Steve Spencer wrote:
Derek,
I agree with you, but I still wish the CV 35 f/1.7 was a bit better for portraits. I just think the SLR lenses work better for portraits. You have certainly made great use of the Zeiss CY 35 f/1.4 and I have always liked the Zeiss ZE/ZF 35 f/1.4. Both are very nice but awfully large (especially the ZE/ZF) on the Sony cameras. I think I am going to pick up a Leica R 35 f/2 vII for portraits. I used to have this lens and it has wonderful bokeh, IMO, much better than any of the rangefinder lenses including the Voigtlander 35 f/1.7. The Leica does have a zone B dip, but that doesn't really bother me too much for portraits. The middle third of the frame is pretty sharp even from wide open which allows decent framing with the 4 X 5 crop I prefer for portraits. It would likely drive others, crazy, however, and is way behind the Zeiss C/Y in that aspect--the Zeiss C/Y has great coverage across most of the frame. Still the R 35 f/2 is notably smaller--hardly bigger than the ZM 35 f/1.4--and I think will pair with it very nicely. The ZM for stopped down landscapes and close ups and the Leica R for portraits....Show more →
i wish you luck Steve, I've shot the R cron and it has much busier bokeh than the voigtlander, but it also has more SA, which can be nice for portraits. if it were me, i would just get the m lux pre-asph instead (price difference isn't that big...) so you have a tiny lens with lots of SA instead of a big one...
i think freaklikeme has the right idea, and the lux/zm combo is still much smaller than the ZA 35/1.4.
sebboh wrote:
i wish you luck Steve, I've shot the R cron and it has much busier bokeh than the voigtlander, but it also has more SA, which can be nice for portraits. if it were me, i would just get the m lux pre-asph instead (price difference isn't that big...) so you have a tiny lens with lots of SA instead of a big one...
i think freaklikeme has the right idea, and the lux/zm combo is still much smaller than the ZA 35/1.4.
Derek,
Are you sure you had the R 35 cron version II? I had the lens for about a year and I would describe the bokeh as very typical for a Mandler lens and in fact I had an R 90 cron (pre-AA) at the same time and I was always struck by how similar the bokeh was in the two lenses. I wouldn't say the bokeh was perfect by any means, and it can look a big grainy (for lack of a better way to describe it) at some distances between the subject and the background, but I wouldn't call it busy. Of course tastes can vary substantially about such things. To my eye, it can also produce some very nice bokeh in a lot of circumstances, and for the type of portraits I tend to shoot I like the bokeh. The lens isn't huge either. It weighs just 430g without the adapter and with the adapter is just 75mm long and 66mm in diameter. So not too different in size from the FE 55 f/1.8, just a bit fatter and substantially heavier.
Regarding sharpness it is much sharper than the M 35 lux (pre-AA) in the middle third of the frame. If you look at MTF for the R 35 cron II it has contrast percents of 90, 80, & 60 for 10, 20, & 40 lp/mm in the middle that gradually decrease to about 85, 70, & 40 by the edge of the middle third of the frame. In contrast the M 35 lux pre-AA has contrast percentage of 70, 60, & 30 at 10, 20, & 40 lp/mm that drop to 60, 50, & 25 by the edge of the middle third. The lux is of course a stop wider at this point so I am sure it gets better stopped down to f/2 but wide open that is a huge difference in performance. Aft f/8 the M lux does get to where the R cron is wide open, but that is four stops narrower. I am not dissing the M 35 lux (pre-AA) by any means. It is an interesting lens and it is tiny and is very good stopped down, but if you recognize that the M 35 lux is good stopped down you should recognize that the centre for the R 35 cron vII is also good even wide open.
I am also not saying the R 35 cron vII is not without its flaws. It has one of the biggest zone B dips of any Leica lens (probably only exceeded by the R 35 lux) and many Leica lenses are certainly plagued by that zone B dip so that is saying a lot. It also has very weak corners, but for portraits I mostly care about the centre and the bokeh. I do wish the zone B dip started a bit further away from the centre, however. Still I think I will give the R 35 cron II another try on the Sony. It certainly was a lens I liked for portraits on my old Canon 5D and for that application I still think it is very nice, but perhaps I will change my mind.
