This topic is in the 2016 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2016Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing
p.87 #1Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing
GMPhotography wrote:
Comparing it to my Vario-Sonnar 3.4/35-70 which i had to stop down to f/5.6 to get the same quality as the ZM35 at f/2.8 is showing the ZM is not bad at all.It's there at portrait distances as well. 
Try a more controlled test focusing at center and then move the subject to the mid-zone. There will be a noticeable loss of resolution.
Without the front-lens, this isn't very noticeable but the front-lens exaggerates it. If you use the lens naked on the A7RII and focus on mid-field, it will be sharper!Klaus is replying to me, but I'm talking about the ZA and he seems to be talking about ZM. Fred are are mentioning front filters so are you talking about ZM (or CV?)?I was talking about the ZM but it seems the CV will also suffer from this as well. See here:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1453834/84#14191202
I can't test this yet since my front lens is not here yet.That makes sense!
It was a confusing exchange; sebboh was talking about ZA, I replied to him, then it turned into ZM in Klaus' contribution...so many d*mn 35s! And no One to Rule Them All.I'm still lost. I got the CV 35 and the PCX what to do you guys want me to try.
People were wondering different things!
But I guess the mini-thread started with people wondering on these lenses with a mid-zone dip, whether that dip
(a) happens at portrait distance
and
(b) if it does, if it's still there if you focus on your mid-zone subject.
So if you have any interest in testing the CV 3 + 5m in this way put a portrait head in the mid-zone, focus on it, and see how it goes, maybe compared to without 5m. And if you can really be bothered, compared with central focusing (though that would be really hard to do for portrait distance).
DavidBM wrote
Fred Miranda wrote
DavidBM wrote
Fred Miranda wrote
KlausJH wrote
I agree, at portrait distances it is hardly visible. The dip can best be seen at far distances below f/2.8 between 12 to 15mm from the centre. For landscape photography I would stop down to f/5.6 or f/8 anyway and at near distances when I shoot WO it is not a problem either. But there might be situations when this behavior is not wishful.Comparing it to my Vario-Sonnar 3.4/35-70 which i had to stop down to f/5.6 to get the same quality as the ZM35 at f/2.8 is showing the ZM is not bad at all.
Try a more controlled test focusing at center and then move the subject to the mid-zone. There will be a noticeable loss of resolution.
Without the front-lens, this isn't very noticeable but the front-lens exaggerates it. If you use the lens naked on the A7RII and focus on mid-field, it will be sharper!
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1453834/84#14191202
I can't test this yet since my front lens is not here yet.
It was a confusing exchange; sebboh was talking about ZA, I replied to him, then it turned into ZM in Klaus' contribution...so many d*mn 35s! And no One to Rule Them All.
People were wondering different things!
But I guess the mini-thread started with people wondering on these lenses with a mid-zone dip, whether that dip
(a) happens at portrait distance
and
(b) if it does, if it's still there if you focus on your mid-zone subject.
So if you have any interest in testing the CV 3 + 5m in this way put a portrait head in the mid-zone, focus on it, and see how it goes, maybe compared to without 5m. And if you can really be bothered, compared with central focusing (though that would be really hard to do for portrait distance).
Sep 23, 2017 at 06:17 PM
p.87 #2Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing
jhinkey wrote:
It's not field curvature because the midzone does not improve when focusing on it.ah, i thought you were saying it was only visible when you focus and recompose, not when you focus directly on the subject.
A controlled test is a way to compare it to other lenses and to itself (when focusing on other zones). For me, it's just a better way of spotting this instead of just checking my portraits and saying it's fine. it makes sense for comparing lenses, i wouldn't make any decisions as to which lens to keep and which lens to sell though based on things i can't notice in normal pictures though. there are lots of more obvious differences between these lenses.Do you still have the CV 35/1.7 + 5m lens? If so, I have a question for you.
Without the from lens, if you focus on the extreme edge, does it look 'the same', 'better' or 'worse' compared to using the front-lens on it?the cv is actually nehemiah's and i believe he was planning to sell it because he prefers the pentax 35/1.8. if he still has it i'll check, but you might have your own filter first.Hmmm . . . I just saw a Pentax 35/1.8 in the used case this morning for $799. I was wondering why the high price! I guess it must have some merit to it.
it's a very nice lens, it is competitive for landscape with the cv + 5m pcx (comparison) and seems to have a nicer draw for portraits imo. it's too big for my taste, but much smaller than the ZA 35/1.4. it focuses the wrong way and has very little focus damping, which is quite annoying too.
