We have some distance yet to go @ 35mm. I could not choose the least bad of the first two in set one, without visiting an optometrist. 'f' chose itself among the soap bubbles, blue pills, swirls and strangeness of the other second set options. It was the only one that actually appeared to be a linear photograph. Bits of some others seemed OK, but other sections seem to be from a different lens altogether! It's been a struggle since the RX1.
Cosina really should look hard at doing an APO-Lanthar at 35mm, with no compromising concessions to Leica land in the design. It'll be hard enough as it is. The Nikon Z is indeed very good, just a little lacking in lustre. The SL 35/2 APO seems to be yardstick.
PS an excellent hellscape of a test composition, lol. thanks.
philip_pj wrote:
We have some distance yet to go @ 35mm. I could not choose the least bad of the first two in set one, without visiting an optometrist. 'f' chose itself among the soap bubbles, blue pills, swirls and strangeness of the other second set options. It was the only one that actually appeared to be a linear photograph. Bits of some others seemed OK, but other sections seem to be from a different lens altogether! It's been a struggle since the RX1.
Cosina really should look hard at doing an APO-Lanthar at 35mm, with no compromising concessions to Leica land in the design. It'll be hard enough as it is. The Nikon Z is indeed very good, just a little lacking in lustre. The SL 35/2 APO seems to be yardstick.
PS an excellent hellscape of a test composition, lol. thanks....Show more →
The poor lens designers would probably weep if they saw the testing FM does, hellscapes and all lol.
I think everyone, including Sony, probably wishes they hadn’t made the RX1. The bar is simply too high (and so small).
I like #1 in the first set, and in the second set "a" -- followed by "d".
Sharpness, as well as consistent background blur (center-to-edge) where the key factors.
I also like the look of "f" in the second set, but prefer the blurrier bokeh of "a," or the crisper across-the-frame contrast of "d", what I find now is the Pentax 31.
For me both sets give me a major headache. I feel like blurred out backgrounds are overrated. But I tend to shoot most of my photos (landscapes) at f16.
philip_pj wrote:
We have some distance yet to go @ 35mm. I could not choose the least bad of the first two in set one, without visiting an optometrist. 'f' chose itself among the soap bubbles, blue pills, swirls and strangeness of the other second set options. It was the only one that actually appeared to be a linear photograph. Bits of some others seemed OK, but other sections seem to be from a different lens altogether! It's been a struggle since the RX1.
Cosina really should look hard at doing an APO-Lanthar at 35mm, with no compromising concessions to Leica land in the design. It'll be hard enough as it is. The Nikon Z is indeed very good, just a little lacking in lustre. The SL 35/2 APO seems to be yardstick.
PS an excellent hellscape of a test composition, lol. thanks....Show more →
Sounds like you should check out the Fuji GFX and the 45/2.8. Actually, all the weirdness we can see in these photos are the main reasons I went that way. The GF lens is also less than half the price of the Leica.
Must say that I love my CV 35 f/1.7 and it produces time and again for me. Maybe that says something about me or maybe just about comparison tests shot on a single subject and under a single set of conditions.
Must say that I love my CV 35 f/1.7 and it produces time and again for me. Maybe that says something about me or maybe just about comparison tests shot on a single subject and under a single set of conditions.
The CV 35 1.7 is a solid lens, I've been using mine for years. It's a hard lens to fault. But it's more of a modern jack-of-all-trades, and this is a bokeh centric test
zhangyue wrote:
Sorry that I wasn’t very clear about ergo. For Leica or rangefinder, The ergo I mentioned was not just size. I wasn’t too fond of 40mm f1.2 which is smaller than this 35mm,( of course I also prefer 50lux ASPH to it on bokeh. )
All my Leica glasses now I have equal or wider than 50mm offer focus tab and almost all of them offer the same 90 degree focusing from infinity to MFD, the same focus ring consistency. I use my index finger only for focusing which becomes a habit for M. For small aperture and on most subject distance, I rely on finger position and memory than focus often.
