Wow, that's really crooked. Does it stop crooked before or after the level point? I have one for another lens coming and if it's after then I can just dab a tiny bit of super glue to keep it in place (since I don't change hoods). If it stops before then it won't work though.
ftllens wrote:
Wow, that's really crooked. Does it stop crooked before or after the level point? I have one for another lens coming and if it's after then I can just dab a tiny bit of super glue to keep it in place (since I don't change hoods). If it stops before then it won't work though.
Unfortunately it's before.
_jim_ wrote:
Are the Haoge hoods anodized or painted? If they're anodized you can do what I did for my first not-perfectly-square copy I got from Anson (he offered great customer service and sent me a new one...that was square). Take a bit of goof-off (or whatever stronger solvent you like), remove the mount portion of the hood, then glue it back in whenever you need it to be (for squareness). Might as well, if they're going to send you another copy anyway. Sucks that you would have to fix a defective product yourself, though...
I thought about this! But it's anodized on the outside and painted on the inside.
From cultural relics, Dian opera to the streets
The rain continued, entering the Yunnan Provincial Museum, surprised by the Warring States Ox and Tiger Bronze Case and the Song Dynasty Jin Aaye Guanyin, turned to the opposite Guandu Ancient Town, in the corner of the pear orchard to recall the classic Dian opera and playful lanterns in childhood memories, taking advantage of the afterglow and light rain, parallel with cute child on the street, thinking of taking shoot two more, the mother and son under the umbrella get into my camera lens of sight, and almost bumped into the oncoming uncle in the back. Kunming, China.
Taken with this cute lens.
SladeFM wrote:
Looking to get this lens, but its a toss up between this and the 40mm f/1.2 II VM. What do you guys recommend?
I don't have 40mm/1.2 II VM. But this 35/1.5 is a killer lens for street and portrait shot definitely. BTW 40mm is a bit narrow view for street photo i think.
I have a really good 35mm f/1.7 Ultron on my M, but I keep eyeing a silver 35mm f/1.x.
Has anyone compared the two wide open (sharpness, microcontrast, bokeh)?
Ideally I’d go for the old Summilux ASPH pre-FLE (11874), but it’s still traded at exorbitant prices and it doesn’t come in silver. To me it’s already impressively sharp at f/1.4 and has this special three-dimensionality I can’t quite describe. I don’t see that in the FLE.
gammarART wrote:
I have a really good 35mm f/1.7 Ultron on my M, but I keep eyeing a silver 35mm f/1.x.
Has anyone compared the two wide open (sharpness, microcontrast, bokeh)?
Ideally I’d go for the old Summilux ASPH pre-FLE (11874), but it’s still traded at exorbitant prices and it doesn’t come in silver. To me it’s already impressively sharp at f/1.4 and has this special three-dimensionality I can’t quite describe. I don’t see that in the FLE.
Or should should I just wait for the new LLL…
There is at least one comparison to the 35/1.7 M in this thread. There might be more. You can find the one I'm referencing on page 18.
I have the 11874 and the 35/1.5. For the money, the 35/1.5 is close enough. Wide-open, it's as sharp (if not sharper) at portrait to medium distances (the Leica is sharper at infinity...but how often are you shooting at infinity at 1.4?). It has a smoother rendering (the Leica is a little more structured). It has higher global contrast and better flare control (which is both a pro and con...the highlight bloom on the Leica is so beautiful). It's smaller and looks great with an aftermarket square hood (the plastic hood on the 11874 is prone to breaking and expensive to replace). Also, the amount of focus shift on the Voigtlander is pretty negligible.
Still...at the risk of sounding woo-woo, the Leica has a certain magic that is difficult to articulate. If you really want the 11874, save your pennies and get one.
SladeFM wrote:
Looking to get this lens, but its a toss up between this and the 40mm f/1.2 II VM. What do you guys recommend?
35 1.5 is about half volume of the 40 1.2 ii
35 1.5 seemed sharper to me WO
40 1.2 ii has strong bokeh advantage in both quantity and quality
40 1.2 ii is all black, if you run the lenses without hoods
both are excellent. i replaced the 40 1.2 ii with another 35 1.5 (my third copy), but only because adapting on apsc where it cuts out some of the other 35 1.5 weaknesses. for full frame, would have kept 40 1.2 ii
Horses are free when there's no business
On a cloudy morning, the vast grassland was empty, with no visitors in sight, yet I saw the horses roaming freely.