Edit: by the way here is a nice review with an analysis of the bokeh that totally fits my experience by Pascal at Dear Susan. He has some very nice examples:
Are you sure you had the R 35 cron version II? I had the lens for about a year and I would describe the bokeh as very typical for a Mandler lens and in fact I had an R 90 cron (pre-AA) at the same time and I was always struck by how similar the bokeh was in the two lenses. I wouldn't say the bokeh was perfect by any means, and it can look a big grainy (for lack of a better way to describe it) at some distances between the subject and the background, but I wouldn't call it busy. Of course tastes can vary substantially about such things. To my eye, it can also produce some very nice bokeh in a lot of circumstances, and for the type of portraits I tend to shoot I like the bokeh. The lens isn't huge either. It weighs just 430g without the adapter and with the adapter is just 75mm long and 66mm in diameter. So not too different in size from the FE 55 f/1.8, just a bit fatter and substantially heavier.
Regarding sharpness it is much sharper than the M 35 lux (pre-AA) in the middle third of the frame. If you look at MTF for the R 35 cron II it has contrast percents of 90, 80, & 60 for 10, 20, & 40 lp/mm in the middle that gradually decrease to about 85, 70, & 40 by the edge of the middle third of the frame. In contrast the M 35 lux pre-AA has contrast percentage of 70, 60, & 30 at 10, 20, & 40 lp/mm that drop to 60, 50, & 25 by the edge of the middle third. The lux is of course a stop wider at this point so I am sure it gets better stopped down to f/2 but wide open that is a huge difference in performance. Aft f/8 the M lux does get to where the R cron is wide open, but that is four stops narrower. I am not dissing the M 35 lux (pre-AA) by any means. It is an interesting lens and it is tiny and is very good stopped down, but if you recognize that the M 35 lux is good stopped down you should recognize that the centre for the R 35 cron vII is also good even wide open.
I am also not saying the R 35 cron vII is not without its flaws. It has one of the biggest zone B dips of any Leica lens (probably only exceeded by the R 35 lux) and many Leica lenses are certainly plagued by that zone B dip so that is saying a lot. It also has very weak corners, but for portraits I mostly care about the centre and the bokeh. I do wish the zone B dip started a bit further away from the centre, however. Still I think I will give the R 35 cron II another try on the Sony. It certainly was a lens I liked for portraits on my old Canon 5D and for that application I still think it is very nice, but perhaps I will change my mind.
Edit: by the way here is a nice review with an analysis of the bokeh that totally fits my experience by Pascal at Dear Susan. He has some very nice examples:
yep, i'm sure it was the v2. i'm not saying it isn't nice for portraits, it's very nice, but it is not a lens i would choose for bokeh smoothness – it's substantially less smooth than the zm 35/1.4 (as is the lux pre-asph). i agree the look is similar to the 90 cron pre-asph (i particularly like the transition to oof), but that lens is helped greatly by being telephoto in regard to bokeh and general performance. with regard to comparing the R cron v2 to the lux pre-asph, i wouldn't bother comparing MTFs at f/1.4 to f/2 – there is a huge jump i contrast between f/1.4 and f/2 for the lux. i don't know which is better in the f/2-4 range but stopping the lux down from f/1.4 is basically like removing a veil from the picture.
Jun 05, 2017 at 12:06 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
sebboh wrote:
yep, i'm sure it was the v2. i'm not saying it isn't nice for portraits, it's very nice, but it is not a lens i would choose for bokeh smoothness – it's substantially less smooth than the zm 35/1.4 (as is the lux pre-asph). i agree the look is similar to the 90 cron pre-asph (i particularly like the transition to oof), but that lens is helped greatly by being telephoto in regard to bokeh and general performance. with regard to comparing the R cron v2 to the lux pre-asph, i wouldn't bother comparing MTFs at f/1.4 to f/2 – there is a huge jump i contrast between f/1.4 and f/2 for the lux. i don't know which is better in the f/2-4 range but stopping the lux down from f/1.4 is basically like removing a veil from the picture.
