Archive 2021 · 35mm blind test p.2
p.5 #135mm blind test p.2
Fred Miranda wrote:
The answers are below. The most interesting thing to me about these test, it’s just how smooth the sigma is, especially the transition zone — some people had the RX1 and Sigma switched around. The bokeh is not as good as the RX1 but it is a significant step up, along with the transition zone over any of the Voigtlander’s (at comparable apertures), the FE, the Pentax, and the Sammy. In addition, the build quality is absolutely superb, and the axial CA is way ahead of everything else.
To me there are four clear packing orders in 35 mm land at this point RX1 > 35i > FE/Samy/Pentax/Voigt 35 1.7 & 1.2 > Loxia/CV35-2/etc.
@phillipreeve I would be very surprised if you did not sincerely enjoy your coffee, if you can get over that it is not mentual focus
Scene 1 (0.6 meter bokeh)
1 = FE
2 = Loxia
3 = Pentax
4 = Sigma
5 = RX1
Scene 2: (1.2 meter bokeh)
1 = Sigma
2 = FE
3 = Loxia
4 = Pentax
5 = RX1
Scene 3: (Flare)
1 = FE
2 = Loxia
3 = Pentax
4 = Sigma
6 = CV 35/2
Scene 4: (transition 10 feet)
1 = RX1
2 = Loxia
3 = Pentax
4 = Sigma
5 = FE
Scene 5: (F8 scene):
1 = FE
2 = Loxia
3 = Pentax
4 = RX1
5 = Sigma
Scene 6 (fence):
1 = Loxia
2 = Pentax
3 = Sigma
4 = FE
5 = GM 24
6 = RX1As suspected, the Sony 35/1.8 is the one with the worst rendering in the 2nd and 4th scene. At closer distances the harsh rendering is hidden in the background blur.
Sigma scores really well in this test (except for flare), it is definitely on my list.
Also interesting: in scene 6 the much praised 24 GM doesn't strike me as particularly good.Yes, if you were to test bokeh at mid to longer distances and outside the center of the frame than the Fe looks a lot worse. And it has no spherical aberrations like the Sammy or the Voightlanders or the Pentax to smooth things out, so files just feel crunchy in a way I really don’t like.
I posted a bunch of samples of the Sigma in real world shooting in pretty harsh and difficult lighting conditions WO and transitions on the other thread, it does quite well in real world shooting as well.
I thought so too on the GM—I expected better. Maybe shooting it in crop mode exacerbates the transition zone as you are essentially put in the flaws under a magnifying scope. I would be curious to hear what others think.The FE's rendering deteriorates off-axis so towards the edges it's way harsher (and sharper) compared to center. So, unfortunately not a homogenous rendering look.
I've found the 24/1.4 in crop mode's rendering close to RX1. I think I've posted some comparison crops before.
Looking at my predictions it is interesting the mistakes I made (other than the flare test where I got none of them right). On 4 of the remaining 5 scenes I mixed up the Loxia and the FE 35, and on one scene (#6) I mixed up the RX1 and the Sigma. I do think the FE does pretty well in the close focussing test. I picked it as my second favorite there, but on all the transition tests it is right there near the bottom such that I consistently mixed it up with the Loxia. The Sigma on the other hand to my eye is consistently rated near the top so much so, that I even preferred it to the RX1 in one scene mixing it up with that camera/lens. This little test may well get me to buy the Sigma, and it confirms to me why I have avoided the FE.
nehemiahphoto wrote
keepcoding wrote
nehemiahphoto wrote
Fred Miranda wrote
The Loxia’s rendering is the most unpleasant at f/2. The Sony not much behind.To me there are four clear packing orders in 35 mm land at this point RX1 > 35i > FE/Samy/Pentax/Voigt 35 1.7 & 1.2 > Loxia/CV35-2/etc.
@phillipreeve I would be very surprised if you did not sincerely enjoy your coffee, if you can get over that it is not mentual focus
Scene 1 (0.6 meter bokeh)
1 = FE
2 = Loxia
3 = Pentax
4 = Sigma
5 = RX1
Scene 2: (1.2 meter bokeh)
1 = Sigma
2 = FE
3 = Loxia
4 = Pentax
5 = RX1
Scene 3: (Flare)
1 = FE
2 = Loxia
3 = Pentax
4 = Sigma
6 = CV 35/2
Scene 4: (transition 10 feet)
1 = RX1
2 = Loxia
3 = Pentax
4 = Sigma
5 = FE
Scene 5: (F8 scene):
1 = FE
2 = Loxia
3 = Pentax
4 = RX1
5 = Sigma
Scene 6 (fence):
1 = Loxia
2 = Pentax
3 = Sigma
4 = FE
5 = GM 24
6 = RX1
Sigma scores really well in this test (except for flare), it is definitely on my list.
Also interesting: in scene 6 the much praised 24 GM doesn't strike me as particularly good.
I posted a bunch of samples of the Sigma in real world shooting in pretty harsh and difficult lighting conditions WO and transitions on the other thread, it does quite well in real world shooting as well.
I thought so too on the GM—I expected better. Maybe shooting it in crop mode exacerbates the transition zone as you are essentially put in the flaws under a magnifying scope. I would be curious to hear what others think.
I've found the 24/1.4 in crop mode's rendering close to RX1. I think I've posted some comparison crops before.
Looking at my predictions it is interesting the mistakes I made (other than the flare test where I got none of them right). On 4 of the remaining 5 scenes I mixed up the Loxia and the FE 35, and on one scene (#6) I mixed up the RX1 and the Sigma. I do think the FE does pretty well in the close focussing test. I picked it as my second favorite there, but on all the transition tests it is right there near the bottom such that I consistently mixed it up with the Loxia. The Sigma on the other hand to my eye is consistently rated near the top so much so, that I even preferred it to the RX1 in one scene mixing it up with that camera/lens. This little test may well get me to buy the Sigma, and it confirms to me why I have avoided the FE.
