he bokeh, yes it can look a bit harsh at times, but I think it is mostly neutral bokeh which is what you expect in a very well corrected lens. In much the same way the Otus 55 has neutral bokeh that can look harsh at times (the right distances) this lens does too. In a post about a year ago, The Suede explained why that has to be the case, but I can't remember the explanation...Show more →
The RX1's Sonnar does not have any notable SA wide open so it bucks the SA-Bokeh theory. It's likely that it's simply not possible to replicate the RX1 behavior in an interchangeable lens so it's probably an outlier of sorts.
philber wrote
One more bokeh pic for Jonas to dislike, wide open. And one portrait for Steve (you didn' specify human portrait, did you?). It is a 60%-ish crop.The RX1's Sonnar does not have any notable SA wide open so it bucks the SA-Bokeh theory. It's likely that it's simply not possible to replicate the RX1 behavior in an interchangeable lens so it's probably an outlier of sorts.
Mar 26, 2015 at 11:23 AM
p.22 #6Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
SteveDK wrote:
It's certainly smoother than any of the current M-mount 35mm lenses except perhaps the Leica Summarit 35mm/2.5, though I don't have that lens to compare anymore.
I think the ZM 35/1.4 looks like an amazing lens. There are other M-mount 35's that are noticeably smoother with regard to bokeh though. Of the ones I have used, the Voigtlander 35/1.7 jumps out as obviously smoother. Hopefully the forthcoming updated version carries on this characteristic.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5540407/CAPTJACK.jpg
It's certainly smoother than any of the current M-mount 35mm lenses except perhaps the Leica Summarit 35mm/2.5, though I don't have that lens to compare anymore.
I think the ZM 35/1.4 looks like an amazing lens. There are other M-mount 35's that are noticeably smoother with regard to bokeh though. Of the ones I have used, the Voigtlander 35/1.7 jumps out as obviously smoother. Hopefully the forthcoming updated version carries on this characteristic.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5540407/CAPTJACK.jpg
Mar 26, 2015 at 11:28 AM
p.22 #7Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
Well, I think SA undercorrection is one of the ways a lens designer can produce smooth bokeh, but there must be other tricks as well. This said, I don't think the distagon is bad, it all depends on the relative camera to subject, subject to background distance. Here are a couple of wide open shots from a few weeks ago:
M240 ZM 35/1.4 by edward karaa, on Flickr
M240 ZM 35/1.4 by edward karaa, on Flickr
M240 ZM 35/1.4 by edward karaa, on FlickrM240 ZM 35/1.4 by edward karaa, on FlickrMar 26, 2015 at 11:35 AM
p.22 #8Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
edwardkaraa wrote:
Well, I think SA undercorrection is one of the ways a lens designer can produce smooth bokeh, but there must be other tricks as well. This said, I don't think the distagon is bad, it all depends on the relative camera to subject, subject to background distance. Here are a couple of wide open shots from a few weeks ago:
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7288/16751738959_d0946df38d_o.jpgM240 ZM 35/1.4 by edward karaa, on Flickr
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7594/16751738849_b45a65a50d_o.jpgM240 ZM 35/1.4 by edward karaa, on Flickr
Edward, you know I'm just being critical/ picky (as I would love to own the ZM 35/1.4), but the problem I have with the bokeh is evident in your first shot. I don't really care for how the chrome of the lamp is rendered. It draws my eye away from the otherwise nice portrait of the lady (seems harsh in an otherwise soft, nicely rendered image).