_jim_ wrote:
There is at least one comparison to the 35/1.7 M in this thread. There might be more. You can find the one I'm referencing on page 18.
I have the 11874 and the 35/1.5. For the money, the 35/1.5 is close enough. Wide-open, it's as sharp (if not sharper) at portrait to medium distances (the Leica is sharper at infinity...but how often are you shooting at infinity at 1.4?). It has a smoother rendering (the Leica is a little more structured). It has higher global contrast and better flare control (which is both a pro and con...the highlight bloom on the Leica is so beautiful). It's smaller and looks great with an aftermarket square hood (the plastic hood on the 11874 is prone to breaking and expensive to replace). Also, the amount of focus shift on the Voigtlander is pretty negligible.
Still...at the risk of sounding woo-woo, the Leica has a certain magic that is difficult to articulate. If you really want the 11874, save your pennies and get one....Show more →
---------------------------------------------
ftllens wrote:
35 1.5 is about half volume of the 40 1.2 ii
35 1.5 seemed sharper to me WO
40 1.2 ii has strong bokeh advantage in both quantity and quality
40 1.2 ii is all black, if you run the lenses without hoods
both are excellent. i replaced the 40 1.2 ii with another 35 1.5 (my third copy), but only because adapting on apsc where it cuts out some of the other 35 1.5 weaknesses. for full frame, would have kept 40 1.2 ii
But the focal lengths feel completely different to me. The CV 40 1.2 always struck me as a bit longer than its stated FL (It's my favorite from the f/1.2 Noktons), and the 35 1.5 feels a little wider. Out in the field, that gap matters. For whatever reason, I never fully connected with the CV 35 1.5 even though it is a solid lens. The CV 35 1.7 Ultron gives a very different look with noticeably higher contrast and resolution. I keep hoping Cosina is cooking up a refreshed 35 1.5 with more bite and a little more structure in the rendering.
Fred Miranda wrote:
---------------------------------------------
But the focal lengths feel completely different to me. The CV 40 1.2 always struck me as a bit longer than its stated FL (It's my favorite from the f/1.2 Noktons), and the 35 1.5 feels a little wider. Out in the field, that gap matters. For whatever reason, I never fully connected with the CV 35 1.5 even though it is a solid lens. The CV 35 1.7 Ultron gives a very different look with noticeably higher contrast and resolution. I keep hoping Cosina is cooking up a refreshed 35 1.5 with more bite and a little more structure in the rendering....Show more →
I had very similar feelings—I still have a CV 35/1.7 and CV 35/2 but skipped the 35/1.5 after owning it—I never jelled with it either. Of the m 35mm’s, I really wanted this one to work, but I find I still prefer the CV options above or the ZM 35/1.4 or 35 Lux FLE
I also have found the 40/1.2 to be my favorite of the trio. I always feel like the 40/1.2 is a wide 50mm, not really a 40mm.
The venerable 40/1.2 does indeed appear longer at typical focus distances. And despite what some say, it appears to be almost linear over the focus travel. Breathing is the oft-unseen villain of dramatic focal length changes (per Fstoppers and Thom):
'What becomes immediately apparent during testing is that this lens suffers from substantial focus breathing, meaning your field of view changes noticeably as you adjust focus from infinity to close distances.'
'users should be aware that there's a strong focus breathing that happens in the close range.'
Chris Frost demos it at 2:00 here:
'Voigtländer 'Nokton' 40mm f/1.2 lens review' (YT title).
agree. Everyone was so down on the Zeiss because of size even though IMHO it equals the lux FLE, the Nokton is a game changer if you prioritize size over anything else.
Jorge Torralba wrote:
agree. Everyone was so down on the Zeiss because of size even though IMHO it equals the lux FLE, the Nokton is a game changer if you prioritize size over anything else.
Opinions aside, The Zeiss is significantly larger than then 35 Lux-
The Lux is still smaller even with the hood on- No doubt the 35 Zeiss is a very fine optic, the size difference is real. Opinions can't get in the way of facts on that one.
