GMPhotography wrote:
Crap. In all truth I have been afraid to spend the money on a Loxia 35 not knowing whats next. I had the lens wide open its not great and I was hoping it was. I have the FE 35 1.4 on hand so I have a really great copy but it travels like shit. I had the CV 35 1.7 and really liked it but was trying to make too much of its capabilities . If I stay within reason even without the front filter its still a nice fun city type lens and can be pressed into landscape. Soooooooo having just seen a used one for 599 i grabbed it. I figure if something hits the streets soon the worst case scenario I can get at least 500 for it. So I took the risk. I also just grabbed a FE 28mm as really a fill grip and grin lens for work. I have 12-24 than FE 35 so a 28mm will handle those stupid shots I have to do of people talking and drinking cocktails at events.
The nice thing is the CV will stack well in a bag. Thats what i really wanted and the FE 35 i just hate manual focusing that lens. Im freaking sick in the head
More the point I could not find a Loxia 35 for less than 979. 00 and thats too much...Show more →
Damn. $599 is a pretty good deal as I've been looking for one myself. Did you grab yours here from the buy and sell?
twomblywhite wrote:
Damn. $599 is a pretty good deal as I've been looking for one myself. Did you grab yours here from the buy and sell?
It is only anecdotal evidence but my first copy was decentered and a second copy offered to me wasn't well centered either. My third copy is centered well. So be careful to see ppictures before you buy one or buy where you can return it.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Remember to add $20 (adapter) and $100 (front lens) to the price.
Good timing Fred
I just found and purchased a filter from eksma's website. $50 for the filter (without coating) and $49 for shipping.
EDIT:
anti-reflective coating will add to the cost and shipping time. It's recommended to not bother with the uncoated filter as there are bad reflections and ghosting.
The number for the coating (according to Bastian) is 3217-i0 400-700nm.
The other option listed in the article on Phillip's site, the Opto Sigma SLB-50-5000PM, is $95 before shipping cost but from what I can see you can't order immediately without first contacting them.
Phillip Reeve wrote:
It is only anecdotal evidence but my first copy was decentered and a second copy offered to me wasn't well centered either. My third copy is centered well. So be careful to see ppictures before you buy one or buy where you can return it.
twomblywhite wrote:
Good timing Fred
I just found and purchased a filter from eksma's website. $50 for the filter and $49 for shipping. The shipping estimate says 4-5 days so if accurate that is nice. For anyone else interested here is the link to the eksma page listing the filter. It's the second to last filter under the 50.8mm heading:
It's funny with the CV 35 1.7. Though it's flawed on the Sony sensor, it's one lens in my lineup I don't swap around.
I'm always trying different 50s. I've gone through about 4 or 5 85/90s in the last year and currently swap between two of them. I've got a pile of 135s around and have only recently settled on one I'm happy enough with (Thanks for your review of the Canon FD, Phillip). I've tried several 28s before settling into the front-filter tweaked Contax G28 (again, thanks to FM and phillipreeve.net).
But I've never even thought about trying another 35 since I bought the CV 35 about a year and a half ago. I guess I just love it.
Since we still don't have a kitchen, and it's been a long week without one, a friend invited us over for dinner. On the way to his place I stopped to photograph these cumulo-ominous clouds over a cornfield, what passes for infinity around here. I'm not disappointed compared to Loxia. Sharp and brilliant. This is just Lightroom default yellow filter with shadows pulled up. If I worked on it a little I would burn dodge the foreground and crop or burn the extra sky.
At his place I was photographing a little: gardens, chickens old buildings and all, with the CV 65. After a while I put on the OM 50/2, which I had in my bag and I was curious to compare. I did these exposures some time apart and without a direct intention of comparing identical images. I was going for a general sense. Reviewing the images, when I got to an similar garden shot with the OM 50/2 I thought, "Now this is nice bokeh, definitely nicer bokeh." But then I put the images side by side, I think the CV might actually be nicer bokeh. The OM is sort of wilder, a little more character, which is one thing I like about that lens. But the CV is very nice. (I know, just a flower scenario). Of course the CV is sharper (focus on stamens of foreground anemone. Both at f2.
I think the funny thing is that we have expectations, and I've been reading people complaining about the bokeh of the CV enough to almost start believing it, at least maybe enough to bias my view.
This one is really crazy. F2, focus on the second chicken from the right (its eye). F2, the thing is nowhere near the center of the frame. It is very sharp. I have never had a lens like this.
jlehet wrote:
This one is really crazy. F2, focus on the second chicken from the right (its eye). F2, the thing is nowhere near the center of the frame. It is very sharp. I have never had a lens like this.
You can place your subject at the extreme corner at f/2 and it will still be sharp.
Only my Batis 135/2.8 is that good. It takes f/4 for the Batis 85/1.8 to get to this level and I can still see CA towards the edges of the frame.
jlehet wrote:
Since we still don't have a kitchen, and it's been a long week without one, a friend invited us over for dinner. On the way to his place I stopped to photograph these cumulo-ominous clouds over a cornfield, what passes for infinity around here. I'm not disappointed compared to Loxia. Sharp and brilliant. This is just Lightroom default yellow filter with shadows pulled up. If I worked on it a little I would burn dodge the foreground and crop or burn the extra sky.
At his place I was photographing a little: gardens, chickens old buildings and all, with the CV 65. After a while I put on the OM 50/2, which I had in my bag and I was curious to compare. I did these exposures some time apart and without a direct intention of comparing identical images. I was going for a general sense. Reviewing the images, when I got to an similar garden shot with the OM 50/2 I thought, "Now this is nice bokeh, definitely nicer bokeh." But then I put the images side by side, I think the CV might actually be nicer bokeh. The OM is sort of wilder, a little more character, which is one thing I like about that lens. But the CV is very nice. (I know, just a flower scenario). Of course the CV is sharper (focus on stamens of foreground anemone. Both at f2.
I think the funny thing is that we have expectations, and I've been reading people complaining about the bokeh of the CV enough to almost start believing it, at least maybe enough to bias my view.
Go up in focal length (OM 90/2) instead of down (OM 50/2) in the comparison and you might have a different (bokeh) result. I think you also left out the most problematic part for the CV 65. The lower left corner of the OM 50/2, which has the lines (stems) going in all directions. The CV often shows double/thick for bokeh in these areas.
Yeah, I did that this morning and it was very different indeed. The OM 90/2 is IMO among the best lenses for bokeh. I haven't reviewed those images yet but I noted through the viewfinder that the difference was striking.
