Steve Spencer wrote:
Well the five abnormal partial dispersion elements vs. zero for the 35 f/1.2 SE does pretty strongly suggest that 35 f/2 APO is going to handle CA and particularly axial CA better and it isn't much of a stretch to argue that it can do that better than the 35 f/1.2. The samples show remarkably low axial CA and that definitely is not a strength of the 35 f/1.2 SE. Then there is the unique aperture of the 35 f/2 APO. It has round highlights at f/2; f/2.8; and f/5.6 but will still produce excellent sunstars at f/4; f/8, and f/11. Really nice innovations, if you ask me and these are things that are easy to see....Show more →
Yeah, blah blah blah numbers, elements, shaped blades etc... That's all great. Like I said though, I have not seen an image yet that I felt the 1.2 could not replicate at the same stop. Let me clear, I'm by no means saying it's a bad lens. I'm just saying if you have the 1.2 I have not seen anything that would make me want to give up the versatility of that lens. The difference between F2 on both lenses appears to be not as big a deal in real world use. And I'm to saying that to discourage anyone from getting it. I'm saying that from the point of view from someone that was very interested in this lens and excited about it even before it was even officially announced.
Mar 30, 2021 at 11:58 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
nhsonyshooter wrote:
Yeah, blah blah blah numbers, elements, shaped blades etc... That's all great. Like I said though, I have not seen an image yet that I felt the 1.2 could not replicate at the same stop. Let me clear, I'm by no means saying it's a bad lens. I'm just saying if you have the 1.2 I have not seen anything that would make me want to give up the versatility of that lens. The difference between F2 on both lenses appears to be not as big a deal in real world use. And I'm to saying that to discourage anyone from getting it. I'm saying that from the point of view from someone that was very interested in this lens and excited about it even before it was even officially announced. ...Show more →
Yeah, blah, blah, blah. I haven't seen yet, etc. In my view it is really early to say what hasn't been seen yet. There have only been a small handful of images with this lens so far. From my perspective, I do think I see better control of axial CA, but I will wait for Fred to demonstrate that with side by side images. I think from what I have seen of the 35 f/1.2 SE I will like the bokeh a bit better on that lens. I think the bokeh on the 35 f/2 APO is good but not great, whereas I think the bokeh on the 35 f/1.2 SE is very good to excellent. From Fred's shots with the 35 f/1.2 SE for landscapes I will be disappointed if the 35 f/2 APO isn't quite a bit better in the outer zone, but again we can wait for Fred's usual thorough test to demonstrate that. Basically it is still very early in the evaluation of this lens. There are very few shots and even fewer thorough tests, but I am sure Fred and the people at philipreeve.net will both do thorough tests that will tell us a lot more. I am reasonably confident that those tests will show both the strengths and the weaknesses of this lens relative to the 35 f/1.2 SE. Personally, I plan to get both lenses as I think they both will have something to offer that the other one won't, but I will wait for the more thorough tests to demonstrate that.
@nhsonyshooter : I think until we'll start getting full size pictures and comparisons (I just saw "stamps sized images samples for the APO on Cosina's web site... + Genji's pictures on this thread), there's no point in saying "I don't see any significant difference".
If you're expecting the APO to have the same bokeh balls than the f1.2, then you'll likely be disappointed.
If you're expecting corner-to-corner sharpness close-down to f5.6 then f2 APO will likely be the way to go.
if you are not an "orthodox bokeh lover or pixel-peeper", then probably any of these 2 lenses will be fine.
Otherwise, these 2 lenses have been designed with different usages in mind.
I guess if you have some experience and self-reflection on which photographer you are, then you probably know where you will go...
Steve Spencer wrote:
Yeah, blah, blah, blah. I haven't seen yet, etc. In my view it is really early to say what hasn't been seen yet. There have only been a small handful of images with this lens so far. From my perspective, I do think I see better control of axial CA, but I will wait for Fred to demonstrate that with side by side images. I think from what I have seen of the 35 f/1.2 SE I will like the bokeh a bit better on that lens. I think the bokeh on the 35 f/2 APO is good but not great, whereas I think the bokeh on the 35 f/1.2 SE is very good to excellent. From Fred's shots with the 35 f/1.2 SE for landscapes I will be disappointed if the 35 f/2 APO isn't quite a bit better in the outer zone, but again we can wait for Fred's usual thorough test to demonstrate that. Basically it is still very early in the evaluation of this lens. There are very few shots and even fewer thorough tests, but I am sure Fred and the people at philipreeve.net will both do thorough tests that will tell us a lot more. I am reasonably confident that those tests will show both the strengths and the weaknesses of this lens relative to the 35 f/1.2 SE. Personally, I plan to get both lenses as I think they both will have something to offer that the other one won't, but I will wait for the more thorough tests to demonstrate that....Show more →
Hence my original statement.
"So far with the limited images I'm not seeing why you would pick this up over the 1.2."