Don’t know if that makes sense for most MILC shooters anymore but i hope it might be helpful for some or get some echo from rangefinder crowds. ...Show more →
+ ∞
I like the 35/1.7 optically. I dislike it ergonomically. It simply does not fit in with any of the other lenses I have in my go-to kit, which happen to all be Leica. 21 SEM, 28 Lux, 50 Lux ASPH. I 'tolerate' the 35/1.7 because it's optically excellent and I don't use 35 as much as I do 28 and 50, therefore it's not as critical a component. As Michael stated above about the Leica ergonomics - all are tabbed, all have same/similar focus throw. I know where focus is by feel based on the tab position. I change lenses a lot while shooting and with the 35/1.7 I have to look at it to find the alignment dot (it's not raised like on a Leica lens), or other orientation clues, and it slows me down (sometimes this matters, sometimes not). Maybe it's a small thing, but it's annoying. Another small thing is 6-bit coding, which is only standard on Leica lenses (I guess it's still under patent protection). Of course, the latter is irrelevant for use on other systems and most certainly, I can appreciate why preferences differ, especially when adapting to other systems.
The 35/1.2III does look great in the examples. For some of these I'd bet the bokeh of many of these lenses wouldn't be too far off - i.e. very near subjects with significant background separation. Yeah, side by side you'd see differences, but standalone, I'd seriously doubt a layperson observer would care if the bokeh bubbles were smaller because of f/1.4 or f/2. But then, we're often shooting for ourselves first, aren't we?
Haha, I know my old FM Leica friend will echo my comments. I am not a pro but It has been almost 10 years with Leica and learns a lot here
VC35f1.7 is the worst offender in this regard. The focus ring is terrible. I remember it actually has one of better 35mm bokeh From what I see. So you can imagine I am surprised here as much as Leica 35lux. I did slightly prefer its bokeh to Zeiss 35mm. However, somehow, I don’t like it’s color and always feel there is purplish shade in the file though I never pay attention to research to see if it’s real.
Pre-FLE has good reputation to be the smoother one compare to FLE but I will choose FLE for the tab and much even cross frame performance.
I totally agree with you about real world shooting. For 35mm half body or head portrait, the difference will be quite small and rendering score might flipped to different side. That is why i had comments about if I have to pick my next M 35mm, it will be either 35cron ASPH II or 35lux FLE, for 35mm and especially for Leica I rate usability higher than rendering. 35 FLE may not be sharpest 35mm out there but will do excellent job for most 35mm stuff I shoot.
For many Leica shooter, mix and match are really not a preferred solution I feel. M is a fun system not just for bokeh or mystery quality but really a wide range of selection over the years, the consistent design philosophy, usability and build quality, yeh with price (but they keep their value)
rscheffler wrote:
+ ∞
I like the 35/1.7 optically. I dislike it ergonomically. It simply does not fit in with any of the other lenses I have in my go-to kit, which happen to all be Leica. 21 SEM, 28 Lux, 50 Lux ASPH. I 'tolerate' the 35/1.7 because it's optically excellent and I don't use 35 as much as I do 28 and 50, therefore it's not as critical a component. As Michael stated above about the Leica ergonomics - all are tabbed, all have same/similar focus throw. I know where focus is by feel based on the tab position. I change lenses a lot while shooting and with the 35/1.7 I have to look at it to find the alignment dot (it's not raised like on a Leica lens), or other orientation clues, and it slows me down (sometimes this matters, sometimes not). Maybe it's a small thing, but it's annoying. Another small thing is 6-bit coding, which is only standard on Leica lenses (I guess it's still under patent protection). Of course, the latter is irrelevant for use on other systems and most certainly, I can appreciate why preferences differ, especially when adapting to other systems.