Feb 02, 2021 at 12:57 PM
p.5 #235mm blind test p.2
keepcoding wrote:
The answers are below. The most interesting thing to me about these test, it’s just how smooth the sigma is, especially the transition zone — some people had the RX1 and Sigma switched around. The bokeh is not as good as the RX1 but it is a significant step up, along with the transition zone over any of the Voigtlander’s (at comparable apertures), the FE, the Pentax, and the Sammy. In addition, the build quality is absolutely superb, and the axial CA is way ahead of everything else.
To me there are four clear packing orders in 35 mm land at this point RX1 > 35i > FE/Samy/Pentax/Voigt 35 1.7 & 1.2 > Loxia/CV35-2/etc.
@phillipreeve I would be very surprised if you did not sincerely enjoy your coffee, if you can get over that it is not mentual focus
Scene 1 (0.6 meter bokeh)
1 = FE
2 = Loxia
3 = Pentax
4 = Sigma
5 = RX1
Scene 2: (1.2 meter bokeh)
1 = Sigma
2 = FE
3 = Loxia
4 = Pentax
5 = RX1
Scene 3: (Flare)
1 = FE
2 = Loxia
3 = Pentax
4 = Sigma
6 = CV 35/2
Scene 4: (transition 10 feet)
1 = RX1
2 = Loxia
3 = Pentax
4 = Sigma
5 = FE
Scene 5: (F8 scene):
1 = FE
2 = Loxia
3 = Pentax
4 = RX1
5 = Sigma
Scene 6 (fence):
1 = Loxia
2 = Pentax
3 = Sigma
4 = FE
5 = GM 24
6 = RX1As suspected, the Sony 35/1.8 is the one with the worst rendering in the 2nd and 4th scene. At closer distances the harsh rendering is hidden in the background blur.
Sigma scores really well in this test (except for flare), it is definitely on my list.
But the RX1 is still the best in town.
Also interesting: in scene 6 the much praised 24 GM doesn't strike me as particularly good.
My ratings very much agree with your assessment. Adding to the woes of the FE, it was nominated by several people as being the worst in scene 5 for stopped down distance performance making it among the worst choices for landscape shooting.
nehemiahphoto wrote
Fred Miranda wrote
The Loxia’s rendering is the most unpleasant at f/2. The Sony not much behind.To me there are four clear packing orders in 35 mm land at this point RX1 > 35i > FE/Samy/Pentax/Voigt 35 1.7 & 1.2 > Loxia/CV35-2/etc.
@phillipreeve I would be very surprised if you did not sincerely enjoy your coffee, if you can get over that it is not mentual focus
Scene 1 (0.6 meter bokeh)
1 = FE
2 = Loxia
3 = Pentax
4 = Sigma
5 = RX1
Scene 2: (1.2 meter bokeh)
1 = Sigma
2 = FE
3 = Loxia
4 = Pentax
5 = RX1
Scene 3: (Flare)
1 = FE
2 = Loxia
3 = Pentax
4 = Sigma
6 = CV 35/2
Scene 4: (transition 10 feet)
1 = RX1
2 = Loxia
3 = Pentax
4 = Sigma
5 = FE
Scene 5: (F8 scene):
1 = FE
2 = Loxia
3 = Pentax
4 = RX1
5 = Sigma
Scene 6 (fence):
1 = Loxia
2 = Pentax
3 = Sigma
4 = FE
5 = GM 24
6 = RX1
Sigma scores really well in this test (except for flare), it is definitely on my list.
But the RX1 is still the best in town.
Also interesting: in scene 6 the much praised 24 GM doesn't strike me as particularly good.
My ratings very much agree with your assessment. Adding to the woes of the FE, it was nominated by several people as being the worst in scene 5 for stopped down distance performance making it among the worst choices for landscape shooting.
Feb 02, 2021 at 01:00 PM
p.5 #335mm blind test p.2
saxguy wrote:
This is a great test, thanks!
I feel kind of bad for you...
...you're going to have to repeat it in a couple of weeks when the 35 1.4 GM is released
Lol, no, go away!
I am only interested in doing a GM 35/35i/RX1/GF 45/2.8 comparison. And I don’t own a GFX yet, so probably not even close.
At this point, I have tested every 35mm option that is viable and interesting to my preferences!
Though I would like to get my hands on a R 35 Summicron after Steve mentioned it, and it’s been of loose interest to me for years.
This is a great test, thanks!
I feel kind of bad for you...
...you're going to have to repeat it in a couple of weeks when the 35 1.4 GM is released
Lol, no, go away!
I am only interested in doing a GM 35/35i/RX1/GF 45/2.8 comparison. And I don’t own a GFX yet, so probably not even close.
At this point, I have tested every 35mm option that is viable and interesting to my preferences!
Though I would like to get my hands on a R 35 Summicron after Steve mentioned it, and it’s been of loose interest to me for years.
Feb 02, 2021 at 01:14 PM
p.5 #435mm blind test p.2
nehemiahphoto wrote:
I feel kind of bad for you...
...you're going to have to repeat it in a couple of weeks when the 35 1.4 GM is releasedLol, no, go away!
I am only interested in doing a GM 35/35i/RX1/GF 45/2.8 comparison. And I don’t own a GFX yet, so probably not even close.
At this point, I have tested every 35mm option that is viable and interesting to my preferences!