Mar 30, 2021 at 03:02 PM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
nhsonyshooter wrote:
Hence my original statement.
"So far with the limited images I'm not seeing why you would pick this up over the 1.2."
So you felt the need to tell us you haven't seen enough images to make an evaluation of the lens? Thanks for keeping us updated on your lack of opinion
Steve Spencer wrote:
So you felt the need to tell us you haven't seen enough images to make an evaluation of the lens? Thanks for keeping us updated on your lack of opinion
Well to be fair at least I own one of the 2 lenses we are talking about
nhsonyshooter wrote:
Yeah, blah blah blah numbers, elements, shaped blades etc... That's all great. Like I said though, I have not seen an image yet that I felt the 1.2 could not replicate at the same stop. Let me clear, I'm by no means saying it's a bad lens. I'm just saying if you have the 1.2 I have not seen anything that would make me want to give up the versatility of that lens. The difference between F2 on both lenses appears to be not as big a deal in real world use. And I'm to saying that to discourage anyone from getting it. I'm saying that from the point of view from someone that was very interested in this lens and excited about it even before it was even officially announced. ...Show more →
As if the world owes it to you to prove an APO lens is better. Buy one and return it if you don't like it. Rent one. Lots of options for you besides being the beauty contestant judge sitting back in your chair watching the parade of images with that dissatisfied look on your face.
The 35 APO completely takes the 35 1.2 III to school at f/2. No comparison. I have both. But let me be clear, I'm by no means saying the 35 1.2 III is a bad lens (to sarcastically quote you)
The 35 1.2 does beat the APO at apertures wider than f/2
I hope it goes without saying if you're shooting a 24mp camera, who cares (unless I guess you just hate CA). If you're shooting 40+mp, you'll love the APO.
I don't have any landscape shots worth posting yet, but I've taken some snapshots at infinity on the CV 35 APO, and sharpness at f/5.6 out to the corners seems as good as the CV 50 APO, which is to say they are both mind-blowing. I'll try to test the two 35s against each other at f/5.6 and infinity soon just to be sure it's not confirmation bias on my part.
If you are happy with the 35 1.2, by all means you'll be fine without the APO if you're not going to print huge or review your images at 100% magnification on a high res camera. The APO does seem to have more microcontrast, but the 1.2 is still really good stopped down.
M10-R + CV 35 f/2 APO some quick snapshots (handheld, wide open, and near minimum focus distance):
highdesertmesa wrote:
As if the world owes it to you to prove an APO lens is better. Buy one and return it if you don't like it. Rent one. Lots of options for you besides being the beauty contestant judge sitting back in your chair watching the parade of images with that dissatisfied look on your face.
The 35 APO completely takes the 35 1.2 III to school at f/2. No comparison. I have both. But let me be clear, I'm by no means saying the 35 1.2 III is a bad lens (to sarcastically quote you)
The 35 1.2 does beat the APO at apertures wider than f/2
I hope it goes without saying if you're shooting a 24mp camera, who cares (unless I guess you just hate CA). If you're shooting 40+mp, you'll love the APO.
I don't have any landscape shots worth posting yet, but I've taken some snapshots at infinity on the CV 35 APO, and sharpness at f/5.6 out to the corners seems as good as the CV 50 APO, which is to say they are both mind-blowing. I'll try to test the two 35s against each other at f/5.6 and infinity soon just to be sure it's not confirmation bias on my part.
If you are happy with the 35 1.2, by all means you'll be fine without the APO if you're not going to print huge or review your images at 100% magnification on a high res camera. The APO does seem to have more microcontrast, but the 1.2 is still really good stopped down.
M10-R + CV 35 f/2 APO some quick snapshots (handheld, wide open, and near minimum focus distance):...Show more →
I'm shooting 61mp and thanks for making my point. "but the 1.2 is still really good stopped down."
nhsonyshooter wrote:
I'm shooting 61mp and thanks for making my point. "but the 1.2 is still really good stopped down."
Its difficult to tell what your point was, but your posts read like youre trying to support a lens you own at the expense of one you dont. These are just lenses, not our children performing at the school play. How bout we share a big nothing burger until I or FM does side by side?
While we enjoy that nothing burger, do you have a post in the CV 35 1.2 III thread showing its performance at f/2 near MFD with crops?
rscheffler wrote:
For those using Leica M: what is your opinion about the size of the lens, viewfinder blockage, etc.?
Weight and width of the lens is not bad. It's lighter than the 35 1.2 III but narrower and longer. It is longer than I would prefer just a bit longer than the 50 APO. Balances well on the camera and doesn't feel awkward. If you're ok with a lens like the 50 Summilux, this would be pretty close. Some viewfinder blockage is there. With the hood, the circle in the RH corner comes out to the right corner of the inner frame line. With the hood off, it blocks out to about 2/3 of the way between the RH corner and inner frame line corner. The Leica 35 APO looks to have a size advantage over the CV.
rscheffler wrote:
For those using Leica M: what is your opinion about the size of the lens, viewfinder blockage, etc.?