Steve Spencer wrote:
http://m9.i.pbase.com/o10/91/505291/1/166248799.O5qnWj1a._DSC4727.jpg
http://m0.i.pbase.com/o10/91/505291/1/166248800.K6NW1b7S._DSC4733.jpgStephen,
I like both of these shots and they show just how good the ZM 35 f/1.4 can be wide open. I also attribute the nice bokeh to your skill in composition. I have the lens uncorrected without the front filter and I think it is great for close-up shots, and great for landscape shots at f/5.6 or 6.3 and is sharp across the frame even without the front filter at those apertures. I find it hit and miss for portraits, however, as the bokeh can cause problems if you don't compose carefully. You have done a great job with these shots, but the question I have is does the front filter in your view (or anyone else who has tried the front filter) seem to improve the bokeh or perhaps even detract from it. For me and how I use the lens, the bokeh is really the one issue that bothers me from time to time.There are many with and without filter bokeh comparisons in this article, you just need to have a look:
https://phillipreeve.net/blog/35mm-comparison-voigtlander-zeiss-leica/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.i find cv to be much more consistently pleasing for portraits than the zm and its equal for landscape. this is on my kolari mod camera though. i like the FE 35/1.4 better still for portraits (never notice the midzone dip for portraits), but it's size makes it a nogo for me.Bastian's review and my experience with the ZM makes me wonder whether I would ever be happy with the CV as a portrait lens. It looks like the CV has very similar bokeh to the ZM from Bastian's tests and that is really what bothers me about the ZM as a portrait lens. I get that for lots of people the high contrast look of the ZM wouldn't be what they want for portraits, but sometimes I like that. I think I have asked you before Derek, but how would you compare the CV to the Zeiss C/Y 35...Show more →
Steve, i really don't think there is any better 35mm lens for portraits than the c/y 35/1.4 (though my wife prefers the lux pre-asph). i actually think under 1 meter the zm draws very similarly to the c/y (especially if you focus with a helicoid adapter rather than the lenses own helicoid), but with a bit more bite and a bit less smoothness and SA centrally:
http://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3770/32768073743_021773c906_o.jpg
http://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4189/33865523464_6417298525_o.jpg
at slightly longer distances though, the zm has very ugly bokeh (weird squares). the c/y isn't great in this regard either. the cv is better in this regard – it has cat's eyes instead with less color aberration and less bright outlines. the cv has it's own attractiveness at close range wide open, but it's different from the zm and certainly high contrast:
http://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2941/32972671820_bb3cc73860_o.jpg
http://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2893/33444928620_8c63d5ec3f_o.jpg
bokeh comparison between the two:
cv f/1.7:
http://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2844/33497202632_17bceb0150_o.jpg
zm f/1.7:
http://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3937/33524538961_69851fa710_o.jpg
zm f/1.4:
http://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2894/33524538991_cf76c9dd5c_o.jpg
the pentax 31/1.8 ltd might be more up your alley. i haven't played with it much myself, but the pictures i've seen from nehemiah look very promising – similar to the c/y but with a little less pop and better cross the frame performance.
sebboh wrote
Fred Miranda wrote
sebboh wrote
Fred Miranda wrote
sebboh wrote
if you have to do a controlled test to spot it, it's probably not important for photography imo. sounds like it could be field curvature the way you describe it, if its only visible when you focus centrally?Fred Miranda wrote
sebboh, all these lenses are high performance and the mid-zone dip is not that bad. A controlled test is a way to compare it to other lenses and to itself (when focusing on other zones). For me, it's just a better way of spotting this instead of just checking my portraits and saying it's fine. Without the from lens, if you focus on the extreme edge, does it look 'the same', 'better' or 'worse' compared to using the front-lens on it?
it's a very nice lens, it is competitive for landscape with the cv + 5m pcx (comparison) and seems to have a nicer draw for portraits imo. it's too big for my taste, but much smaller than the ZA 35/1.4. it focuses the wrong way and has very little focus damping, which is quite annoying too.
Steve Spencer wrote:
sebboh wrote
Steve Spencer wrote
BastianK wrote
Steve Spencer wrote
Luvwine wrote
I don't do a lot of this, but perhaps my standards are lower. Here are a couple from a recent trip I made with family--shot in dim light in a restaurant at ISO 640:http://m9.i.pbase.com/o10/91/505291/1/166248799.O5qnWj1a._DSC4727.jpg
http://m0.i.pbase.com/o10/91/505291/1/166248800.K6NW1b7S._DSC4733.jpg
I like both of these shots and they show just how good the ZM 35 f/1.4 can be wide open. I also attribute the nice bokeh to your skill in composition. I have the lens uncorrected without the front filter and I think it is great for close-up shots, and great for landscape shots at f/5.6 or 6.3 and is sharp across the frame even without the front filter at those apertures. I find it hit and miss for portraits, however, as the bokeh can cause problems if you don't compose carefully. You have done a great job with these shots, but the question I have is does the front filter in your view (or anyone else who has tried the front filter) seem to improve the bokeh or perhaps even detract from it. For me and how I use the lens, the bokeh is really the one issue that bothers me from time to time.
https://phillipreeve.net/blog/35mm-comparison-voigtlander-zeiss-leica/
Steve, i really don't think there is any better 35mm lens for portraits than the c/y 35/1.4 (though my wife prefers the lux pre-asph). i actually think under 1 meter the zm draws very similarly to the c/y (especially if you focus with a helicoid adapter rather than the lenses own helicoid), but with a bit more bite and a bit less smoothness and SA centrally:
http://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3770/32768073743_021773c906_o.jpg
http://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4189/33865523464_6417298525_o.jpg
at slightly longer distances though, the zm has very ugly bokeh (weird squares). the c/y isn't great in this regard either. the cv is better in this regard – it has cat's eyes instead with less color aberration and less bright outlines. the cv has it's own attractiveness at close range wide open, but it's different from the zm and certainly high contrast:
http://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2941/32972671820_bb3cc73860_o.jpg
http://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2893/33444928620_8c63d5ec3f_o.jpg
bokeh comparison between the two:
cv f/1.7:
http://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2844/33497202632_17bceb0150_o.jpg
zm f/1.7:
http://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3937/33524538961_69851fa710_o.jpg
zm f/1.4:
http://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2894/33524538991_cf76c9dd5c_o.jpg
the pentax 31/1.8 ltd might be more up your alley. i haven't played with it much myself, but the pictures i've seen from nehemiah look very promising – similar to the c/y but with a little less pop and better cross the frame performance.
