rscheffler
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.3 #1 · Sigma FP - In hand first impressions. | |
zhangyue wrote:
Your observation make me delay my acquisition of 28cron for two years  As I only trust your test compare to others at that times, either copy variation or the lens problem itself scare me off. Finally, I break down as I need either a 35mm or 28mm to cover between 21 and 50, I am very happy with Nikon 35mmf1.8S performance, I figured it will raise the bar too high that I might disappointed with any 35mm leica lenses, and I sold VC35mm because it is a outlier of my M setup and I hate its focus ring design.
Call me surprised on this cron, it perform superb on M and also on S1 at f5.6. With M, I think I can use it at f2 if I want, this is not a small upgrade compare to my old 28mm test results. But focus shift at infinity is quite strong with this lens. I haven't test its shift at near distance yet. I don;t notice much FC much at all. The MTF seems also gentle without hint of FC, though the new and old have quite similar MTF, somehow, its performance difference is quite big IMHO. (copy?)
I can post a few crop on M later if you are interested.
Adam, Glad you like FP. I already imagine one or two M glasses on it will be a super compact setup. 28/50cron That 35SL is a shocker. ...Show more →
Yes, crops would be interesting to see. I think it's copy variation because others back then stated/claimed they didn't see the same problems I did. It's also worth noting that both copies I received from the same store were early production units, from before the actual public announcement (based on the manufacture date on each box). It could have been early production teething pains. IIRC, from the look of the optical formula, there's not much difference between the two versions and the problems I experienced might have been from something as basic as improper lens element spacing. The store offered to send the lens back to Leica for servicing but knowing how long that would take, and being skeptical they'd be able to actually fix anything, opted instead try the Lux.
---------------------------------------------
adamdewilde wrote:
I don't mind if you guys take this forum off topic I'm not fussed.
Thanks, much appreciated. It's discussions like these that add such value to the Alt forum. Unfortunately nearly everyone who used to participate in these discussions seems to have migrated to the Sony forum...
adamdewilde wrote:
EDIT: BTW how do you like the 28Lux? After using the Q for so long I bought the 28Lux and then the Q2 and I've found myself wanting to use the 28Lux over both the Q and Q2 even though it's bigger/heavier and more of a hassle. I just love the way it renders at closer distances (think in your face type portraits). I had one AGES ago and sold it in three days. I bought it on a whim and didn't like the size but since it was "rare" in the market (was one of the first in Singapore) I could sell at not at a loss and didn't think anything of it for a long while then a while back I was stressed and went on a lens shopping spree and picked one up and I'm quite happy with it, though I still prefer the size and the FOV of the 35FLE. TBH I much prefer the rendering of the 28Lux and the 35FLE is one of my favourite lenses so basically I like mine. CA is a big problem, not sure if it's my copy but I won't send it in because I love the close up rendering for portraits and don't want that to change. ...Show more →
I loved the 28 Cron's rendering, perhaps because it was somewhat unique among M lenses I owned/tried. The 28 Lux feels more typical of fast Leica M lenses. It better matches the colour and tonality qualities of the 50 Lux ASPH, IMO. The Cron was different. Somewhat higher contrast, bolder, with a slight magenta tint (which annoyed me when aiming for consistent colour across multiple lenses in post). I decided to stick with the 28 Lux in part because of the extra stop, which with the M240 makes a difference. If you'll recall, the M240's buffer depth drops by half at ISO 1250 and higher, and the fps rate also decreases. For indoor events, etc., the extra stop keeps the ISO at 1000 and still gets me a reasonable shutter speed most of the time. But I'm also impressed by how sharp the Lux is wide open and unlike a lot of M Lux models, has little of the typical wavy field curvature. In contrast, the original 28 Cron has simple field curvature away from the camera that can be problematic in some instances, like group photos. Or the 21 Lux which has strong wavy field curvature that is a problem with anything placed in the mid zone area at wider apertures (to a degree also true for the 50 Lux ASPH). The 28 Lux has pretty much replaced the 21 Lux that I used to use a lot. I still have it (in part because resale value is terrible) and still use it when I really do need a fast 21mm, but most of the time 28 works. Off tangent - I'd love to see a Voigtlander 21/1.4 in M mount of the same caliber as the E-mount version. Yeah, the 28 Lux is large for a wide M lens. If I were to update to the M10, the 28 Cron would probably be back in consideration, haha. And yes, the 28 Lux shows some CA but purple fringing at and near wide open in high contrast transitions is probably its most annoying quality, also shared by the 21 and 24 Luxes.
|