Though I would like to get my hands on a R 35 Summicron after Steve mentioned it, and it’s been of loose interest to me for years.
How would the CV 1.2/35 fit into the picture in your experience?
In my experience bokeh deteriorates towards the corners at longer distances but I would rate it as smoother than any 35mm I have reviewed (which excludes the RX1 and Bigma f/1.2).
saxguy wrote
This is a great test, thanks!I feel kind of bad for you...
...you're going to have to repeat it in a couple of weeks when the 35 1.4 GM is released
I am only interested in doing a GM 35/35i/RX1/GF 45/2.8 comparison. And I don’t own a GFX yet, so probably not even close.
At this point, I have tested every 35mm option that is viable and interesting to my preferences!
Though I would like to get my hands on a R 35 Summicron after Steve mentioned it, and it’s been of loose interest to me for years.
How would the CV 1.2/35 fit into the picture in your experience?
In my experience bokeh deteriorates towards the corners at longer distances but I would rate it as smoother than any 35mm I have reviewed (which excludes the RX1 and Bigma f/1.2).
Feb 02, 2021 at 02:46 PM
p.5 #535mm blind test p.2
I found this test very frustrating, as it only further confirms my desire to get an RX1Rii. This is an expensive test, you created 🙃🙃🙃!!!
Thanks for doing this. It was clear that you really took the time to try to focus on exactly the same locations and maintain the lighting. Most others ignore one or both of those, making side-by-side comparisons essentially meaningless.
In my own experience, I have been frustrated when my own biases of a particular lens being my favorite become dispelled when I do a careful comparison between them. More often than not, the results are too similar to tell them apart. Maybe I only buy lenses with very similar rendering?
Anyway, thank you!
Jim
Thanks for doing this. It was clear that you really took the time to try to focus on exactly the same locations and maintain the lighting. Most others ignore one or both of those, making side-by-side comparisons essentially meaningless.
In my own experience, I have been frustrated when my own biases of a particular lens being my favorite become dispelled when I do a careful comparison between them. More often than not, the results are too similar to tell them apart. Maybe I only buy lenses with very similar rendering?
Anyway, thank you!
Jim
Feb 02, 2021 at 03:02 PM
p.5 #635mm blind test p.2
Phillip Reeve wrote:
I feel kind of bad for you...
...you're going to have to repeat it in a couple of weeks when the 35 1.4 GM is releasedLol, no, go away!
I am only interested in doing a GM 35/35i/RX1/GF 45/2.8 comparison. And I don’t own a GFX yet, so probably not even close.
At this point, I have tested every 35mm option that is viable and interesting to my preferences!
Though I would like to get my hands on a R 35 Summicron after Steve mentioned it, and it’s been of loose interest to me for years.How would the CV 1.2/35 fit into the picture in your experience?
In my experience bokeh deteriorates towards the corners at longer distances but I would rate it as smoother than any 35mm I have reviewed (which excludes the RX1 and Bigma f/1.2).
My experience mirrors yours on the CV 35/1.2iii corners. Fred found that the VM 35/1.2v3 performed quite well on either sensor (stock or leica) by design, but even if you look at the central portions, I found the CV bokeh and rendering good, but not as good as the 31 ltd, but largely comparable. Near bokeh I liked the CV 35/1.2iii (it's longer and seem to have relatively fast-focus fall off for more separation and softer abstraction of OOF whereas the 31 ltd is appreciably wider a hair harsher) but mid and distance I prefer the 31 ltd.
Despite some swirl, I think the new 35i is better than both the 31tld and CV 35/1i2iii for smooth rendering. All easily fall short of RX1 to my eyes.
The attraction of the CV 35/1.2iii is pleasant draw, small size, excellent ergo, moderate price and great technical IQ slightly stopped down. The Pentax has better rendering and gorgeous colors/contrast, but it's bigger, slower has worst flare resistance and slightly worse CA but also has very strong IQ stopped down. So, it's much of a portrait, near focus lens but can do well in most applications, not unlike the CV 35 1.2 as well. It really gets down to a preferences between those two--I really like the files from the 31 better--there's some magic in it and prefer the wider FL, so sold my CV 35/1.2iii
In a blind test, a great majority (myself included) preferred the RX1 most, then the 31 limited as an easy second, then the CV 35/1.2iii as a distant 3rd when all shot at comparable apertures for bokeh. See this: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1652099/1
For mid-distance bokeh and transition, see this:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1639692/4
Edited on Feb 02, 2021 at 05:37 PM · View previous versions
nehemiahphoto wrote
saxguy wrote
This is a great test, thanks!I feel kind of bad for you...
...you're going to have to repeat it in a couple of weeks when the 35 1.4 GM is released
I am only interested in doing a GM 35/35i/RX1/GF 45/2.8 comparison. And I don’t own a GFX yet, so probably not even close.
At this point, I have tested every 35mm option that is viable and interesting to my preferences!
Though I would like to get my hands on a R 35 Summicron after Steve mentioned it, and it’s been of loose interest to me for years.
In my experience bokeh deteriorates towards the corners at longer distances but I would rate it as smoother than any 35mm I have reviewed (which excludes the RX1 and Bigma f/1.2).
My experience mirrors yours on the CV 35/1.2iii corners. Fred found that the VM 35/1.2v3 performed quite well on either sensor (stock or leica) by design, but even if you look at the central portions, I found the CV bokeh and rendering good, but not as good as the 31 ltd, but largely comparable. Near bokeh I liked the CV 35/1.2iii (it's longer and seem to have relatively fast-focus fall off for more separation and softer abstraction of OOF whereas the 31 ltd is appreciably wider a hair harsher) but mid and distance I prefer the 31 ltd.