Sep 23, 2017 at 06:54 PM
p.87 #3Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing
sebboh wrote:
ah, i thought you were saying it was only visible when you focus and recompose, not when you focus directly on the subject.
A controlled test is a way to compare it to other lenses and to itself (when focusing on other zones). For me, it's just a better way of spotting this instead of just checking my portraits and saying it's fine. it makes sense for comparing lenses, i wouldn't make any decisions as to which lens to keep and which lens to sell though based on things i can't notice in normal pictures though. there are lots of more obvious differences between these lenses.Do you still have the CV 35/1.7 + 5m lens? If so, I have a question for you.
Without the from lens, if you focus on the extreme edge, does it look 'the same', 'better' or 'worse' compared to using the front-lens on it?the cv is actually nehemiah's and i believe he was planning to sell it because he prefers the pentax 35/1.8. if he still has it i'll check, but you might have your own filter first.Hmmm . . . I just saw a Pentax 35/1.8 in the used case this morning for $799. I was wondering why the high price! I guess it must have some merit to it.it's a very nice lens, it is competitive for landscape with the cv + 5m pcx (comparison) and seems to have a nicer draw for portraits imo. it's too big for my taste, but much smaller than the ZA 35/1.4. it focuses the wrong way and has very little focus damping, which is quite annoying too.
I like both of these shots and they show just how good the ZM 35 f/1.4 can be wide open. I also attribute the nice bokeh to your skill in composition. I have the lens uncorrected without the front filter and I think it is great for close-up shots, and great for landscape shots at f/5.6 or 6.3 and is sharp across the frame even without the front filter at those apertures. I find it hit and miss for portraits, however, as the bokeh can cause problems if you don't compose carefully. You have done a great job with these shots, but the question I have is does the front filter in your view (or anyone else who has tried the front filter) seem to improve the bokeh or perhaps even detract from it. For me and how I use the lens, the bokeh is really the one issue that bothers me from time to time.There are many with and without filter bokeh comparisons in this article, you just need to have a look:
https://phillipreeve.net/blog/35mm-comparison-voigtlander-zeiss-leica/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.i find cv to be much more consistently pleasing for portraits than the zm and its equal for landscape. this is on my kolari mod camera though. i like the FE 35/1.4 better still for portraits (never notice the midzone dip for portraits), but it's size makes it a nogo for me.Bastian's review and my experience with the ZM makes me wonder whether I would ever be happy with the CV as a portrait lens. It looks like the CV has very similar bokeh to the ZM from Bastian's tests and that is really what bothers me about the ZM as a portrait lens. I get that for lots of people the high contrast look of the ZM wouldn't be what they want for portraits, but sometimes I like that. I think I have asked you before Derek, but how would you compare the CV to the Zeiss C/Y 35 f/1.4 for portraits? I am leaning in that directions these days, but I am still pretty undecided. I may just give up on shooting 35mm portraits on the Sony, and then I would go with the Zeiss Contax 645 45 f/2.8 on my Fuji GFX, which seems to my eye to share a lot of features with the C/Y 35 f/1.4. I am really enjoying the GFX for shooting portraits with its tilt/swivel EVF which allows shooting holding the camera at my chest.Steve, i really don't think there is any better 35mm lens for portraits than the c/y 35/1.4 (though my wife prefers the lux pre-asph). i actually think under 1 meter the zm draws very similarly to the c/y (especially if you focus with a helicoid...Show more →
Thanks Derek, I always value your opinion and find it quite helpful. I have the ZM 35 f/1.4 and my problem is that I bought it hoping that I could use it in two different kits and it works quite well in one, but not so well in the other. Where it works for me is in a three lens kit with the Sony A7r II and the Loxia 21 and Loxia 85. These three make a nice fairly small versatile kit. At the wide end the Loxia 21 is fantastic at most everything I want it for. The Loxia 85 is also quite versatile and I find it excellent for portraits and landscapes. The ZM has a very similar look to the two Loxia's and it is my among my favorite lenses for close-ups and with the Hawk's adapter I have is very easy to use for such shots. Stopped down to f/5.6 or 6.3 it is also a very good landscape lens. I am not using the front end filter and still for my uses in this kit it works well. I would probably be happier if it was better for portraits, but I do have the Loxia 85 along in this kit which works at least 80% of the time for the portraits I want to take. So, in this role it does great, not perfect, but it really works very well.
I also at times really like to take a two lens portrait kit with a 35 and something between 75 and 90. I had big hopes the ZM 35 would fill the 35mm role in such a kit. When I use this lens primarily for portraits in such a kit I am pretty disappointed. So, I have been thinking about other options for such a two lens kit. Could the CV 35 f/1.7 replace the ZM in the kit above and in this two lens kit? Perhaps, but it seems like for almost all of what I am seeking the ZM would just be a better choice. I like it better for close-ups and I like it better for landscape shots stopped down. Yet, I am pretty sure the CV would be better for the 2 lens portrait kit. It seems to me what I should do is not try to find one do it all 35mm lens, but rather add a second 35mm lens for the two lens portrait kit. Right now I am leaning toward the Zeiss C/Y 35 f/1.4. Yeah, it is bigger, but in a two lens kit I care less. I have also considered the Zeiss ZF.2 classic 35mm f/1.4, which I currently have, but the focussing direction drives me nuts and the ZE version with a metabones or similar (which I did have) gets so big it does start to bother me. I also considered the Leica R 35 f/2 Mk II, partly because my longer lens in this two lens kit is the Leica R 80 f/1.4. I do think they would pair well together as they are both Mandler lenses and share a similar look, but partly based on what you have said I reviewed my old shots with the R 35 cron II and I can see its weaknesses and I don't think I will got that way. The Pentax 31 limited is also a lens I have long considered but the focus direction and the fact it is an AF lens together have me worried about how I will feel about focussing it. So, I am left still unconvinced by any options but I am likely to try the Zeiss C/Y next. Thanks for your advice.