If you look at Pascal's review in the link above he has two example of how the R cron 35 vII can have IMO very nice bokeh. One example is the shot at the top of the review. The second example in the shot in the bokeh section in which flowers on a bike are in the foreground and people and buildings are in the background. These fit my portrait usage of a 35mm. Subject about 3 or 4 feet away and the background 10 feet away or more (the first shot the background might be just a bit closer). Having had the R 35 cron vII for a a little over a year I know these shots and one's in which the background is further just work well with the caveats that Pascal mentions (six bladed aperture, coma, a bit of outlining in some out focus highlight circles). If the background is closer than 10 feet the bokeh does get a bit grainy as I mentioned above but I don't find it busy. That may be just semantics, however.
The point that matters to me, however, is after having the ZM, 35 f/1.4 for almost a year it is exactly those shots in which the Leica R 35 cron II excels--like those examples from Pascal--in which I don't like the bokeh of the ZM 35 f/1.4. It is when the subject is 3 or 4 feet away, the background is 10 or 12 feet away, and at fairly wide apertures that the bokeh can look busy to my eyes on the ZM. Now don't get my wrong in other situations the bokeh of the ZM 35 f/1.4 can be quite lovely. It has fantastic bokeh, IMO, if you use it for close up with the Hawk's adapter for example. I also generally like the bokeh when the lens is stopped down to f/4 or narrower. Unfortunately my typical portrait use falls right in the zone where I don't like the ZM bokeh. So, I wouldn't disagree that the ZM can have smoother bokeh than the Leica R 35 f/2 vII, but the reverse is also true in different situations in my experience and for my typical portrait use I am looking for a better alternative and I think the Leica R 35 f/2 II might be it.
If you look at Pascal's review in the link above he has two example of how the R cron 35 vII can have IMO very nice bokeh. One example is the shot at the top of the review. The second example in the shot in the bokeh section in which flowers on a bike are in the foreground and people and buildings are in the background. These fit my portrait usage of a 35mm. Subject about 3 or 4 feet away and the background 10 feet away or more (the first shot the background might be just a bit closer). Having had the R 35 cron vII for a a little over a year I know these shots and one's in which the background is further just work well with the caveats that Pascal mentions (six bladed aperture, coma, a bit of outlining in some out focus highlight circles). If the background is closer than 10 feet the bokeh does get a bit grainy as I mentioned above but I don't find it busy. That may be just semantics, however.
The point that matters to me, however, is after having the ZM, 35 f/1.4 for almost a year it is exactly those shots in which the Leica R 35 cron II excels--like those examples from Pascal--in which I don't like the bokeh of the ZM 35 f/1.4. It is when the subject is 3 or 4 feet away, the background is 10 or 12 feet away, and at fairly wide apertures that the bokeh can look busy to my eyes on the ZM. Now don't get my wrong in other situations the bokeh of the ZM 35 f/1.4 can be quite lovely. It has fantastic bokeh, IMO, if you use it for close up with the Hawk's adapter for example. I also generally like the bokeh when the lens is stopped down to f/4 or narrower. Unfortunately my typical portrait use falls right in the zone where I don't like the ZM bokeh. So, I wouldn't disagree that the ZM can have smoother bokeh than the Leica R 35 f/2 vII, but the reverse is also true in different situations in my experience and for my typical portrait use I am looking for a better alternative and I think the Leica R 35 f/2 II might be it....Show more →
yeah, i saw those in the review. that's pretty much how i remember it. it's nicer than the zm at that mid distance, but much worse than the rx1 or cv 35/1.7 in terms of smoothness at mid distance, while the zm is better for smooth bokeh close up. i'm not crazy about the bright lining it has on oof highlights in a lot of different shooting situations, but at least it doesn't have the crazy box shaped brighline highlights of the zm at mid distance.
Has anyone tried the A mount T* 50mm 1.4 hood on 50mm FE ZA? The ZA hood is way too tall. I know there are some screw-in replacement hood, but not going that route at the moment.