Despite some swirl, I think the new 35i is better than both the 31tld and CV 35/1i2iii for smooth rendering. All easily fall short of RX1 to my eyes.
The attraction of the CV 35/1.2iii is pleasant draw, small size, excellent ergo, moderate price and great technical IQ slightly stopped down. The Pentax has better rendering and gorgeous colors/contrast, but it's bigger, slower has worst flare resistance and slightly worse CA but also has very strong IQ stopped down. So, it's much of a portrait, near focus lens but can do well in most applications, not unlike the CV 35 1.2 as well. It really gets down to a preferences between those two--I really like the files from the 31 better--there's some magic in it and prefer the wider FL, so sold my CV 35/1.2iii
In a blind test, a great majority (myself included) preferred the RX1 most, then the 31 limited as an easy second, then the CV 35/1.2iii as a distant 3rd when all shot at comparable apertures for bokeh. See this: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1652099/1
For mid-distance bokeh and transition, see this:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1639692/4
Edited on Feb 02, 2021 at 05:37 PM · View previous versions
Feb 02, 2021 at 05:20 PM
p.5 #735mm blind test p.2
Grenache wrote:
I found this test very frustrating, as it only further confirms my desire to get an RX1Rii. This is an expensive test, you created 🙃🙃🙃!!!
Not a day goes by that I don't think about getting another RX1R ii.
Then again, if I sell my APO Summicron-SL 35 I could just do that and have a bit of change left over...
...which I would then have to use for extra batteries for the RX1R ii. Seriously, it just devours batteries.
I found this test very frustrating, as it only further confirms my desire to get an RX1Rii. This is an expensive test, you created 🙃🙃🙃!!!
Not a day goes by that I don't think about getting another RX1R ii.
Then again, if I sell my APO Summicron-SL 35 I could just do that and have a bit of change left over...
...which I would then have to use for extra batteries for the RX1R ii. Seriously, it just devours batteries.
Feb 02, 2021 at 05:28 PM
p.5 #835mm blind test p.2
nehemiahphoto wrote:
I feel kind of bad for you...
...you're going to have to repeat it in a couple of weeks when the 35 1.4 GM is releasedLol, no, go away!
I am only interested in doing a GM 35/35i/RX1/GF 45/2.8 comparison. And I don’t own a GFX yet, so probably not even close.
At this point, I have tested every 35mm option that is viable and interesting to my preferences!
Though I would like to get my hands on a R 35 Summicron after Steve mentioned it, and it’s been of loose interest to me for years.
As mentioned above, I have the 35mm APO Summicron-SL. It kills me that there's no way to adapt a L mount lens to FE mount.
saxguy wrote
This is a great test, thanks!I feel kind of bad for you...
...you're going to have to repeat it in a couple of weeks when the 35 1.4 GM is released
I am only interested in doing a GM 35/35i/RX1/GF 45/2.8 comparison. And I don’t own a GFX yet, so probably not even close.
At this point, I have tested every 35mm option that is viable and interesting to my preferences!
Though I would like to get my hands on a R 35 Summicron after Steve mentioned it, and it’s been of loose interest to me for years.
As mentioned above, I have the 35mm APO Summicron-SL. It kills me that there's no way to adapt a L mount lens to FE mount.
Feb 02, 2021 at 05:31 PM
p.5 #935mm blind test p.2
Try an S5?
saxguy wrote:
I feel kind of bad for you...
...you're going to have to repeat it in a couple of weeks when the 35 1.4 GM is releasedLol, no, go away!
I am only interested in doing a GM 35/35i/RX1/GF 45/2.8 comparison. And I don’t own a GFX yet, so probably not even close.
At this point, I have tested every 35mm option that is viable and interesting to my preferences!
Though I would like to get my hands on a R 35 Summicron after Steve mentioned it, and it’s been of loose interest to me for years.As mentioned above, I have the 35mm APO Summicron-SL. It kills me that there's no way to adapt a L mount lens to FE mount.
saxguy wrote:
nehemiahphoto wrote
saxguy wrote
This is a great test, thanks!I feel kind of bad for you...
...you're going to have to repeat it in a couple of weeks when the 35 1.4 GM is released
I am only interested in doing a GM 35/35i/RX1/GF 45/2.8 comparison. And I don’t own a GFX yet, so probably not even close.
At this point, I have tested every 35mm option that is viable and interesting to my preferences!
Though I would like to get my hands on a R 35 Summicron after Steve mentioned it, and it’s been of loose interest to me for years.
Feb 02, 2021 at 05:49 PM
p.5 #1035mm blind test p.2
AdaptedLenses wrote:
Try an S5?
I have the SL2 and the SL2-S. They're both very fine cameras - providing my subject isn't moving. Some would argue that I'm "spoiled" by Sony AF and that many used cameras with no AF at all for years - or AF that wan't to the level of PDAF tracking we have now. Unfortunately I'm just used to using the PDAF system Sony offers, so unless I'm going for the full manual focus experience (which has it's place) I prefer using a Sony body.
Try an S5?
I have the SL2 and the SL2-S. They're both very fine cameras - providing my subject isn't moving. Some would argue that I'm "spoiled" by Sony AF and that many used cameras with no AF at all for years - or AF that wan't to the level of PDAF tracking we have now. Unfortunately I'm just used to using the PDAF system Sony offers, so unless I'm going for the full manual focus experience (which has it's place) I prefer using a Sony body.
Feb 02, 2021 at 06:49 PM
p.5 #1135mm blind test p.2
Phillip Reeve wrote:
I feel kind of bad for you...