jhinkey wrote
sebboh wrote
Fred Miranda wrote
sebboh wrote
Fred Miranda wrote
It's not field curvature because the midzone does not improve when focusing on it.Fred Miranda wrote
sebboh, all these lenses are high performance and the mid-zone dip is not that bad. A controlled test is a way to compare it to other lenses and to itself (when focusing on other zones). For me, it's just a better way of spotting this instead of just checking my portraits and saying it's fine. Without the from lens, if you focus on the extreme edge, does it look 'the same', 'better' or 'worse' compared to using the front-lens on it?
Steve Spencer wrote
sebboh wrote
Steve Spencer wrote
BastianK wrote
Steve Spencer wrote
Stephen,I like both of these shots and they show just how good the ZM 35 f/1.4 can be wide open. I also attribute the nice bokeh to your skill in composition. I have the lens uncorrected without the front filter and I think it is great for close-up shots, and great for landscape shots at f/5.6 or 6.3 and is sharp across the frame even without the front filter at those apertures. I find it hit and miss for portraits, however, as the bokeh can cause problems if you don't compose carefully. You have done a great job with these shots, but the question I have is does the front filter in your view (or anyone else who has tried the front filter) seem to improve the bokeh or perhaps even detract from it. For me and how I use the lens, the bokeh is really the one issue that bothers me from time to time.
https://phillipreeve.net/blog/35mm-comparison-voigtlander-zeiss-leica/
Thanks Derek, I always value your opinion and find it quite helpful. I have the ZM 35 f/1.4 and my problem is that I bought it hoping that I could use it in two different kits and it works quite well in one, but not so well in the other. Where it works for me is in a three lens kit with the Sony A7r II and the Loxia 21 and Loxia 85. These three make a nice fairly small versatile kit. At the wide end the Loxia 21 is fantastic at most everything I want it for. The Loxia 85 is also quite versatile and I find it excellent for portraits and landscapes. The ZM has a very similar look to the two Loxia's and it is my among my favorite lenses for close-ups and with the Hawk's adapter I have is very easy to use for such shots. Stopped down to f/5.6 or 6.3 it is also a very good landscape lens. I am not using the front end filter and still for my uses in this kit it works well. I would probably be happier if it was better for portraits, but I do have the Loxia 85 along in this kit which works at least 80% of the time for the portraits I want to take. So, in this role it does great, not perfect, but it really works very well.
I also at times really like to take a two lens portrait kit with a 35 and something between 75 and 90. I had big hopes the ZM 35 would fill the 35mm role in such a kit. When I use this lens primarily for portraits in such a kit I am pretty disappointed. So, I have been thinking about other options for such a two lens kit. Could the CV 35 f/1.7 replace the ZM in the kit above and in this two lens kit? Perhaps, but it seems like for almost all of what I am seeking the ZM would just be a better choice. I like it better for close-ups and I like it better for landscape shots stopped down. Yet, I am pretty sure the CV would be better for the 2 lens portrait kit. It seems to me what I should do is not try to find one do it all 35mm lens, but rather add a second 35mm lens for the two lens portrait kit. Right now I am leaning toward the Zeiss C/Y 35 f/1.4. Yeah, it is bigger, but in a two lens kit I care less. I have also considered the Zeiss ZF.2 classic 35mm f/1.4, which I currently have, but the focussing direction drives me nuts and the ZE version with a metabones or similar (which I did have) gets so big it does start to bother me. I also considered the Leica R 35 f/2 Mk II, partly because my longer lens in this two lens kit is the Leica R 80 f/1.4. I do think they would pair well together as they are both Mandler lenses and share a similar look, but partly based on what you have said I reviewed my old shots with the R 35 cron II and I can see its weaknesses and I don't think I will got that way. The Pentax 31 limited is also a lens I have long considered but the focus direction and the fact it is an AF lens together have me worried about how I will feel about focussing it. So, I am left still unconvinced by any options but I am likely to try the Zeiss C/Y next. Thanks for your advice.
