The Summarits are a recent formulation, and great value, despite Leica old hands (like KR) dissing build quality. Batis-Loxia 85s and 90AA, personal preference maybe should decide. It was hard to swap B85 for Loxia, but it's more even across the frame, which I believe helps bokeh performance and landscape 'credibility'. It peaks a stop slower too, handy for multi-purpose 85s, and I like simple plain lenses, ceteris paribus. Top end glass or many elements, seems how it is for correction, Otus has both.
In very bright slanting light, the much-maligned long hood has been a godsend. The new age lens cap falls off easy. David, Puts thinks Leica do the right thing on MTF, a claim bolstered by poor outer frame charts on some pricey lenses of theirs. All use the K8, yet so many won't publish. To channel Gordon Gecko: MTF is good, MTF works. cheers.
Meh, maybe it was just my copy of the 75/2.5 Summarit-M, but it did not hold up all that well off center at 42.5MP unless well stopped down. Got a 85/4 ZM which ended up being worlds better all around (except at f/2.5 of course). The 85 Lox is a step up above the 85/4 ZM (size, weight, and price!)
philip_pj wrote:
The Summarits are a recent formulation, and great value, despite Leica old hands (like KR) dissing build quality. Batis-Loxia 85s and 90AA, personal preference maybe should decide. It was hard to swap B85 for Loxia, but it's more even across the frame, which I believe helps bokeh performance and landscape 'credibility'. It peaks a stop slower too, handy for multi-purpose 85s, and I like simple plain lenses, ceteris paribus. Top end glass or many elements, seems how it is for correction, Otus has both.
In very bright slanting light, the much-maligned long hood has been a godsend. The new age lens cap falls off easy. David, Puts thinks Leica do the right thing on MTF, a claim bolstered by poor outer frame charts on some pricey lenses of theirs. All use the K8, yet so many won't publish. To channel Gordon Gecko: MTF is good, MTF works. cheers....Show more →
Yes Philip I haven't used many Leica lenses; but the ones I have used share the feature of Zeiss lenses that I can get a pretty good idea of how they are going to perform from the published MTF. That's much less true of any other brand.
jhinkey wrote:
Meh, maybe it was just my copy of the 75/2.5 Summarit-M, but it did not hold up all that well off center at 42.5MP unless well stopped down. Got a 85/4 ZM which ended up being worlds better all around (except at f/2.5 of course). The 85 Lox is a step up above the 85/4 ZM (size, weight, and price!)
Maybe it was your copy; I have the 4/85 ZM and optically I think the 2.5/75 is a bit better across the field at shared apertures. I prefer the ZM though; prefer the ten pointed sunstar and the focal length is more useful as a hiking tele.
Agree that the 85 Lox is better than either; but a bit too heavy for the use I would have for it (part of a multi day hiking landscape kit).
I just got the CV 65/2 APO and did a couple quick tests (basically centering at f/2 while watching for CA and flare resistance at f/5.6)
I have not compared it to any of my other lenses with similar FL but I'm very impressed. At infinity, it's very sharp to the extreme edges at f/2! Contrast is high as well. Didn't see any CA so far...it's also perfectly centered which is great news on variability since all FMers have received great copies so far.
As far as flare goes, nothing unusual with the sun just outside the frame. I don't think this lens really needs the included hood since the front element is very recessed, making it more compact than I was expecting.
Without the hood, it's only a tad longer than the Loxia 50/2 + OEM hood. It's way shorter than my ZM 85/4 + OEM hood.
Here is a quick picture showing these lenses side by side. (CV without hood)
You may think it's not a fair comparison but IMO the CV does not need any hood.
I won't be using a hood . Front element looks to be well recessed. Hate hoods anyway
Does not look that big. Big one for me is turning on its side so I can stack a lens on top and looks like it would work in my PhotoCross 10. I actually thought about buying the 13 as well.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Here is a quick picture showing these lenses side by side. (CV without hood)
You may think it's not a fair comparison but IMO the CV does not need any hood.
For me I'm not a 50 fan at all. I tried believe me but I also have a 35 1.4 and 50 is just to close in focal for me. My thoughts on this lens is landscape with 35,65, 135 and my 12-24. Plus I can use this for some macro work but for product work it's actually a perfect focal length. 50 to wide and 85 to narrow a lot of the time. I have a Sony 85 1.8 as well but more for AF needs.
davewolfs wrote:
If you aren't using the Macro option why not just go with the 50mm 1.4 - it's slightly heavier and one of the best.
I had grand plans to do some bokeh comparisons today, but instead of getting home from work at 5:00, I got home at just before 7:00. Sigh. Went out briefly and so here are a few quickly processed samples....tourist shots, but what the heck right?
This guy really wanted me to take his picture--worked there 41 years and never missed a day according to him:
This with Breakthrough Photography ND and Polarizing filter:
I'd much rather have something like
16-35, 50 f/1.4 and 70-200
Lox 50 and 21 if going manual and light.
GMPhotography wrote:
For me I'm not a 50 fan at all. I tried believe me but I also have a 35 1.4 and 50 is just to close in focal for me. My thoughts on this lens is landscape with 35,65, 135 and my 12-24. Plus I can use this for some macro work but for product work it's actually a perfect focal length. 50 to wide and 85 to narrow a lot of the time. I have a Sony 85 1.8 as well but more for AF needs.
kaioyang wrote:
I'll see if I can put some masking tape on top of the contacts... tomorrow if weather permits.
Just a follow up. I have been sick this past whole week so did not venture out to shoot.
However, I did go outside and checked the flower... the background is not white as it seems in the photo. The background is actually lots of green leaves. (How it looks like white is beyond me). So, it looks like quite possible dark fringes can happen. So the issue is my background and not the lens.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Here is a quick picture showing these lenses side by side. (CV without hood)
You may think it's not a fair comparison but IMO the CV does not need any hood.
Zeiss 85/4 ZM > CV 65/2 APO > Loxia 50/2
I was debating about using the OEM hood. It is very small and adds no girth to the lens so the lens cap can fit on the hood. However, it is a bit finicky in my experience in that it can be a challenge to remove the hood so I have decided to put the hood back in the box. I expect I will miss it .00016% of the time.....
Luvwine wrote:
I was debating about using the OEM hood. It is very small and adds no girth to the lens so the lens cap can fit on the hood. However, it is a bit finicky in my experience in that it can be a challenge to remove the hood so I have decided to put the hood back in the box. I expect I will miss it .00016% of the time.....
The front element is so far down, the lens itself acts as a hood. (At all distances including macro)
Luvwine wrote:
I was debating about using the OEM hood. It is very small and adds no girth to the lens so the lens cap can fit on the hood. However, it is a bit finicky in my experience in that it can be a challenge to remove the hood so I have decided to put the hood back in the box. I expect I will miss it .00016% of the time.....
Why not having it on permanently? The cap fits on the hood as well.
Yea I built my kit around a 35 lens. Like you many build it around a 50. Actually that is the best way to think about your gapping is find your lens cap lens which usually is 35 or 50. I'm all about gapping and one reason having the 12-24, 35, 135 the 65 for landscape creates a nice gapping kit. I have the Batis 25 and Sony 85 but they are more towards PR type use.
davewolfs wrote:
I'd much rather have something like
16-35, 50 f/1.4 and 70-200