...you're going to have to repeat it in a couple of weeks when the 35 1.4 GM is releasedLol, no, go away!
I am only interested in doing a GM 35/35i/RX1/GF 45/2.8 comparison. And I don’t own a GFX yet, so probably not even close.
At this point, I have tested every 35mm option that is viable and interesting to my preferences!
Though I would like to get my hands on a R 35 Summicron after Steve mentioned it, and it’s been of loose interest to me for years.How would the CV 1.2/35 fit into the picture in your experience?
In my experience bokeh deteriorates towards the corners at longer distances but I would rate it as smoother than any 35mm I have reviewed (which excludes the RX1 and Bigma f/1.2).
Here are some photos for you from my walk tonight. I think these corners look better than the CV 35/1.2, even when I purposefully shot hard stuff.
No PP or vignetting correction beyond WB and exposure so you can get a better feel.
nehemiahphoto wrote
saxguy wrote
This is a great test, thanks!I feel kind of bad for you...
...you're going to have to repeat it in a couple of weeks when the 35 1.4 GM is released
I am only interested in doing a GM 35/35i/RX1/GF 45/2.8 comparison. And I don’t own a GFX yet, so probably not even close.
At this point, I have tested every 35mm option that is viable and interesting to my preferences!
Though I would like to get my hands on a R 35 Summicron after Steve mentioned it, and it’s been of loose interest to me for years.
In my experience bokeh deteriorates towards the corners at longer distances but I would rate it as smoother than any 35mm I have reviewed (which excludes the RX1 and Bigma f/1.2).
Here are some photos for you from my walk tonight. I think these corners look better than the CV 35/1.2, even when I purposefully shot hard stuff.
No PP or vignetting correction beyond WB and exposure so you can get a better feel.
Feb 02, 2021 at 07:42 PM
p.5 #1235mm blind test p.2
nehemiahphoto wrote:
I feel kind of bad for you...
...you're going to have to repeat it in a couple of weeks when the 35 1.4 GM is releasedLol, no, go away!
I am only interested in doing a GM 35/35i/RX1/GF 45/2.8 comparison. And I don’t own a GFX yet, so probably not even close.
At this point, I have tested every 35mm option that is viable and interesting to my preferences!
Though I would like to get my hands on a R 35 Summicron after Steve mentioned it, and it’s been of loose interest to me for years.How would the CV 1.2/35 fit into the picture in your experience?
In my experience bokeh deteriorates towards the corners at longer distances but I would rate it as smoother than any 35mm I have reviewed (which excludes the RX1 and Bigma f/1.2).My experience mirrors yours on the CV 35/1.2iii corners. Fred found that the VM 35/1.2v3 performed quite well on either sensor (stock or leica) by design, but even if you look at the central portions, I found the CV bokeh and rendering good, but not as good as the 31 ltd, but largely comparable. Near bokeh I liked the CV 35/1.2iii (it's longer and seem to have relatively fast-focus fall off for more separation and softer abstraction of OOF whereas the 31 ltd is appreciably wider a hair harsher) but mid and distance I prefer the 31 ltd.
Despite some...Show more →
Another interesting blind test. Personally I rated the lenses and for me the CV was ahead of the 31 limited by quite some margin.
My standard lens "normal" lens has been the CV 1.2/40 for years now which follows a similar pattern as the 1.2/35: Very smooth in the center but deteriorating at longer distances away from the center. If the Sigma 2/35 outperforms it here I could be tempted to sometimes take it instead of the CV for my photo rides through the forest.
Phillip Reeve wrote
nehemiahphoto wrote
saxguy wrote
This is a great test, thanks!I feel kind of bad for you...
...you're going to have to repeat it in a couple of weeks when the 35 1.4 GM is released
I am only interested in doing a GM 35/35i/RX1/GF 45/2.8 comparison. And I don’t own a GFX yet, so probably not even close.
At this point, I have tested every 35mm option that is viable and interesting to my preferences!
Though I would like to get my hands on a R 35 Summicron after Steve mentioned it, and it’s been of loose interest to me for years.
In my experience bokeh deteriorates towards the corners at longer distances but I would rate it as smoother than any 35mm I have reviewed (which excludes the RX1 and Bigma f/1.2).
Despite some...Show more →
Another interesting blind test. Personally I rated the lenses and for me the CV was ahead of the 31 limited by quite some margin.
My standard lens "normal" lens has been the CV 1.2/40 for years now which follows a similar pattern as the 1.2/35: Very smooth in the center but deteriorating at longer distances away from the center. If the Sigma 2/35 outperforms it here I could be tempted to sometimes take it instead of the CV for my photo rides through the forest.
Feb 03, 2021 at 12:37 AM
p.5 #1335mm blind test p.2
Very interesting test, and thanks again for doing it. The things that surprised me:
-The FE did better than I thought on a few tests - but predictably bad in others. I'm shocked it wasn't the worst for CA in the F8 test. Are we sure those images are in the correct order? If so, it surprised me that the RX has so much purple fringing in that scene. But other than that I loved its rendering.
-The Sigma was the clear winner on an overall basis for my own tastes. Now I am second guessing my GM pre-order.
-The 24GM wasn't so great on its one test here, at least comparatively and in crop mode. Makes me nervous again about what this means for the 35GM rendering. But I know in general the 24GM has been quite good overall, and I'm hoping for the same with the 35 iteration.
-The FE did better than I thought on a few tests - but predictably bad in others. I'm shocked it wasn't the worst for CA in the F8 test. Are we sure those images are in the correct order? If so, it surprised me that the RX has so much purple fringing in that scene. But other than that I loved its rendering.
-The Sigma was the clear winner on an overall basis for my own tastes. Now I am second guessing my GM pre-order.