Sep 23, 2017 at 07:57 PM
p.87 #4Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing
GMPhotography wrote:
I like both of these shots and they show just how good the ZM 35 f/1.4 can be wide open. I also attribute the nice bokeh to your skill in composition. I have the lens uncorrected without the front filter and I think it is great for close-up shots, and great for landscape shots at f/5.6 or 6.3 and is sharp across the frame even without the front filter at those apertures. I find it hit and miss for portraits, however, as the bokeh can cause problems if you don't compose carefully. You have done a great job with these shots, but the question I have is does the front filter in your view (or anyone else who has tried the front filter) seem to improve the bokeh or perhaps even detract from it. For me and how I use the lens, the bokeh is really the one issue that bothers me from time to time.There are many with and without filter bokeh comparisons in this article, you just need to have a look:
https://phillipreeve.net/blog/35mm-comparison-voigtlander-zeiss-leica/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.i find cv to be much more consistently pleasing for portraits than the zm and its equal for landscape. this is on my kolari mod camera though. i like the FE 35/1.4 better still for portraits (never notice the midzone dip for portraits), but it's size makes it a nogo for me.Bastian's review and my experience with the ZM makes me wonder whether I would ever be happy with the CV as a portrait lens. It looks like the CV has very similar bokeh to the ZM from Bastian's tests and that is really what bothers me about the ZM as a portrait lens. I get that for lots of people the high contrast look of the ZM wouldn't be what they want for portraits, but sometimes I like that. I think I have asked you before Derek, but how would you compare the CV to the Zeiss C/Y 35 f/1.4 for portraits? I am leaning in that directions these days, but I am still pretty undecided. I may just give up on shooting 35mm portraits on the Sony, and then I would go with the Zeiss Contax 645 45 f/2.8 on my Fuji GFX, which seems to my eye to share a lot of features with the C/Y 35 f/1.4. I am really enjoying the GFX for shooting portraits with its tilt/swivel EVF which allows shooting holding the camera at my chest.Steve your wanting a Mandler look and your going to have to find one that's got that wide open glow. Leica R 35 1.4 might be your ticket. Or the old Contax 35 1.4
Thanks Guy. I always appreciate your advice as well and I think you hit the nail on the head. I have considered the Leica R 35 f/1.4, but it is a very particular lens. It is sharp centrally, but until well stopped down the sharpness falls off quickly away from the centre. It is also ridiculously expensive for a lens with its characteristics in my view. As I described above I will probably try the old Contax 35 f/1.4, and I have good hopes that will work well with the R 80 f/1.4 with which I plan to pair it in a two lens portrait kit.
Steve Spencer wrote
sebboh wrote
Steve Spencer wrote
BastianK wrote
Steve Spencer wrote
Stephen,I like both of these shots and they show just how good the ZM 35 f/1.4 can be wide open. I also attribute the nice bokeh to your skill in composition. I have the lens uncorrected without the front filter and I think it is great for close-up shots, and great for landscape shots at f/5.6 or 6.3 and is sharp across the frame even without the front filter at those apertures. I find it hit and miss for portraits, however, as the bokeh can cause problems if you don't compose carefully. You have done a great job with these shots, but the question I have is does the front filter in your view (or anyone else who has tried the front filter) seem to improve the bokeh or perhaps even detract from it. For me and how I use the lens, the bokeh is really the one issue that bothers me from time to time.
https://phillipreeve.net/blog/35mm-comparison-voigtlander-zeiss-leica/
Thanks Guy. I always appreciate your advice as well and I think you hit the nail on the head. I have considered the Leica R 35 f/1.4, but it is a very particular lens. It is sharp centrally, but until well stopped down the sharpness falls off quickly away from the centre. It is also ridiculously expensive for a lens with its characteristics in my view. As I described above I will probably try the old Contax 35 f/1.4, and I have good hopes that will work well with the R 80 f/1.4 with which I plan to pair it in a two lens portrait kit.
Sep 23, 2017 at 08:02 PM
p.87 #5Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing
Yes that would be my second choice for sure
Sep 23, 2017 at 08:29 PM
p.87 #6Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing
Steve Spencer wrote:
https://phillipreeve.net/blog/35mm-comparison-voigtlander-zeiss-leica/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.i find cv to be much more consistently pleasing for portraits than the zm and its equal for landscape. this is on my kolari mod camera though. i like the FE 35/1.4 better still for portraits (never notice the midzone dip for portraits), but it's size makes it a nogo for me.Bastian's review and my experience with the ZM makes me wonder whether I would ever be happy with the CV as a portrait lens. It looks like the CV has very similar bokeh to the ZM from Bastian's tests and that is really what bothers me about the ZM as a portrait lens. I get that for lots of people the high contrast look of the ZM wouldn't be what they want for portraits, but sometimes I like that. I think I have asked you before Derek, but how would you compare the CV to the Zeiss C/Y 35 f/1.4 for portraits? I am leaning in that directions these days, but I am still pretty undecided. I may just give up on shooting 35mm portraits on the Sony, and then I would go with the Zeiss Contax 645 45 f/2.8 on my Fuji GFX, which seems to my eye to share a lot of features with the C/Y 35 f/1.4. I am really enjoying the GFX for shooting portraits with its tilt/swivel EVF which allows shooting holding the camera at my chest.Steve your wanting a Mandler look and your going to have to find one that's got that wide open glow. Leica R 35 1.4 might be your ticket. Or the old Contax 35 1.4Thanks Guy. I always appreciate your advice as well and I think you hit the nail on the head. I have considered the Leica R 35 f/1.4, but it is a very particular lens. It is sharp centrally, but until well stopped down the sharpness falls off quickly away from the centre. It is also ridiculously expensive for a lens with its characteristics in my view. As I described above I will probably try the old Contax 35 f/1.4, and I have good hopes that will work well with the R 80 f/1.4 with which I plan to pair...Show more →
Steve,
Have you tried the CV 35/1.7 + PCX? I'm really liking this combo. Perhaps you want faster?
GMPhotography wrote
Steve Spencer wrote
sebboh wrote
Steve Spencer wrote
BastianK wrote
There are many with and without filter bokeh comparisons in this article, you just need to have a look:https://phillipreeve.net/blog/35mm-comparison-voigtlander-zeiss-leica/
Steve,
Have you tried the CV 35/1.7 + PCX? I'm really liking this combo. Perhaps you want faster?
Sep 29, 2017 at 10:35 AM
p.87 #7Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing
Regarding CV 35/1.7 + 5m PCX posted here:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1453834/84#14191202
I don't see the mid-zone dip the simulation shows for the CV. I do see on the 35/1.4 ZM + 5m PCX though.