Well, I think SA undercorrection is one of the ways a lens designer can produce smooth bokeh, but there must be other tricks as well. This said, I don't think the distagon is bad, it all depends on the relative camera to subject, subject to background distance. Here are a couple of wide open shots from a few weeks ago:
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7288/16751738959_d0946df38d_o.jpgM240 ZM 35/1.4 by edward karaa, on Flickr
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7594/16751738849_b45a65a50d_o.jpgM240 ZM 35/1.4 by edward karaa, on Flickr
Edward, you know I'm just being critical/ picky (as I would love to own the ZM 35/1.4
), but the problem I have with the bokeh is evident in your first shot. I don't really care for how the chrome of the lamp is rendered. It draws my eye away from the otherwise nice portrait of the lady (seems harsh in an otherwise soft, nicely rendered image).Mar 26, 2015 at 11:42 AM
p.22 #9Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
Tariq Gibran wrote:
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7288/16751738959_d0946df38d_o.jpgM240 ZM 35/1.4 by edward karaa, on Flickr
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7594/16751738849_b45a65a50d_o.jpgM240 ZM 35/1.4 by edward karaa, on FlickrEdward, you know I'm just being critical/ picky (as I would love to own the ZM 35/1.4), but the problem I have with the bokeh is evident in your first shot. I don't really care for how the chrome of the lamp is rendered. It draws my eye away from the otherwise nice portrait of the lady (seems harsh in an otherwise soft, nicely rendered image).
I know Tariq, and I see exactly what you mean. In fact, I reposted this shot to show the compromise of this lens. I don't know any 35mm f/1.4 lens that is as sharp at the plane of focus wide open as this one, especially with not so low light levels and light colored wall that would normally show any tiny amount of veiling haze.
edwardkaraa wrote
Well, I think SA undercorrection is one of the ways a lens designer can produce smooth bokeh, but there must be other tricks as well. This said, I don't think the distagon is bad, it all depends on the relative camera to subject, subject to background distance. Here are a couple of wide open shots from a few weeks ago:https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7288/16751738959_d0946df38d_o.jpgM240 ZM 35/1.4 by edward karaa, on Flickr
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7594/16751738849_b45a65a50d_o.jpgM240 ZM 35/1.4 by edward karaa, on Flickr
), but the problem I have with the bokeh is evident in your first shot. I don't really care for how the chrome of the lamp is rendered. It draws my eye away from the otherwise nice portrait of the lady (seems harsh in an otherwise soft, nicely rendered image).I know Tariq, and I see exactly what you mean. In fact, I reposted this shot to show the compromise of this lens. I don't know any 35mm f/1.4 lens that is as sharp at the plane of focus wide open as this one, especially with not so low light levels and light colored wall that would normally show any tiny amount of veiling haze.
Mar 26, 2015 at 11:49 AM
p.22 #10Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
edwardkaraa wrote:
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7288/16751738959_d0946df38d_o.jpgM240 ZM 35/1.4 by edward karaa, on Flickr
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7594/16751738849_b45a65a50d_o.jpgM240 ZM 35/1.4 by edward karaa, on FlickrEdward, you know I'm just being critical/ picky (as I would love to own the ZM 35/1.4), but the problem I have with the bokeh is evident in your first shot. I don't really care for how the chrome of the lamp is rendered. It draws my eye away from the otherwise nice portrait of the lady (seems harsh in an otherwise soft, nicely rendered image).I know Tariq, and I see exactly what you mean. In fact, I reposted this shot to show the compromise of this lens. I don't know any 35mm f/1.4 lens that is as sharp at the plane of focus wide open as this one, especially with not so low light levels and light colored wall that would normally show any tiny amount of veiling haze.
The sharpness and clarity really does come through.
Tariq Gibran wrote
edwardkaraa wrote
Well, I think SA undercorrection is one of the ways a lens designer can produce smooth bokeh, but there must be other tricks as well. This said, I don't think the distagon is bad, it all depends on the relative camera to subject, subject to background distance. Here are a couple of wide open shots from a few weeks ago:https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7288/16751738959_d0946df38d_o.jpgM240 ZM 35/1.4 by edward karaa, on Flickr
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7594/16751738849_b45a65a50d_o.jpgM240 ZM 35/1.4 by edward karaa, on Flickr
), but the problem I have with the bokeh is evident in your first shot. I don't really care for how the chrome of the lamp is rendered. It draws my eye away from the otherwise nice portrait of the lady (seems harsh in an otherwise soft, nicely rendered image).The sharpness and clarity really does come through.