Does anyone have experience with the ZA 50/1.4 on the A9 yet? Do you have to turn mechanical shutter on with fast shutter speeds to get the best bokeh?
Marve Almar wrote:
Does anyone have experience with the ZA 50/1.4 on the A9 yet? Do you have to turn mechanical shutter on with fast shutter speeds to get the best bokeh?
Any experience is appreciated!
The 50/1.4 ZA on the A9 (silent shutter) would allow you to shoot at high shutter speeds without worrying about EFCS and therefore harsh bokeh. However that can already be done on the A7RII with stationary subjects.
Interesting, Fred. In my experience, using the electronic shutter on the A7RII at high shutter speeds yield bokeh that is harsh and not as smooth as the mechanical shutter.
I'd like to know what others experience are.
Does the A9 allow you to shoot with a large aperture in the electronic shutter while maintaining smooth bokeh?
Fred Miranda wrote:
The 50/1.4 ZA on the A9 (silent shutter) would allow you to shoot at high shutter speeds without worrying about EFCS and therefore hard bokeh. However that can already be done on the A7RII with stationary subjects.
Fred Miranda wrote:
The 35/2.8 ZA is not loved enough imo. Sony was able to accomplish something difficult to do in a very small lens. High contrast, low aberration (LoCA) and high resolution from center to very edges wide open. The main complain is harsher rendering at mid distance but other than that, this lens is excellent.
I know it's very personal, but the FE 35/2.8 was the lens that I disliked the most of everything I shot on the A7 cameras.
Not only it has harsh rendering and extreme vignetting (even still at F8), it has a very weird DOF behavior. Stopping down makes the DOF shift to the foreground, almost no DOF is gained to the background. Only a few reviewers seem to have noticed it. As a result you always need to keep in mind to focus at the furthest point of your scene.
IMHO this is a horrendous, hugely overpriced lens.
Jochenb wrote:
I know it's very personal, but the FE 35/2.8 was the lens that I disliked the most of everything I shot on the A7 cameras.
Not only it has harsh rendering and extreme vignetting (even still at F8), it has a very weird DOF behavior. Stopping down makes the DOF shift to the foreground, almost no DOF is gained to the background. Only a few reviewers seem to have noticed it. As a result you always need to keep in mind to focus at the furthest point of your scene.
IMHO this is a horrendous, hugely overpriced lens.
Definitely very personal. I say 'excellent', you say 'horrendous'.
We must be using it for different applications.
dumplinknet wrote:
Interesting, Fred. In my experience, using the electronic shutter on the A7RII at high shutter speeds yield bokeh that is harsh and not as smooth as the mechanical shutter.
I'd like to know what others experience are.
Does the A9 allow you to shoot with a large aperture in the electronic shutter while maintaining smooth bokeh?
Silent shutter has the same effect as turning EFCS 'off'.
EFCS causes harsher rendering at wide apertures (f/1.4) and high shutter speeds. I'm not sure how you are getting the exact opposite behavior.
Jochenb wrote:
Indeed
We do agree about the FE 35/1.4 though... because I also think that's a great lens.
Good, I'm glad we agree on that one.
Seriously, the 35/2.8 ZA can't compete with lenses like Sonnar 35/2 or 35/1.4 ZA as far as rendering. I don't mind dragging the much bigger 35/1.4 ZA for that.
What impresses me about it is the high resolution/contrast throughout the field from wide-open at infinity distances. It's also well corrected for aberrations which is a plus for many applications. Mid-field resolution is one of the best I've seen and I dare to say it's similar (if not better at many apertures) compared to the Sonnar 35/2 at a distance.
This may sound controversial, but after testing it against the ZM 35/1.4 + front filter, I decided keeping the 35/2.8 ZA and selling the ZM. It's way sharper at mid-field, similar at center and the corners are not too far behind. I agree that vignetting is high but that's the easiest post correction.
Sony was able to accomplish something difficult to do in a very small lens. High contrast, low aberration (LoCA) and high resolution from center to very edges wide open. The main complain is harsher rendering at mid distance but other than that, this lens is excellent.