I wonder why?
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1453834/84#14191202
I don't see the mid-zone dip the simulation shows for the CV. I do see on the 35/1.4 ZM + 5m PCX though.
I wonder why?
Sep 29, 2017 at 11:22 AM
p.87 #8Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing
Is it possible that it was never there to begin with natively that is. Not sure the PCX actually fixes any midframe just the outside zones
Sep 29, 2017 at 11:28 AM
p.87 #9Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing
GMPhotography wrote:
Is it possible that it was never there to begin with natively that is. Not sure the PCX actually fixes any midframe just the outside zones
I'm not sure but that was the reason I sold my ZM 35/1.4. I prefer having a strong mid when composition my images.
At center, the CV and ZM are very similar (very strong)
Is it possible that it was never there to begin with natively that is. Not sure the PCX actually fixes any midframe just the outside zones
I'm not sure but that was the reason I sold my ZM 35/1.4. I prefer having a strong mid when composition my images.
At center, the CV and ZM are very similar (very strong)
Sep 29, 2017 at 11:46 AM
p.87 #10Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing
Agree on center maybe the sharpest 35 I’ve seen wide open.
Sep 29, 2017 at 11:49 AM
p.87 #11Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing
Fred Miranda wrote:
I'm not sure but that was the reason I sold my ZM 35/1.4. I prefer having a strong mid when composition my images.
At center, the CV and ZM are very similar (very strong)
on the kolari UT my cv 35/1.7 has a mild midzone shift, but only on one side.
GMPhotography wrote
Is it possible that it was never there to begin with natively that is. Not sure the PCX actually fixes any midframe just the outside zonesAt center, the CV and ZM are very similar (very strong)
on the kolari UT my cv 35/1.7 has a mild midzone shift, but only on one side.
Sep 29, 2017 at 03:36 PM
p.87 #12Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing
Fred Miranda wrote:
i find cv to be much more consistently pleasing for portraits than the zm and its equal for landscape. this is on my kolari mod camera though. i like the FE 35/1.4 better still for portraits (never notice the midzone dip for portraits), but it's size makes it a nogo for me.Bastian's review and my experience with the ZM makes me wonder whether I would ever be happy with the CV as a portrait lens. It looks like the CV has very similar bokeh to the ZM from Bastian's tests and that is really what bothers me about the ZM as a portrait lens. I get that for lots of people the high contrast look of the ZM wouldn't be what they want for portraits, but sometimes I like that. I think I have asked you before Derek, but how would you compare the CV to the Zeiss C/Y 35 f/1.4 for portraits? I am leaning in that directions these days, but I am still pretty undecided. I may just give up on shooting 35mm portraits on the Sony, and then I would go with the Zeiss Contax 645 45 f/2.8 on my Fuji GFX, which seems to my eye to share a lot of features with the C/Y 35 f/1.4. I am really enjoying the GFX for shooting portraits with its tilt/swivel EVF which allows shooting holding the camera at my chest.Steve your wanting a Mandler look and your going to have to find one that's got that wide open glow. Leica R 35 1.4 might be your ticket. Or the old Contax 35 1.4Thanks Guy. I always appreciate your advice as well and I think you hit the nail on the head. I have considered the Leica R 35 f/1.4, but it is a very particular lens. It is sharp centrally, but until well stopped down the sharpness falls off quickly away from the centre. It is also ridiculously expensive for a lens with its characteristics in my view. As I described above I will probably try the old Contax 35 f/1.4, and I have good hopes that will work well with the R 80 f/1.4 with which I plan to pair it in a two lens portrait kit.Steve,
Have you tried the CV 35/1.7 + PCX? I'm really liking this combo. Perhaps you want faster?
Hi Fred,
No, I haven't tried the CV 35 f/1.7 + PCX yet, but it is an intriguing option. I was already to get the Zeiss C/Y 35 f/1.4 and I do like the faster aperture of that lens, but you, and Guy, and Derek have all given me a bit of a pause in getting the C/Y lens and I may go with the CV instead. I have decided to wait, think about it a bit more, and see more samples. Part of my particular usage is that I am very happy with the Zeiss ZM 35 f/1.4 for close-ups which for me is a very common use and I don't think the CV will be better for that and I think I will prefer the slightly faster aperture of the ZM. For stopped down landscapes I am also quite happy with the ZM at f/5.6 and 6.3. I doubt the CV will be much of an upgrade their either, so because of those two uses I am pretty sure I want to keep the ZM and just get a second lens for portraits, where I am not happy with the ZM. The CV is in the running for that second lens, but I am still not 100% sold.
Steve Spencer wrote
GMPhotography wrote
Steve Spencer wrote
sebboh wrote
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.Have you tried the CV 35/1.7 + PCX? I'm really liking this combo. Perhaps you want faster?
Hi Fred,
No, I haven't tried the CV 35 f/1.7 + PCX yet, but it is an intriguing option. I was already to get the Zeiss C/Y 35 f/1.4 and I do like the faster aperture of that lens, but you, and Guy, and Derek have all given me a bit of a pause in getting the C/Y lens and I may go with the CV instead. I have decided to wait, think about it a bit more, and see more samples. Part of my particular usage is that I am very happy with the Zeiss ZM 35 f/1.4 for close-ups which for me is a very common use and I don't think the CV will be better for that and I think I will prefer the slightly faster aperture of the ZM. For stopped down landscapes I am also quite happy with the ZM at f/5.6 and 6.3. I doubt the CV will be much of an upgrade their either, so because of those two uses I am pretty sure I want to keep the ZM and just get a second lens for portraits, where I am not happy with the ZM. The CV is in the running for that second lens, but I am still not 100% sold.
