LBJ2 wrote:
Looks like it's time to break out a few christmas tree lights for a bokeh party! Thanks for posting the bokeh photos Fred, Guy. That50/1.5C ZM sure looks smooth in the two examples posted. I did a little bokeh test with the FE 35 F1.4 last weekend and will upload for comparison to the 35 ZM photos later this evening. Maybe a good idea to compare with the GM 24-70 at 35 too.
Yes, Christmas lights will really show off onion ring bokeh, and other defects!
Not sure how familiar you are with 50mm Sonnar lenses, but like the ZM35/1.4 primarily discussed here, they have their strengths and weaknesses. They can be provoked to reveal less (traditionally) pleasing bokeh qualities, particularly wide open.... However, due to fairly strong spherical aberration, they do have a degree of 'smoothness' in respect to rendering of skin tones, etc., where it is beneficial to 'obliterate' high micro crontrast.
GMPhotography wrote:
Not going there . A lot of money for 24 mpx get it to 42 than I may open my eyes. But I've been down this road it's a complete dead end for me. To many working limitations why I got out
I've never used a Leica camera or lens before. However, the separation Ron achieved in some of his photos posted earlier in this thread are stunning. I've read the 35ZM is the best 35M lens for the Leica system and maybe now I see why.
Gary Clennan wrote:
That's because they were shot with the M240.
---------------------------------------------
GMPhotography wrote:
Gary getting the same thing on the Sony bud. They are jumping off the screen.
I think he's pulling your leg there, Guy
---------------------------------------------
LBJ2 wrote:
Ron, I'm seeing some major 3D pop on some of your photos. Leica M240? Hmmmmm Good bokeh ball examples too. Thank you.
No problem. As Guy suggests, in these kinds of images, I don't think you're going to see a difference whether it's shot on Sony or Leica (other than how each camera/maker creates their raw files). The pop is thanks to the lens and my skill (or lack thereof).
This is just a guess so don't take my word on this. I believe the double-lining and other technical aspects discussed here are characteristics of this lens perhaps being caused by overcorrected spherical aberration. It would show in a Leica or modded Sony as well but perhaps in a smaller degree.
As we all know, there is no perfect bokeh. What's great for me could be bad for you.
Some of us are more sensitive to different types of aberrations and that will influence how we describe our findings. IMO, the 35/1.4ZM bokeh is pleasant even a middle distances. There is more contrast in the OOF areas making it a bit more 'present' but what's undeniable is that this lens is capable of great images in any body. It's very difficult to have this level of pop/3d combined with very smooth bokeh because high micro-contrast always contaminates the OOF areas somewhat.
It's a compromise...or even better..it's the character of this lens.
GMPhotography wrote:
Not going there . A lot of money for 24 mpx get it to 42 than I may open my eyes. But I've been down this road it's a complete dead end for me. To many working limitations why I got out
LBJ2 wrote:
I've never used a Leica camera or lens before. However, the separation Ron achieved in some of his photos posted earlier in this thread are stunning. I've read the 35ZM is the best 35M lens for the Leica system and maybe now I see why.
That's Lloyd Chambers talking, I believe...
You have to understand his priorities in image capture/creation. Those priorities are not necessarily in-line with a lot of Leica photographers. But the ZM35/1.4 is definitely a great lens, especially from a technical perspective.
Just want to add - be careful about attributing anything to a specific brand. Sure, the fanboys will encourage this line of thinking for whatever personal reasons they have (fanboys as in those over at DPR, etc. ).
rscheffler wrote:
Yes, Christmas lights will really show off onion ring bokeh, and other defects!
Not sure how familiar you are with 50mm Sonnar lenses, but like the ZM35/1.4 primarily discussed here, they have their strengths and weaknesses. They can be provoked to reveal less (traditionally) pleasing bokeh qualities, particularly wide open.... However, due to fairly strong spherical aberration, they do have a degree of 'smoothness' in respect to rendering of skin tones, etc., where it is beneficial to 'obliterate' high micro crontrast.
I think they offer different looks but both have high micro-contrast.
I believe the 50/1.5 is under corrected for SA and the 35/1.4 is a bit over corrected and that makes a difference in the OOF background/foreground rendering.
rscheffler wrote:
That's Lloyd Chambers talking, I believe...