The 35/1.2III does look great in the examples. For some of these I'd bet the bokeh of many of these lenses wouldn't be too far off - i.e. very near subjects with significant background separation. Yeah, side by side you'd see differences, but standalone, I'd seriously doubt a layperson observer would care if the bokeh bubbles were smaller because of f/1.4 or f/2. But then, we're often shooting for ourselves first, aren't we?
zhangyue wrote:
I remember it (cv 35/1.7) actually has one of better 35mm bokeh From what I see. So you can imagine I am surprised here as much as Leica 35lux. I did slightly prefer its bokeh to Zeiss 35mm. However, somehow, I don’t like it’s color and always feel there is purplish shade in the file though I never pay attention to research to see if it’s real.
the filter stack makes a big difference in bokeh here. i compared bokeh on phillip's blog with the cv 35/1.7 on a thin filter versus stock sony filter stack here.
it's a long review so here is the relevant bit comparison.
sebboh wrote:
the filter stack makes a big difference in bokeh here. i compared bokeh on phillip's blog with the cv 35/1.7 on a thin filter versus stock sony filter stack here.
it's a long review so here is the relevant bit comparison.
zhangyue wrote:
Based on review and samples I saw, that one might be one of best if not the best 35mm lens. I also like its bokeh, but there are some onion ring.
It is a bargain. Don’t know how it’s AF works but it seems offer seamless compatibility on Nikon Z.
Unfortunately, it is also big, not as bad as sigma 1.2 but big.
They seem to have done a remarkable job with it. It is big and heavy for an f/1.4, but, having lugged around the Samyang XP 35/1.2 (another shockingly good bargain if you're willing to deal with 1100g + adapter) I think it'll probably feel relatively small and light.
freaklikeme wrote:
Is the Tamron SP 35/1.4 on your SLR list? I haven't had any time for it, but I do want to rent one in the future.
Yeah it is. And I like Tamron’s color/contrast. Just wish they’d made it smaller and native e-mount.
I kind of think that’s the most attractive fast 35mm to me all things considered.
And it’s not a bad price. I have seen a couple Bokeh photos I don’t like that much at MFD or near. Overall, it’s look pretty sweet though. AF isn’t important to me as I use it very minimally.
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Yeah it is. And I like Tamron’s color/contrast. Just wish they’d made it smaller and native e-mount.
I kind of think that’s the most attractive fast 35mm to me all things considered.
And it’s not a bad price. I have seen a couple Bokeh photos I don’t like that much at MFD or near. Overall, it’s look pretty sweet though. AF isn’t important to me as I use it very minimally.
sebboh wrote:
the filter stack makes a big difference in bokeh here. i compared bokeh on phillip's blog with the cv 35/1.7 on a thin filter versus stock sony filter stack here.
it's a long review so here is the relevant bit comparison.
Maybe I'm less sensitive to it, but haven't really noticed anything specifically 'off' about the CV35/1.7 colors vs. Leica glass. But I think I do add a touch more green tint WB correction to M240 files shot with it and coded as the 35 Cron ASPH. Uncoded and it's a bit on the cool/blue side, IIRC. That said, the 28 Cron v1 also had a magenta bias. Also the 90/4 Macro, but maybe only half as much. 90AA leans towards cyan/green tint in comparison to most of the Lux lenses I've used. Could also be that if you're frequently shooting some of the CV glass at or near wide open there is a bit more tendency for purple fringing.
nehemiahphoto wrote:
The poor lens designers would probably weep if they saw the testing FM does, hellscapes and all lol.
I think everyone, including Sony, probably wishes they hadn’t made the RX1. The bar is simply too high (and so small).
AdaptedLenses wrote:
I just wish they’d do a MkIII and fix the ergos.
Someone should MacGyver the 35/2 Sonnar onto a Leica Q2 body...
rscheffler wrote:
Maybe I'm less sensitive to it, but haven't really noticed anything specifically 'off' about the CV35/1.7 colors vs. Leica glass. But I think I do add a touch more green tint WB correction to M240 files shot with it and coded as the 35 Cron ASPH. Uncoded and it's a bit on the cool/blue side, IIRC. That said, the 28 Cron v1 also had a magenta bias. Also the 90/4 Macro, but maybe only half as much. 90AA leans towards cyan/green tint in comparison to most of the Lux lenses I've used. Could also be that if you're frequently shooting some of the CV glass at or near wide open there is a bit more tendency for purple fringing.
Someone should MacGyver the 35/2 Sonnar onto a Leica Q2 body... ...Show more →
I broke an RX1 a while back, we dissected, and the lens is affixed to the sensor, and the lens is wider than the throat of the Sony e-mount
Actually, all the weirdness we can see in these photos are the main reasons I went that way. The GF lens is also less than half the price of the Leica. 