Mar 26, 2015 at 12:01 PM
p.22 #11Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
If the argument is "the ZM 35 hasn't always the smoothest bokeh", then of course I would agree. But, to me, the first of Edward's portraits shows exactly why I love this lens (nice going, Edward!); bokeh notwithstanding. The RX-1 may be better at bokeh, but the ZM is better at other things, and, ultimately, it is horses for courses.
Mar 26, 2015 at 12:29 PM
p.22 #12Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
philber wrote:
One more bokeh pic for Jonas to dislike, wide open. (...)
Thank you Philippe. (And you are right.)
philber wrote:
If the argument is "the ZM 35 hasn't always the smoothest bokeh", then of course I would agree. But, to me, the first of Edward's portraits shows exactly why I love this lens (nice going, Edward!); bokeh notwithstanding. The RX-1 may be better at bokeh, but the ZM is better at other things, and, ultimately, it is horses for courses.
Ah, the arguments may also be price, size, weight. The price is what it is. As an old SLR shooter the size and weight is of no concern to me. Even the focusing and aperture rings go in the right direction...
The ZM is better than the RX1 at anything having to do with f/1.4, and always for manual focusing. That's a given. When used together with an original A7(x) I'm not that interested - my judgement is that the lens need a thin sensor glass stack. To make that happen I need to sell the RX1, buy the ZM and an A7MkII and then wait until somebody offers a conversion for the camera, pay and wait for that and then the fun can begin. Too much money and hassle for the moment considering I have this great (my taste) RX1 in my hand. I pass for now but will probably end up there some day.
I write "(my taste)" above - it's always about personal preferences and I hope nobody took my comment on the ni-sen bokeh as a personal insult.
One more bokeh pic for Jonas to dislike, wide open. (...)
Thank you Philippe. (And you are right.)
philber wrote:
If the argument is "the ZM 35 hasn't always the smoothest bokeh", then of course I would agree. But, to me, the first of Edward's portraits shows exactly why I love this lens (nice going, Edward!); bokeh notwithstanding. The RX-1 may be better at bokeh, but the ZM is better at other things, and, ultimately, it is horses for courses.
Ah, the arguments may also be price, size, weight. The price is what it is. As an old SLR shooter the size and weight is of no concern to me. Even the focusing and aperture rings go in the right direction...
The ZM is better than the RX1 at anything having to do with f/1.4, and always for manual focusing. That's a given. When used together with an original A7(x) I'm not that interested - my judgement is that the lens need a thin sensor glass stack. To make that happen I need to sell the RX1, buy the ZM and an A7MkII and then wait until somebody offers a conversion for the camera, pay and wait for that and then the fun can begin. Too much money and hassle for the moment considering I have this great (my taste) RX1 in my hand. I pass for now but will probably end up there some day.
I write "(my taste)" above - it's always about personal preferences and I hope nobody took my comment on the ni-sen bokeh as a personal insult.
Mar 26, 2015 at 02:19 PM
p.22 #13Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
I'm glad I'm not the only one lusting after yet another 35 1.4. I have the RX1R and CY 35 1.4 but am still dreaming of a tiny ZM but im not really keen on having to spend even more money modding my A7R to use it. I've also been playing with the FLE position of my CY but I can never get it act like the little Sonnar, crazy sharp, smoothest of smooth bokeh and nice flat field. I got my hopes up with the FE but the focus by wire killed that for me. I don't see a one lens solution for me anytime soon
Mar 26, 2015 at 02:39 PM
p.22 #14Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
For myself, at 24MP's FF, the RX1 is unbeatable at the 35mm focal length. My problem is, I'm too fond of 36MP's now! Damit Sony...where is the 36-50MP RX2!
Mar 26, 2015 at 03:37 PM
p.22 #15Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
I am going the other way, I don't really need anything more than 24M if i don't crop to do digital zooming. None of my image is not good because of pixel but because it IS not good enough itself. I know that long time ago by myslef but keep forget that every time a new body introduced 
For pro, I agree you may in need more pixel to please wide client base.