You have to understand his priorities in image capture/creation. Those priorities are not necessarily in-line with a lot of Leica photographers. But the ZM35/1.4 is definitely a great lens, especially from a technical perspective.
Correct Ron. I did read this on Lloyd's blog. Point taken.
"Shot uncoded on the M9, it reveals similar vignetting characteristics between the two camera, with the a7R being slightly stronger. Color shift doesn’t appear to be a significant problem. Perhaps a slight shift with the Sony.
Slightly glowy/hazy wide open, this clears by f/2.8 where the central area jumps in contrast and sharpness, expanding outwards as the lens is stopped down. On the M9 most of the frame is great by f/4 though does continue to tighten up through f/11. Here the usual problem with the a7R is evident – the edges are very smeared wide open and lag the M9 through the entire range. Maybe acceptable by f/8, though f/11 is certainly better.
A great landscape consideration on a Leica M camera, but for the a7R, the Voigtlander above (35/1.2) seems to be the better across-frame performer at wider apertures, though does have more mid-zone softness as a compromise for better edge performance with a more moderate contrast character."
FWIW, that test was done before the ZM35/1.4 was on the market. By the sounds of it now, it is the better Sony option of the two ZMs... and since you have one already, other than the size difference, I wouldn't expect there is any benefit to getting the 35/2. One of the 'major flaws' of the 35/2 is its lowish contrast, somewhat hazy rendering wide open, if you don't value that kind of look. I'd instead suggest the CV35/1.7, which is already very sharp from wide open.
I think he's pulling your leg there, Guy
---------------------------------------------
No problem. As Guy suggests, in these kinds of images, I don't think you're going to see a difference whether it's shot on Sony or Leica (other than how each camera/maker creates their raw files). The pop is thanks to the lens and my skill (or lack thereof).
There is really nothing special about a Leica sensor at all except these lenses are design for their sensor stack. I'm a fan of their glass but not their bodies. That's fanboy stuff if you like their bodies. Nothing technical better overall with them. Lenses are a diffrent story but many occasions here this lens is said to be better than Leicas.
GMPhotography wrote:
Btw for me what I posted are test shots . I have done nothing in post . Maybe I should juice some for fun. I just did not want to do any of that as it confuses what it can do out of the can. Testing is not fun folks . Lol
Below are some images taken with my A7rM V2 and my Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM Distagon set to f1.4 before we confirmed that my camera sensor were out of alignment and before the camera was returned to Kolari for sensor alignment and to have the sensor cover replaced by the V3 cover.
These images show Christmas lights with the first image being the full frame and the other 2 images at 100% crop as I recall. The first cropped image shows some of the halo and/or sensor reflection while the second cropped image shows how bad the coma was for the lights near the upper right edge of image with the out of alignment sensor. I have not checked lights like this since the correction and the change of the sensor cover to V3.
Rich
Full image taken at Lehigh County Zoo Straight out of Camera A7rM V2
100% crop near center taken at Lehigh County Zoo Straight out of Camera A7rM V2
100% crop upper right corner taken at Lehigh County Zoo Straight out of Camera A7rM V2
"Shot uncoded on the M9, it reveals similar vignetting characteristics between the two camera, with the a7R being slightly stronger. Color shift doesn’t appear to be a significant problem. Perhaps a slight shift with the Sony.
Slightly glowy/hazy wide open, this clears by f/2.8 where the central area jumps in contrast and sharpness, expanding outwards as the lens is stopped down. On the M9 most of the frame is great by f/4 though does continue to tighten up through f/11. Here the usual problem with the a7R is evident – the edges are very smeared wide open and lag the M9 through the entire range. Maybe acceptable by f/8, though f/11 is certainly better.
A great landscape consideration on a Leica M camera, but for the a7R, the Voigtlander above (35/1.2) seems to be the better across-frame performer at wider apertures, though does have more mid-zone softness as a compromise for better edge performance with a more moderate contrast character."