-The 24GM wasn't so great on its one test here, at least comparatively and in crop mode. Makes me nervous again about what this means for the 35GM rendering. But I know in general the 24GM has been quite good overall, and I'm hoping for the same with the 35 iteration.
Feb 03, 2021 at 01:06 AM
p.5 #1435mm blind test p.2
Phillip Reeve wrote:
I feel kind of bad for you...
...you're going to have to repeat it in a couple of weeks when the 35 1.4 GM is releasedLol, no, go away!
I am only interested in doing a GM 35/35i/RX1/GF 45/2.8 comparison. And I don’t own a GFX yet, so probably not even close.
At this point, I have tested every 35mm option that is viable and interesting to my preferences!
Though I would like to get my hands on a R 35 Summicron after Steve mentioned it, and it’s been of loose interest to me for years.How would the CV 1.2/35 fit into the picture in your experience?
In my experience bokeh deteriorates towards the corners at longer distances but I would rate it as smoother than any 35mm I have reviewed (which excludes the RX1 and Bigma f/1.2).My experience mirrors yours on the CV 35/1.2iii corners. Fred found that the VM 35/1.2v3 performed quite well on either sensor (stock or leica) by design, but even if you look at the central portions, I found the CV bokeh and rendering good, but not as good as the 31 ltd, but largely comparable. Near bokeh I liked the CV 35/1.2iii (it's longer and seem to have relatively fast-focus fall off for more separation and softer abstraction of OOF whereas the 31 ltd is appreciably wider a hair harsher) but mid and distance I prefer the 31 ltd.
Despite some swirl, I think the new 35i is better than both the 31tld and CV 35/1i2iii for smooth rendering. All easily fall short of RX1 to my eyes.
The attraction of the CV 35/1.2iii is pleasant draw, small size, excellent ergo, moderate price and great technical IQ slightly stopped down. The Pentax has better rendering and gorgeous colors/contrast, but it's bigger, slower has worst flare resistance and slightly worse CA but also has very strong IQ stopped down. So, it's much of a portrait, near focus lens but can do well in most applications, not unlike the CV 35 1.2 as well. It really gets down to a preferences between those two--I really like the files from the 31 better--there's some magic in it and prefer the wider FL, so sold my CV 35/1.2iii
In a blind test, a great majority (myself included) preferred the RX1 most, then the 31 limited as an easy second, then the CV 35/1.2iii as a distant 3rd when all shot at comparable apertures for bokeh. See this: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1652099/1
For mid-distance bokeh and transition, see this:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1639692/4Another interesting blind test. Personally I rated the lenses and for me the CV was ahead of the 31 limited by quite some margin.
My standard lens "normal" lens has been the CV 1.2/40 for years now which follows a similar pattern as the 1.2/35: Very smooth in the center but deteriorating at longer distances away from the center. If the Sigma 2/35 outperforms it here I could be tempted to sometimes take it instead of the CV for my photo rides through the forest.
Ha--you keep saying interesting. Is that a good thing? People have different preferences I guess, nice to have options, and it's probably very good you have a CV rather than the Pentax too. I love blind tests. I wish I could find some systematic blind test to try myself. They get people's brand/confirmation/hater biases out of the way.
Longer distance, meaning 5 meters, 10 meters and WO? To my recollection, though I never tested it and didn't keep the lens near as long as you've kept your 40/1.2, I found the corners on the CV 35 1.2 got a bit weird even at shorter distances. I had the 40/1.2 when it came out, but always hated the FL, though it does offer more surprisingly more separation and bokeh than I had anticipated. I don't recall this being an issue on the 50/1.2. Maybe the corners are just an unavoidable effect of f1.2 + 52mm + FL? I would be surprised if it's not better on the 35i. If you tell me what distance/what you want, I can try a couple photos for you.
nehemiahphoto wrote
Phillip Reeve wrote
nehemiahphoto wrote
saxguy wrote
This is a great test, thanks!I feel kind of bad for you...
...you're going to have to repeat it in a couple of weeks when the 35 1.4 GM is released
I am only interested in doing a GM 35/35i/RX1/GF 45/2.8 comparison. And I don’t own a GFX yet, so probably not even close.
At this point, I have tested every 35mm option that is viable and interesting to my preferences!
Though I would like to get my hands on a R 35 Summicron after Steve mentioned it, and it’s been of loose interest to me for years.
In my experience bokeh deteriorates towards the corners at longer distances but I would rate it as smoother than any 35mm I have reviewed (which excludes the RX1 and Bigma f/1.2).
Despite some swirl, I think the new 35i is better than both the 31tld and CV 35/1i2iii for smooth rendering. All easily fall short of RX1 to my eyes.
The attraction of the CV 35/1.2iii is pleasant draw, small size, excellent ergo, moderate price and great technical IQ slightly stopped down. The Pentax has better rendering and gorgeous colors/contrast, but it's bigger, slower has worst flare resistance and slightly worse CA but also has very strong IQ stopped down. So, it's much of a portrait, near focus lens but can do well in most applications, not unlike the CV 35 1.2 as well. It really gets down to a preferences between those two--I really like the files from the 31 better--there's some magic in it and prefer the wider FL, so sold my CV 35/1.2iii
In a blind test, a great majority (myself included) preferred the RX1 most, then the 31 limited as an easy second, then the CV 35/1.2iii as a distant 3rd when all shot at comparable apertures for bokeh. See this: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1652099/1
For mid-distance bokeh and transition, see this:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1639692/4
My standard lens "normal" lens has been the CV 1.2/40 for years now which follows a similar pattern as the 1.2/35: Very smooth in the center but deteriorating at longer distances away from the center. If the Sigma 2/35 outperforms it here I could be tempted to sometimes take it instead of the CV for my photo rides through the forest.