Hi Ron, this lens is not large but fairly long @ 58mm. Definitely much smaller than other 49mm filter lenses that come to mind like 75 APO, 28 Summilux or Zeiss ZM 35 1.4. In girth it is only slightly larger than the mount. The experience of using it without the hood is almost identical to using a 35 Summilux with hood. The corner of the lux hood protrudes more, but has the opening in it which compensates.
With the hood, if you drew vertical and horizontal lines from the apex of the hood radius they would align with the bottom right corner of the viewfinder patch?? Or 50% up of the right frameline and 40% across the bottom with the corner about 3/16" from the corner of the135 frameline. Much better than the Zeiss and I can live with it (I sold the Zeiss), but I feel these retro round vented hoods are silly and have no place on a 35mm lens that is this long. I may try the E mount hood. For what it's worth, this lens probably doesn't need a hood.
Steve Spencer wrote:
...I think from what I have seen of the 35 f/1.2 SE I will like the bokeh a bit better on that lens. I think the bokeh on the 35 f/2 APO is good but not great, whereas I think the bokeh on the 35 f/1.2 SE is very good to excellent. From Fred's shots with the 35 f/1.2 SE for landscapes I will be disappointed if the 35 f/2 APO isn't quite a bit better in the outer zone, but again we can wait for Fred's usual thorough test to demonstrate that. ...
I have the 1.2 and the APO and think both will stay in the bag. Also thinking about adding the 50 1.2 as an option to the 50 APO.
So far my impression of the CV 35 APO bokeh at close distance is that it's much smoother than the 1.2. It reminds me more of the Fufjilm GF lens bokeh (except the GF 80). The GF 80 wide open looks more like the CV 1.2 more painterly and more character in the bokeh.
highdesertmesa wrote:
So far my impression of the CV 35 APO bokeh at close distance is that it's much smoother than the 1.2. It reminds me more of the Fufjilm GF lens bokeh (except the GF 80).
How can a highly corrected lens like the CV 35/2 APO offer 'much smoother bokeh' at close distance compared to a lens that's under-corrected for SA, optimized for rendering? I would love to see side by side samples of that!
highdesertmesa wrote:
I have the 1.2 and the APO and think both will stay in the bag. Also thinking about adding the 50 1.2 as an option to the 50 APO.
So far my impression of the CV 35 APO bokeh at close distance is that it's much smoother than the 1.2. It reminds me more of the Fufjilm GF lens bokeh (except the GF 80). The GF 80 wide open looks more like the CV 1.2 more painterly and more character in the bokeh.
Not sure if you have ever had previously or currently have a Leica Summicron 35mm ASPH. Seems that the performance of the CV 35 APO surpasses the Leica. So other than size and portability and view finder blockage seems that for the price of a used 35 Summicron one can have both the CV 1.2 and APO. Plus on the Leica SL i can focus closer.
Fred Miranda wrote:
How can a highly corrected lens like the CV 35/2 APO offer 'much smoother bokeh' at close distance compared to a lens that's under-corrected for SA, optimized for rendering? I would love to see side by side samples of that!
CV 35 APO compared with CV 35 1.2 III, both stopped down to f/5.6 on the M10-R.
No corrections have been applied in C1. Note that C1 is the superior post-processing program (IMO) for corner sharpness since it has a sharpness correction slider in the Lens Correction panel that applies sharpness more toward the corners and based on the lens profile (sharpness is applied generically more toward the corners without a profile). This considerable helps all lenses, but particularly lenses like the CF 35 1.2 III that are a little weaker toward the corners, but still acceptable. I'll make a separate post that shows the difference with the correction applied.
Keep in mind I don't use a tripod (framing is slightly different) but shutter speed was 1/500 second, so that should mitigate any movement on my part. I also had my elbows resting on the top of a fence and the camera held against my face. Both shot at infinity stop as none of my CV lenses thus far hit infinity before the hard stop. Both show perfectly focused on infinity according to the rangefinder. I also shoot in rangefinder mode on the M10-R to avoid any shutter shock from the shutter having to close to stop Live View before it can reopen to start the exposure sequence. Unfortunately there is no EFCS or ES mode on the M cameras yet.
Tests like FM's will be more reliable due to tripod, framing consistency, and verifying perfect infinity focus in live view.
Tests at higher res on bodies like the A7R4 may show more differences.
Fred Miranda wrote:
How can a highly corrected lens like the CV 35/2 APO offer 'much smoother bokeh' at close distance compared to a lens that's under-corrected for SA, optimized for rendering? I would love to see side by side samples of that!
---------------------------------------------
apatel wrote:
Would love sample comparison of that as well!
Will do. I thought the APO had less character to the bokeh. Smoothness may not be the right word uniformity maybe.