FWIW, that test was done before the ZM35/1.4 was on the market. By the sounds of it now, it is the better Sony option of the two ZMs... and since you have one already, other than the size difference, I wouldn't expect there is any benefit to getting the 35/2. One of the 'major flaws' of the 35/2 is its lowish contrast, somewhat hazy rendering wide open, if you don't value that kind of look. I'd instead suggest the CV35/1.7, which is already very sharp from wide open....Show more →
Oh so you are THAT Ron Scheffler ! ( In a good way) Pleased to meet you Ron. I've landed on your blogs more than once since I first started out with the A7r and now the A7rII.
naturephoto1 wrote:
Below are some images taken with my A7rM V2 and my Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM Distagon set to f1.4 before we confirmed that my camera sensor were out of alignment and before the camera was returned to Kolari for sensor alignment and to have the sensor cover replaced by the V3 cover.
These images show Christmas lights with the first image being the full frame and the other 2 images at 100% crop as I recall. The first image shows some of the halo and or sensor reflection while the second dhoed how bad the coma was for the lights near the edge of image with the out of alignment sensor. I have not checked lights like this since the correction and the change of the sensor cover to V3.
LBJ2 wrote:
Oh so you are THAT Ron Scheffler ! ( In a good way) Pleased to meet you Ron. I've landed on your blogs more than once since I first started out with the A7r and now the A7rII.
Thanks! Sorry to say I haven't really done much to publish anything recently. I'm not much of a 'social media' type person and haven't put the effort into maintaining such kind of an online reputation. It's more fun to discuss these things there in a like-minded community.
As I'm sure many know here, performing lens tests are very time consuming. I'd maybe feel differently if I was paid to do them, but I'd rather be out shooting for fun when I'm not out shooting for work.
Gary Clennan wrote:
Funniest (and most untrue) thing I have read all week!
Gary there is nothing special with a Leica body from a technical standpoint over a Sony. Maybe there new EVF but nothing that has any effect on IQ. Not talking lenses here and yes I tested the S body my Phase One back smoked it. Build quality and such are exactly that maybe better but that has not a damn thing to do with there sensor and output. Every Leica owner thinks they have the best camera on the planet and for them great but has nothing to do with output.
"Shot uncoded on the M9, it reveals similar vignetting characteristics between the two camera, with the a7R being slightly stronger. Color shift doesn’t appear to be a significant problem. Perhaps a slight shift with the Sony.
Slightly glowy/hazy wide open, this clears by f/2.8 where the central area jumps in contrast and sharpness, expanding outwards as the lens is stopped down. On the M9 most of the frame is great by f/4 though does continue to tighten up through f/11. Here the usual problem with the a7R is evident – the edges are very smeared wide open and lag the M9 through the entire range. Maybe acceptable by f/8, though f/11 is certainly better.
A great landscape consideration on a Leica M camera, but for the a7R, the Voigtlander above (35/1.2) seems to be the better across-frame performer at wider apertures, though does have more mid-zone softness as a compromise for better edge performance with a more moderate contrast character."
FWIW, that test was done before the ZM35/1.4 was on the market. By the sounds of it now, it is the better Sony option of the two ZMs... and since you have one already, other than the size difference, I wouldn't expect there is any benefit to getting the 35/2. One of the 'major flaws' of the 35/2 is its lowish contrast, somewhat hazy rendering wide open, if you don't value that kind of look. I'd instead suggest the CV35/1.7, which is already very sharp from wide open....Show more →
On Sony you would indeed have little benefit to getting the ZM 35/2. If you are looking for something similar, the Loxia 2/35 is the same design tweaked for the sensor, and performs much better in the corners (and unlike the ZM if you focus in the corners they sharpen up earlier at some expense to the centre). The hazy wide open look is still there, replaced by high contrast and microcontrast as you stop down. ZM 1.4 even better at some cost in dollars, size and weight.
DavidBM wrote:
On Sony you would indeed have little benefit to getting the ZM 35/2. If you are looking for something similar, the Loxia 2/35 is the same design tweaked for the sensor, and performs much better in the corners (and unlike the ZM if you focus in the corners they sharpen up earlier at some expense to the centre). The hazy wide open look is still there, replaced by high contrast and microcontrast as you stop down. ZM 1.4 even better at some cost in dollars, size and weight.
It's interesting that the ZM 35/1.4 + adapter + hood is about the same size in length when compared to the Loxia 35/2 + hood.
If you consider it is a f/1.4 lens, it's pretty compact. The diameter is actually smaller being a 49 vs 52mm thread.