Ha--you keep saying interesting. Is that a good thing? People have different preferences I guess, nice to have options, and it's probably very good you have a CV rather than the Pentax too. I love blind tests. I wish I could find some systematic blind test to try myself. They get people's brand/confirmation/hater biases out of the way.
Longer distance, meaning 5 meters, 10 meters and WO? To my recollection, though I never tested it and didn't keep the lens near as long as you've kept your 40/1.2, I found the corners on the CV 35 1.2 got a bit weird even at shorter distances. I had the 40/1.2 when it came out, but always hated the FL, though it does offer more surprisingly more separation and bokeh than I had anticipated. I don't recall this being an issue on the 50/1.2. Maybe the corners are just an unavoidable effect of f1.2 + 52mm + FL? I would be surprised if it's not better on the 35i. If you tell me what distance/what you want, I can try a couple photos for you.
Feb 03, 2021 at 01:08 AM
p.5 #1535mm blind test p.2
abadger wrote:
Very interesting test, and thanks again for doing it. The things that surprised me:
-The FE did better than I thought on a few tests - but predictably bad in others. I'm shocked it wasn't the worst for CA in the F8 test. Are we sure those images are in the correct order? If so, it surprised me that the RX has so much purple fringing in that scene. But other than that I loved its rendering.
-The Sigma was the clear winner on an overall basis for my own tastes. Now I am second guessing my GM pre-order.
-The 24GM wasn't so...Show more →
You're welcome!
The purple fringing you are seeing on the RX1 is lateral CA, which won't go away by stopping down. Axial (longitudinal) CA goes away by stopping down. They are different types of correction.
Tbh, much of this testing plays to strengths of the FE. Like we've said, put it at mid and longer distance and off-center and it's not so hot for rendering.
I was surprised on the GM as well. I have owned it and shot it with some frequency, it's generally quite a smooth rendering lens. Fred said he had crops that were different than mine, which I am curious to see. I will probably shoot another set of a cropped GM 24 vs RX1 for my curiosity.
I always keep in mind--not matter how many charts and crops and tests we do, what really matters is the images a lens produces in the field. Some of my favorite lenses don't test well. Some lenses test well but images are meh so I've sold them. Roger Cicala, lens testing king, stated in one of his articles something like lab testing was only the first part, and he shoot in the field for a while when testing a lens before drawing a conclusion. If you like the GM 35 images, don't worry about anything else is my opinion.
Very interesting test, and thanks again for doing it. The things that surprised me:
-The FE did better than I thought on a few tests - but predictably bad in others. I'm shocked it wasn't the worst for CA in the F8 test. Are we sure those images are in the correct order? If so, it surprised me that the RX has so much purple fringing in that scene. But other than that I loved its rendering.
-The Sigma was the clear winner on an overall basis for my own tastes. Now I am second guessing my GM pre-order.
-The 24GM wasn't so...Show more →
You're welcome!
The purple fringing you are seeing on the RX1 is lateral CA, which won't go away by stopping down. Axial (longitudinal) CA goes away by stopping down. They are different types of correction.
Tbh, much of this testing plays to strengths of the FE. Like we've said, put it at mid and longer distance and off-center and it's not so hot for rendering.
I was surprised on the GM as well. I have owned it and shot it with some frequency, it's generally quite a smooth rendering lens. Fred said he had crops that were different than mine, which I am curious to see. I will probably shoot another set of a cropped GM 24 vs RX1 for my curiosity.
I always keep in mind--not matter how many charts and crops and tests we do, what really matters is the images a lens produces in the field. Some of my favorite lenses don't test well. Some lenses test well but images are meh so I've sold them. Roger Cicala, lens testing king, stated in one of his articles something like lab testing was only the first part, and he shoot in the field for a while when testing a lens before drawing a conclusion. If you like the GM 35 images, don't worry about anything else is my opinion.
Feb 03, 2021 at 01:12 AM
p.5 #1635mm blind test p.2
RX1 comfortable winner on my preferences/scoring (won 4 of the tests). Followed by Loxia and Sigma tied - but the ancient Pentax held up very well close behind them. FE trailed in a dismal last.
Feb 03, 2021 at 04:23 AM
p.5 #1735mm blind test p.2
It’s funny how often the tests of 35mm options make me really appreciate my FD 35/2 (thorium). I’d love to see how it fares in a blind test, but I think it would hold up really well against these alternatives. I know some who have tested versions of the Canon FD didn’t care for it, so maybe I just got a special one or have a bad eye (but more likely having the earlier thorium version matters).
Throw the Leica R 35/2 in so we can see how it does...
DJK
Throw the Leica R 35/2 in so we can see how it does...
DJK
Feb 03, 2021 at 08:54 AM
p.5 #1835mm blind test p.2
nehemiahphoto wrote:
I love blind tests. I wish I could find some systematic blind test to try myself. They get people's brand/confirmation/hater biases out of the way.
Since the RX1 has been perennially such a popular rendering choice, it would be interesting to see what the opinions would be if you included iPhone 12 (or similar) 'fake bokeh mode' images. I realize it would be straying from the original intent of the comparisons. But seeing as how the RX1 has the smoothest and most Gaussian blur, that it's the direction a lot of modern designs lean, and smartphone fake bokeh tends to be very Gaussian, maybe there's something Apple and others know about imaging characteristics preferences of the general population?
This came to mind partly because lately I've seen a fair amount of wide angle smoothly blurred background environmental portraits accompanying online news stories. I doubt the reporters are running around with RX1s...