Zm35 is a great lens, it has its trade off but it also has wonderful optics, build and size to balance its limits. That is why people love it like Edward mentioned it will not affect his shooting(and I agree); like Derek plan to replace RX1 to get ride of focus by wire, or Philip and Jack who put beautiful images with it.
Again, tool is good, great or not only matter to yourself. I only want pass the information that might help with people know certain lens, just like I was benefit from people express their own honest opinions about certain lens, that is all.
Happy shooting.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
For myself, at 24MP's FF, the RX1 is unbeatable at the 35mm focal length. My problem is, I'm too fond of 36MP's now! Damit Sony...where is the 36-50MP RX2!
For pro, I agree you may in need more pixel to please wide client base.
Zm35 is a great lens, it has its trade off but it also has wonderful optics, build and size to balance its limits. That is why people love it like Edward mentioned it will not affect his shooting(and I agree); like Derek plan to replace RX1 to get ride of focus by wire, or Philip and Jack who put beautiful images with it.
Again, tool is good, great or not only matter to yourself. I only want pass the information that might help with people know certain lens, just like I was benefit from people express their own honest opinions about certain lens, that is all.
Happy shooting.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
For myself, at 24MP's FF, the RX1 is unbeatable at the 35mm focal length. My problem is, I'm too fond of 36MP's now! Damit Sony...where is the 36-50MP RX2!
Mar 26, 2015 at 03:51 PM
p.22 #16Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
Well, I'd be sold based on what I've seen here, if I didn't just pick up a 35 FLE from Ebay
Mar 26, 2015 at 03:58 PM
p.22 #17Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
Taylor Sherman wrote:
Well, I'd be sold based on what I've seen here, if I didn't just pick up a 35 FLE from Ebay
I have the 35 Lux FLE from before with M9/MM/M240, and I am now reluctant to sell it. I don't think that I would have purchased it now, just on price.
Now with the A7r Mod, this lens is wonderful IMO. It is small light and having a FLE it is important that the infinity is well calibrated.
Love all the images with the ZM 35/1.4 I am just telling myself I really don't need this lens so please do not convince me otherwise !!
Well, I'd be sold based on what I've seen here, if I didn't just pick up a 35 FLE from Ebay
I have the 35 Lux FLE from before with M9/MM/M240, and I am now reluctant to sell it. I don't think that I would have purchased it now, just on price.
Now with the A7r Mod, this lens is wonderful IMO. It is small light and having a FLE it is important that the infinity is well calibrated.
Love all the images with the ZM 35/1.4
I am just telling myself I really don't need this lens so please do not convince me otherwise !!Mar 26, 2015 at 04:52 PM
p.22 #18Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
Many new comments and opinions!
I guess it’s much expected as with arrival of any new, exciting photographic equipment. It only means that the lens is getting attention, and that’s good, even if accompany by various feedback from first and second hand parties.
Myself, I wasn’t even interested in this lens till over a week ago when I saw Gary’s images. I was sold on it right away despite being already on the market for a companion to my ZM Biogon 2/35. Instead of getting Cron-M 35 v. IV or Lux-M 35 AA (both Mandler’s lenses) I scooped ZM 35 Distagon last week and here I am; reading posts, sipping cold beverage, listening to funky tunes in funky place and shooting what I like and how I like. And I love it! - no matter where the subject is, what’s the background, chrome or not, 2 feet to the left or behind, whatever. The lens is here to stay as it’s, for me, a great tool for my hobby.
If few of my posted images helped anyone to decide pro or against; I am glad to help.
Cheers!
http://www.kozera.ca/photos/images/_DSC8156_640.jpg
http://www.kozera.ca/photos/images/_DSC8162_640.jpg
http://www.kozera.ca/photos/images/_DSC8177_640.jpg
http://www.kozera.ca/photos/images/_DSC8175_640.jpg
http://www.kozera.ca/photos/images/_DSC8161_640.jpg
http://www.kozera.ca/photos/images/_DSC8171_640.jpg
http://www.kozera.ca/photos/images/_DSC8170_640.jpg
http://www.kozera.ca/photos/images/_DSC8159_640.jpg
http://www.kozera.ca/photos/images/_DSC8164_640.jpg
I guess it’s much expected as with arrival of any new, exciting photographic equipment. It only means that the lens is getting attention, and that’s good, even if accompany by various feedback from first and second hand parties.
