GMPhotography wrote:
As you can see just here there are trade offs.
Thanks a lot for doing this testing Guy, really appreciate it. Would you mind doing some straight tripod-mounted bokeh comparisons against these two lenses since you have them both? If this has already been done somewhere I haven't seen it.
Yes I'll get to it this weekend as I have a 28 to test at Big Bronco
Both Fred and I have testing to do between several 35 lenses. He is waiting on his front filter today and we hope his adapter hits infinity
twomblywhite wrote:
Thanks a lot for doing this testing Guy, really appreciate it. Would you mind doing some straight tripod-mounted bokeh comparisons against these two lenses since you have them both? If this has already been done somewhere I haven't seen it.
twomblywhite wrote:
Thanks a lot for doing this testing Guy, really appreciate it. Would you mind doing some straight tripod-mounted bokeh comparisons against these two lenses since you have them both? If this has already been done somewhere I haven't seen it.
I'm quite surprised by the CV 35/1.7's rendering. I tested it side by side with the FE 35/1.4 @f/1.7 and OOF smoothness is not much different even at mid-distance. (FE is still smoother though)
There is no onion ring on the CV 35's highlights but they are not as rounded as the FE's. (The FE is almost one stop down though)
Axial color correction (LoCA) is very similar between both lenses. I'd say the FE is slightly less corrected. Sharpness at f/1.7 is also similar but the CV seems sharper which is incredible since it's wide-open at f/1.7.
I don't want to post samples yet because the edges look a bit funky without the front-lens. (very pronounced induced FC)
It's also apparent that the CV images have higher micro-contrast which gives them more 'presence' (pop).
Thanks Bastian. I hadn't read that review yet (not sure how I missed it), but it was excellent. It agrees very much with my own experience. The sad part for me is that, despite Stephen's nice examples, I don't find any of these lenses very compelling for portraits and I would love a smaller 35mm for portraits. I do love the ZM for close up shots and it is great for stopped down landscapes as well and I prefer the high contrast look but none of these really work for me as an all around 35mm.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Thanks Bastian. I hadn't read that review yet (not sure how I missed it), but it was excellent. It agrees very much with my own experience. The sad part for me is that, despite Stephen's nice examples, I don't find any of these lenses very compelling for portraits and I would love a smaller 35mm for portraits. I do love the ZM for close up shots and it is great for stopped down landscapes as well and I prefer the high contrast look but none of these really work for me as an all around 35mm.
If you don't mind me asking what are these lenses (fe 35/1.4, zm 35/1.7) lacking that would make them more compelling for portrait work for you? The oof rendering? I'm pretty curious to see some side-by-side bokeh examples as those (for me) really show the subtle differences between highlights and transitions. The performance-to-size ratio of the VM makes it very compelling for me as I like to have the camera with me everywhere.
You really need two 35s right now to capture the overall general shooting we get into. I'm actually thinking of selling my FE 35 1.4 because with a AF lens I could use more mid zone so maybe the FE 35 2.8 maybe better. It's the event kind of stuff and since the CV 35 could handle travel/ landscape and creative environmental portrait type stuff with a nice look to it. Can't believe I just said that after 5 tries at the FE. Plus I could add the 15 F2 Venus.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Thanks Bastian. I hadn't read that review yet (not sure how I missed it), but it was excellent. It agrees very much with my own experience. The sad part for me is that, despite Stephen's nice examples, I don't find any of these lenses very compelling for portraits and I would love a smaller 35mm for portraits. I do love the ZM for close up shots and it is great for stopped down landscapes as well and I prefer the high contrast look but none of these really work for me as an all around 35mm.
GMPhotography wrote:
You really need two 35s right now to capture the overall general shooting we get into. I'm actually thinking of selling my FE 35 1.4 because with a AF lens I could use more mid zone so maybe the FE 35 2.8 maybe better. It's the event kind of stuff and since the CV 35 could handle travel/ landscape and creative environmental portrait type stuff with a nice look to it. Can't believe I just said that after 5 tries at the FE. Plus I could add the 15 F2 Venus.
Totally understand Guy. I have and love the FE 35/2.8. Was the first native lens I bought. I personally just want a lens that offers more isolation (closer minimum focus), better low-light and is still relatively compact. Oh, and that also has excellent manual focus.
twomblywhite wrote:
Totally understand Guy. I have and love the FE 35/2.8. Was the first native lens I bought. I personally just want a lens that offers more isolation, better low-light and is still relatively compact.
At 290g with adapter, I would say the CV 35/1.7 looks like the lens you're looking for. It's about 50g lighter than the Loxia.
It's MF but if you really need AF, you can use TAP with it. (weight goes to 370g though)
At f/2, it's way better than the Loxia in terms of rendering and resolution/contrast and at f/2.8 it has smoother rendering than the FE 35/2.8ZA, especially at mid-distance.
Fred Miranda wrote:
At 290g with adapter, I would say the CV 35/1.7 looks like the lens you're looking for. It's about 50g lighter than the Loxia.