Sep 30, 2017 at 07:13 AM
p.87 #13Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing
Steve Spencer wrote:
Bastian's review and my experience with the ZM makes me wonder whether I would ever be happy with the CV as a portrait lens. It looks like the CV has very similar bokeh to the ZM from Bastian's tests and that is really what bothers me about the ZM as a portrait lens. I get that for lots of people the high contrast look of the ZM wouldn't be what they want for portraits, but sometimes I like that. I think I have asked you before Derek, but how would you compare the CV to the Zeiss C/Y 35 f/1.4 for portraits? I am leaning in that directions these days, but I am still pretty undecided. I may just give up on shooting 35mm portraits on the Sony, and then I would go with the Zeiss Contax 645 45 f/2.8 on my Fuji GFX, which seems to my eye to share a lot of features with the C/Y 35 f/1.4. I am really enjoying the GFX for shooting portraits with its tilt/swivel EVF which allows shooting holding the camera at my chest.Steve your wanting a Mandler look and your going to have to find one that's got that wide open glow. Leica R 35 1.4 might be your ticket. Or the old Contax 35 1.4Thanks Guy. I always appreciate your advice as well and I think you hit the nail on the head. I have considered the Leica R 35 f/1.4, but it is a very particular lens. It is sharp centrally, but until well stopped down the sharpness falls off quickly away from the centre. It is also ridiculously expensive for a lens with its characteristics in my view. As I described above I will probably try the old Contax 35 f/1.4, and I have good hopes that will work well with the R 80 f/1.4 with which I plan to pair it in a two lens portrait kit.Steve,
Have you tried the CV 35/1.7 + PCX? I'm really liking this combo. Perhaps you want faster?Hi Fred,
No, I haven't tried the CV 35 f/1.7 + PCX yet, but it is an intriguing option. I was already to get the Zeiss C/Y 35 f/1.4 and I do like the faster aperture of that lens, but you, and Guy, and Derek have all given me a bit of a pause in getting the C/Y lens and I may go with the CV instead. I have decided to wait, think about it a bit more, and see more samples. Part of my particular usage is that I am very happy with the Zeiss ZM 35 f/1.4 for...Show more →
There is a noticeable different in blur going from f/1.4 to f/1.7, so that's a consideration.
I'd say they are both sharp wide open around the center area. The ZM does better at the corners (PCX) and the CV is stronger at mid (PCX). Since my subject are often at mid-zone, I prefer the CV.
The ZM is better color corrected and specular highlights are more rounded wide open. Both are free of onion ring bokeh.
The CV is definitely smoother at mid-distance and is a much cheaper solution. Worth a try.
It's a bit challenging to find an adapter that gives infinity with the PCX. I bought 5 and 2 worked. One of them has a little play (lens to adapter).
Fred Miranda wrote
Steve Spencer wrote
GMPhotography wrote
Steve Spencer wrote
sebboh wrote
i find cv to be much more consistently pleasing for portraits than the zm and its equal for landscape. this is on my kolari mod camera though. i like the FE 35/1.4 better still for portraits (never notice the midzone dip for portraits), but it's size makes it a nogo for me.Have you tried the CV 35/1.7 + PCX? I'm really liking this combo. Perhaps you want faster?
No, I haven't tried the CV 35 f/1.7 + PCX yet, but it is an intriguing option. I was already to get the Zeiss C/Y 35 f/1.4 and I do like the faster aperture of that lens, but you, and Guy, and Derek have all given me a bit of a pause in getting the C/Y lens and I may go with the CV instead. I have decided to wait, think about it a bit more, and see more samples. Part of my particular usage is that I am very happy with the Zeiss ZM 35 f/1.4 for...Show more →
There is a noticeable different in blur going from f/1.4 to f/1.7, so that's a consideration.
I'd say they are both sharp wide open around the center area. The ZM does better at the corners (PCX) and the CV is stronger at mid (PCX). Since my subject are often at mid-zone, I prefer the CV.
The ZM is better color corrected and specular highlights are more rounded wide open. Both are free of onion ring bokeh.
The CV is definitely smoother at mid-distance and is a much cheaper solution. Worth a try.
It's a bit challenging to find an adapter that gives infinity with the PCX. I bought 5 and 2 worked. One of them has a little play (lens to adapter).
Sep 30, 2017 at 09:29 AM
p.87 #14Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing
Have you guys checked if there are removable shims inside your adapters? Could be possible, at least on the more expensive ones.
Sep 30, 2017 at 12:16 PM
p.87 #15Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing
Has anyone tried the a front filter with the ZM28? Fred, I think you mentioned that you were interested in buying one, but I don't think I've seen any mention of it in the last several pages.
Oct 01, 2017 at 09:32 AM
p.87 #16Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing
partitura wrote:
Has anyone tried the a front filter with the ZM28? Fred, I think you mentioned that you were interested in buying one, but I don't think I've seen any mention of it in the last several pages.
I tested it and posted the results a thousand pages back.
Gotta just find it.
Has anyone tried the a front filter with the ZM28? Fred, I think you mentioned that you were interested in buying one, but I don't think I've seen any mention of it in the last several pages.
I tested it and posted the results a thousand pages back.