Maybe at some point we'll be able to tweak fake bokeh to emulate a range of rendering styles? IMO it's currently too perfect/Gaussian.
Regarding the lenses tested here, all I can say is hopefully Sigma will eventually (soon) also make these compact primes available for Canon and Nikon mirrorless systems.
I love blind tests. I wish I could find some systematic blind test to try myself. They get people's brand/confirmation/hater biases out of the way.
Since the RX1 has been perennially such a popular rendering choice, it would be interesting to see what the opinions would be if you included iPhone 12 (or similar) 'fake bokeh mode' images. I realize it would be straying from the original intent of the comparisons. But seeing as how the RX1 has the smoothest and most Gaussian blur, that it's the direction a lot of modern designs lean, and smartphone fake bokeh tends to be very Gaussian, maybe there's something Apple and others know about imaging characteristics preferences of the general population?
This came to mind partly because lately I've seen a fair amount of wide angle smoothly blurred background environmental portraits accompanying online news stories. I doubt the reporters are running around with RX1s...
Maybe at some point we'll be able to tweak fake bokeh to emulate a range of rendering styles? IMO it's currently too perfect/Gaussian.
Regarding the lenses tested here, all I can say is hopefully Sigma will eventually (soon) also make these compact primes available for Canon and Nikon mirrorless systems.
Feb 03, 2021 at 10:36 AM
p.5 #1935mm blind test p.2
rscheffler wrote:
Since the RX1 has been perennially such a popular rendering choice, it would be interesting to see what the opinions would be if you included iPhone 12 (or similar) 'fake bokeh mode' images. I realize it would be straying from the original intent of the comparisons. But seeing as how the RX1 has the smoothest and most Gaussian blur, that it's the direction a lot of modern designs lean, and smartphone fake bokeh tends to be very Gaussian, maybe there's something Apple and others know about imaging characteristics preferences of the general population?
This came to mind partly because lately I've...Show more →
What is most interesting to me, it’s just how widely praised the RX1 is terms of rendering. I can’t think of another very crowded focal length that enjoys essentially unanimous number one status like the RX1 has— people have so many different preferences and wants.
The monopoly is now been broken up by the Bigma, and the 35i will impinge further, and I expect the GM will as well. But the RX1 was just so far ahead of its time in a lot of ways.
The thing I have noticed about cell phone photography is that one it’s improving at a radical rate, which is not news. But when I look at bokeh simulations when in portrait modes and photos from iPhones, it’s not the OOF that draws attention to itself in my eyes. It’s the complete lack of transition and on access IQ still looks like a crappy oversharpened phone with poor tonality and very little headway for editing. It will be interesting to see as phones continue to improve.
nehemiahphoto wrote
I love blind tests. I wish I could find some systematic blind test to try myself. They get people's brand/confirmation/hater biases out of the way.This came to mind partly because lately I've...Show more →
What is most interesting to me, it’s just how widely praised the RX1 is terms of rendering. I can’t think of another very crowded focal length that enjoys essentially unanimous number one status like the RX1 has— people have so many different preferences and wants.
The monopoly is now been broken up by the Bigma, and the 35i will impinge further, and I expect the GM will as well. But the RX1 was just so far ahead of its time in a lot of ways.
The thing I have noticed about cell phone photography is that one it’s improving at a radical rate, which is not news. But when I look at bokeh simulations when in portrait modes and photos from iPhones, it’s not the OOF that draws attention to itself in my eyes. It’s the complete lack of transition and on access IQ still looks like a crappy oversharpened phone with poor tonality and very little headway for editing. It will be interesting to see as phones continue to improve.
Feb 03, 2021 at 12:20 PM
p.5 #2035mm blind test p.2
rscheffler wrote:
Maybe at some point we'll be able to tweak fake bokeh to emulate a range of rendering styles? IMO it's currently too perfect/Gaussian.
The Focos app for iPhone actually lets you choose from a number of emulated lens types: Leitz Elmar, Olympus Zuiko, Lensbaby, Cineovision, Trioplan 100, Helios 44, Carl Zeiss Jena, Carl Zeiss Otus, Noctilux, Minolta STF, and Minolta RF250. It's a nice idea although in practice it's not convincing. Still, it's cool to see that someone's on this task.
I have to say I was surprised to see how much I liked the Sigma shots here; I'm a long-time Sigma disliker and have seen very few photos that I liked from any Sigma lens, even the 35/1.2 Art. I own the APS-C 18-35/1.8 Art and it's my least-used and least-liked lens, although under certain conditions (cloudy days, or indoor shots in muted light) I am pretty happy with it. The photos here from the new 35 i-series are quite nice.
Maybe at some point we'll be able to tweak fake bokeh to emulate a range of rendering styles? IMO it's currently too perfect/Gaussian.
The Focos app for iPhone actually lets you choose from a number of emulated lens types: Leitz Elmar, Olympus Zuiko, Lensbaby, Cineovision, Trioplan 100, Helios 44, Carl Zeiss Jena, Carl Zeiss Otus, Noctilux, Minolta STF, and Minolta RF250. It's a nice idea although in practice it's not convincing. Still, it's cool to see that someone's on this task.
I have to say I was surprised to see how much I liked the Sigma shots here; I'm a long-time Sigma disliker and have seen very few photos that I liked from any Sigma lens, even the 35/1.2 Art. I own the APS-C 18-35/1.8 Art and it's my least-used and least-liked lens, although under certain conditions (cloudy days, or indoor shots in muted light) I am pretty happy with it. The photos here from the new 35 i-series are quite nice.
Feb 03, 2021 at 12:59 PM