It's MF but if you really need AF, you can use TAP with it. (weight goes to 370g though)
At f/2, it's way better than the Loxia in terms of rendering and resolution/contrast and at f/2.8 it has smoother rendering than the FE 35/2.8ZA, especially at mid-distance.
Thanks Fred. I think so too. I realize that there are others, however, who are probably demanding better infinity performance and resolution as their needs are more based in landscape and creating large prints perhaps.
Are we assuming that a 5m. PCX is the best for the CV 35/1.7 ?. If so, in what grounds?. AFAIK, nobody has tried a different PCX with this lens and HaruhikoH didn’t make a simulation either.
For what is worth, the Biogons G21 and G 28 both work best with a 1.5m. PCX filter. Also, if memory serves me right, the ZM25 optimal filter was 2.5m. or maybe 3m?... All these three lenses are Biogons, hence quite symmetrical but there’s no direct correlation between focal length and best PCX for each of them. It depends mostly on the design. The fact that 5m. works fine with the Distagon ZM 35/1.4 says nothing about the Ultron 35/1.7. Probably this lens would perform better with another PCX. In fact, for what I’ve seen in that test of some pages ago, 5m. seems too weak.
It’s a pity that those filters aren’t neither cheap nor easy to purchase, otherwise nothing easier than buy half a dozen of different focal lengths from 1m. to 5m. and find the best suited for every lens.
BTW Fred, I hope that the people living in those "slanted houses" of your tests, know nothing about this forum, or I'm afraid that you'd end up being sued for invasion of privacy or something ..
artur5 wrote:
Are we assuming that a 5m. PCX is the best for the CV 35/1.7 ?. If so, in what grounds?. AFAIK, nobody has tried a different PCX with this lens and HaruhikoH didn’t make a simulation either.
For what is worth, the Biogons G21 and G 28 both work best with a 1.5m. PCX filter. Also, if memory serves me right, the ZM25 optimal filter was 2.5m. or maybe 3m?... All these three lenses are Biogons, hence quite symmetrical but there’s no direct correlation between focal length and best PCX for each of them. It depends mostly on the design. The fact that 5m. works fine with the Distagon ZM 35/1.4 says nothing about the Ultron 35/1.7. Probably this lens would perform better with another PCX. In fact, for what I’ve seen in that test of some pages ago, 5m. seems too weak.
It’s a pity that those filters aren’t neither cheap nor easy to purchase, otherwise nothing easier than buy half a dozen of different focal lengths from 1m. to 5m. and find the best suited for every lens.
BTW Fred, I hope that the people living in those "slanted houses" of your tests, know nothing about this forum, or I'm afraid that you'd end up being sued for invasion of privacy or something .....Show more →
I will definite get sued by those homeowners! It's just so easy and fast for me to test from my backyard.
Regarding your question about the optimum PCX for the CV 35/1.7 Ultron... @BastianK and @Phillip Reeve tested this with a 5m with great results. I wanted to find out if this was the optimum PCX as well and asked @HaruhikoT to run a simulation on it based on images from the lens itself.
Here is what he just wrote me:
______________
Hi Fred,
Thanks for sending these images.
Short answer: 5m PCX is optimal for the CV.
Detail description:
From your images I've successfully got its CRA(chief ray angle).
CV's estimated CRA is 30.6deg, while ZM has 28.1deg.
That means CV's ray towards sensor is a bit steeper than ZM.
Simulation results are little bit confusing.
Below image I also add graphs of ZM at the same aperture F1.7 for comparison.
With PCX 5m mid zone dip can be seen in both CV and ZM,
this is not consistent with Bastian and Guy's test results, but I don't know why .
PCX 4m behinds 5m at any point.
PCX 7.5m may little bit better in midzone but corner gets worse.
* Recently I found a PCX manufacturer provide this focal length that's why I add 7.5m this time...
With the PCX 7.5m front-lens, it looks like the correction would be more even across the field. What do you guys think?
It would also allow some folks with regular thickness adapters to perhaps achieve infinity.
Problem is that I don't think any manufacturer makes a 7.5m PCX lens to test this.
GMPhotography wrote:
I'm hoping the TAP works to get infinity as if so I may get one Again
for reference, I got infinity with TAP slightly before the 5 mark when parked. Not sure if that's enough with the filter, hoping it is, would like to keep my options open should I go the filter route. TAP PDAF on the edge of my A7rii, not very good, but works better on the A7ii.... kind of opposite of what I was expecting. Need to use center point for low light.
twomblywhite wrote:
Totally understand Guy. I have and love the FE 35/2.8. Was the first native lens I bought. I personally just want a lens that offers more isolation (closer minimum focus), better low-light and is still relatively compact. Oh, and that also has excellent manual focus.
I've got the 35 f2.8 as well, and the CV seems to have much more pop than that. I did a quick and dirty wall test, and the contrast just seemed different at all apertures. Maybe exposure levels not exact? colors different as well, SOOC, using midframe focus rather than center.
It's just so easy and fast for me to test from my backyard. 