Gotta just find it.Oct 01, 2017 at 10:23 AM
p.87 #17Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing
Fred Miranda wrote:
I tested it and posted the results a thousand pages back. Gotta just find it.
Fred, I got worried as my wiki didn't have link to your test and I went through the thread since page 68, in which we learned from Haruhiko that the correct filter for ZM28 is 2000/2500mm. On same page you were wondering should you order 2000mm or 2500mm. On page 71 you were still trying to find one ZM28 in mint condition. Page 74 there was comment "The ZM 28 could not compete with it even with the PCX 1.5m.".After that I found no reference about ZM28 from this thread.
So if you have tested it was with wrong filter and before page 68. Or results are in some other thread?
Samuli
partitura wrote
Has anyone tried the a front filter with the ZM28? Fred, I think you mentioned that you were interested in buying one, but I don't think I've seen any mention of it in the last several pages. Gotta just find it.Fred, I got worried as my wiki didn't have link to your test
and I went through the thread since page 68, in which we learned from Haruhiko that the correct filter for ZM28 is 2000/2500mm. On same page you were wondering should you order 2000mm or 2500mm. On page 71 you were still trying to find one ZM28 in mint condition. Page 74 there was comment "The ZM 28 could not compete with it even with the PCX 1.5m.".After that I found no reference about ZM28 from this thread.So if you have tested it was with wrong filter and before page 68. Or results are in some other thread?
Samuli
Oct 01, 2017 at 01:33 PM
p.87 #18Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
I tested it and posted the results a thousand pages back. Gotta just find it.Fred, I got worried as my wiki didn't have link to your test and I went through the thread since page 68, in which we learned from Haruhiko that the correct filter for ZM28 is 2000/2500mm. On same page you were wondering should you order 2000mm or 2500mm. On page 71 you were still trying to find one ZM28 in mint condition. Page 74 there was comment "The ZM 28 could not compete with it even with the PCX 1.5m.".After that I found no reference about ZM28 from this thread.
So if you have tested it was with wrong...Show more →
User @candreyo@ had some comparison shots in an external album, unfortunately that link is dead now
PCX 1500 was the way to go.
By the way, it might be a good idea clicking on that link in the first post to our blog where everything is summarized instead of going through all the pages again and again...
https://phillipreeve.net/blog/rangefinder-wide-angle-lenses-on-a7-cameras-problems-and-solutions/#Zeiss_ZM_28mm_28_Biogon
Fred Miranda wrote
partitura wrote
Has anyone tried the a front filter with the ZM28? Fred, I think you mentioned that you were interested in buying one, but I don't think I've seen any mention of it in the last several pages. Gotta just find it. and I went through the thread since page 68, in which we learned from Haruhiko that the correct filter for ZM28 is 2000/2500mm. On same page you were wondering should you order 2000mm or 2500mm. On page 71 you were still trying to find one ZM28 in mint condition. Page 74 there was comment "The ZM 28 could not compete with it even with the PCX 1.5m.".After that I found no reference about ZM28 from this thread.So if you have tested it was with wrong...Show more →
User @candreyo@ had some comparison shots in an external album, unfortunately that link is dead now
PCX 1500 was the way to go.
By the way, it might be a good idea clicking on that link in the first post to our blog where everything is summarized instead of going through all the pages again and again...
https://phillipreeve.net/blog/rangefinder-wide-angle-lenses-on-a7-cameras-problems-and-solutions/#Zeiss_ZM_28mm_28_Biogon
Oct 01, 2017 at 01:39 PM
p.87 #19Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
I tested it and posted the results a thousand pages back. Gotta just find it.Fred, I got worried as my wiki didn't have link to your test and I went through the thread since page 68, in which we learned from Haruhiko that the correct filter for ZM28 is 2000/2500mm. On same page you were wondering should you order 2000mm or 2500mm. On page 71 you were still trying to find one ZM28 in mint condition. Page 74 there was comment "The ZM 28 could not compete with it even with the PCX 1.5m.".After that I found no reference about ZM28 from this thread.
So if you have tested it was with wrong...Show more →
Yes, I tested it with the PCX 1.5m and purchased the PCX 2m to compare. The mid zone got slightly better but the edges a little worse, so I concluded the PCX 1.5m was a better choice. The issue was that the ZM 28/2.8 was not amazing to begin with so there other 28mm lenses with same or better performance. The PCX definitely helped though.
Fred Miranda wrote
partitura wrote
Has anyone tried the a front filter with the ZM28? Fred, I think you mentioned that you were interested in buying one, but I don't think I've seen any mention of it in the last several pages. Gotta just find it. and I went through the thread since page 68, in which we learned from Haruhiko that the correct filter for ZM28 is 2000/2500mm. On same page you were wondering should you order 2000mm or 2500mm. On page 71 you were still trying to find one ZM28 in mint condition. Page 74 there was comment "The ZM 28 could not compete with it even with the PCX 1.5m.".After that I found no reference about ZM28 from this thread.So if you have tested it was with wrong...Show more →
Yes, I tested it with the PCX 1.5m and purchased the PCX 2m to compare. The mid zone got slightly better but the edges a little worse, so I concluded the PCX 1.5m was a better choice. The issue was that the ZM 28/2.8 was not amazing to begin with so there other 28mm lenses with same or better performance. The PCX definitely helped though.
Oct 01, 2017 at 02:05 PM
p.87 #20Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing
Speaking of 28mm, has anyone tested the Minolta M-rokkor 28/2.8? What filter strength would it need?
Oct 01, 2017 at 02:16 PM