Myself, I wasn’t even interested in this lens till over a week ago when I saw Gary’s images. I was sold on it right away despite being already on the market for a companion to my ZM Biogon 2/35. Instead of getting Cron-M 35 v. IV or Lux-M 35 AA (both Mandler’s lenses) I scooped ZM 35 Distagon last week and here I am; reading posts, sipping cold beverage, listening to funky tunes in funky place and shooting what I like and how I like. And I love it! - no matter where the subject is, what’s the background, chrome or not, 2 feet to the left or behind, whatever. The lens is here to stay as it’s, for me, a great tool for my hobby.
If few of my posted images helped anyone to decide pro or against; I am glad to help.
Cheers!
http://www.kozera.ca/photos/images/_DSC8156_640.jpg
http://www.kozera.ca/photos/images/_DSC8162_640.jpg
http://www.kozera.ca/photos/images/_DSC8177_640.jpg
http://www.kozera.ca/photos/images/_DSC8175_640.jpg
http://www.kozera.ca/photos/images/_DSC8161_640.jpg
http://www.kozera.ca/photos/images/_DSC8171_640.jpg
http://www.kozera.ca/photos/images/_DSC8170_640.jpg
http://www.kozera.ca/photos/images/_DSC8159_640.jpg
http://www.kozera.ca/photos/images/_DSC8164_640.jpg
Mar 26, 2015 at 07:06 PM
p.22 #19Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
Jack - killer set!
Tariq - thanks for the CV35/1.7 sample. I've only briefly used it and it was in an urban landscape setting where I found it lacked snap/punch. But for people photos, it looks very nice. I'm also curious about the new version. Cosina's latest truly revised or new Voigtlander lenses have been consistently really good...
Tariq - thanks for the CV35/1.7 sample. I've only briefly used it and it was in an urban landscape setting where I found it lacked snap/punch. But for people photos, it looks very nice. I'm also curious about the new version. Cosina's latest truly revised or new Voigtlander lenses have been consistently really good...
Mar 26, 2015 at 07:50 PM
p.22 #20Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
I suspected that comment might draw sone fire 
Obviously I'm an outlier.
beautiful shots michael, and of course I see many very nice shots from the Rx1.
it may have the "sonnar" name but there is nothing "sonnar" about the mellow bokeh, IMHO.
The true sonnar bokeh, a la CZJ 50/1.5, the definitive sonnar lens, is very lively compared to the RX1.
We all know bokeh is highly variable. The same is true with the RX1 but to my eye the downside is in the other direction from the usual wirery distractions. I could show some shots from the Rx1 thread....there are a number in there where the bokeh is meh to me, in otherwise nice shots.
I don't expect anyone to agree nor to I want to convince anybody the camera can make some boring bokeh That's just my take on some shots. Just like the biogon can get jaggy.
Derek rarely posts bad bokeh from any lens except as an example. The same is true of many RX1 owners. But somewhere in their trash may lie some examples of what I mean.
sorry to give offense.
Obviously I'm an outlier.beautiful shots michael, and of course I see many very nice shots from the Rx1.
it may have the "sonnar" name but there is nothing "sonnar" about the mellow bokeh, IMHO.
The true sonnar bokeh, a la CZJ 50/1.5, the definitive sonnar lens, is very lively compared to the RX1.
We all know bokeh is highly variable. The same is true with the RX1 but to my eye the downside is in the other direction from the usual wirery distractions. I could show some shots from the Rx1 thread....there are a number in there where the bokeh is meh to me, in otherwise nice shots.
I don't expect anyone to agree nor to I want to convince anybody the camera can make some boring bokeh
That's just my take on some shots. Just like the biogon can get jaggy.Derek rarely posts bad bokeh from any lens except as an example. The same is true of many RX1 owners. But somewhere in their trash may lie some examples of what I mean.
sorry to give offense.
Mar 26, 2015 at 08:32 PM