In the midfield crops, what is the distance of the red tree/bush just poking into the bottom of the frame? It's really smeared in the wider aperture 35/1.5 images. Makes me wonder a bit about OOF midfield foreground rendering. But maybe this improves at nearer distances? Also might not be noticeable in normal use.
rscheffler wrote:
In the midfield crops, what is the distance of the red tree/bush just poking into the bottom of the frame? It's really smeared in the wider aperture 35/1.5 images. Makes me wonder a bit about OOF midfield foreground rendering. But maybe this improves at nearer distances? Also might not be noticeable in normal use.
That red bush is actually close to the camera. The background at infinity is way further at the hard stop. What you saw is just depth of field. (It had caught my attention too!)
Here is the image showing the red bush in relation to infinity.
LEICA M10-RVoigtlander 35/2 Ultron lens35mmf/1.71/350s100 ISO+1.3 EV
Thanks. Yes, I was expecting it to be a fair amount closer.
Rather than the fact it was oof, what really caught my eye was how smeared it was while oof. Some lenses have smoother background rendering than foregrounds. Other lenses are the opposite. Rendering tests usually 'focus' on background rendering while often overlooking foreground, perhaps because all non-infinity images have some degree of background content. It's less often our subjects are flanked or partially obstructed by foreground objects.
Thanks for the review. I'm looking at buying a compact 35mm lens and this lens has piqued my interest. The other 2 lenses I'm considering are the 35/2 cron asph and 35/2 ultron. Judging from what I've read so far, I'm guessing the ultron is slightly sharper than the cron and nokton? I'd like to get a better sense of how the bokeh/rendering/character compares.
Maybe I missed it but if anyone has the two hood options to show on an M camera, could you post that? Maybe also side view would be good next to the other lenses like the FLE with hood. Thanks if you can do that.
airfrogusmc wrote:
RexGig
The 35 Lux FLE is my favorite 35 period and I have shot with a lot of 35s over the decades. If you can swing it financially I would highly recommend it.
Allen
O.k., the Lux is a bit sharper but I prefer the bokeh of the new Nokton by far!
Esp. with a busy background, it's Bokeh is smooth wihile the Lux's is harsh; for me a nogo an not worth a penny.
Would be interesting to see a direct comparison between the Ultron 35 f1.7 and the new Nokton.
I actually don't think the bokeh is all that harsh on the 35 Lux FLE. But for me the way it handles on an M body is for sure more important than sharpness for me. I don't shoot that much wide open but I don't have a problem with the bokeh on the 35 Lux FLE. If I were obsessed with bokeh and shooting wide open I would have kept my Canon 200 2L. And I do have the Voigt 50 1.2 Nokton. Nice glow with that wide open.
They have a very different draw. The Leica has a classic structured rendering at transition zone with noticeable outlining but on the other hand, it has lower optical vignetting which means less swirl. Personally I like the Leica's character but can see how many will prefer the Voigtlander 35/1.5 Nokton's less distracting gaussian draw. At close distance, transition zone is not part of the background so both lenses offer smooth rendering from blur.
I see what you are getting. Just any 35 wouldn't be my choice if bokeh was my end goal. And if I really wanted a more vintage look or smoother bokeh from a 35 I would pick up a Leica Lux SR.
airfrogusmc wrote:
I actually don't think the bokeh is all that harsh on the 35 Lux FLE. But for me the way it handles on an M body is for sure more important than sharpness for me. I don't shoot that much wide open but I don't have a problem with the bokeh on the 35 Lux FLE. If I were obsessed with bokeh and shooting wide open I would have kept my Canon 200 2L. And I do have the Voigt 50 1.2 Nokton. Nice glow with that wide open.
I like these photos and your b/w processing, but you’re not going to see much bokeh wise in these—looks like they are WO with focus point near and easy backgrounds. Put multi-layered structure, challenging transition zones, shoot at mid distance or have branches in decent light and you can see the real bokeh quality. For the record, I prefer the 35 Lux over the CV 35/1.5
nehemiahphoto wrote:
I like these photos and your b/w processing, but you’re not going to see much bokeh wise in these—looks like they are WO with focus point near and easy backgrounds. Put multi-layered structure, challenging transition zones, shoot at mid distance or have branches in decent light and you can see the real bokeh quality. For the record, I prefer the 35 Lux over the CV 35/1.5
Thanks. In the right situations I could get sketch bokeh from my 200 2L. I think as a photographer, and if pleasing bokeh is what one desires, it is the photographers knowledge of backgrounds, light and the limitations of his tools that is whats really important.
Different tools, different limits and thus different capabilities. We're spoilt in that there are so many options which offer us different brushes instead of a just one big roller.
airfrogusmc wrote:
Thanks. In the right situations I could get sketch bokeh from my 200 2L. I think as a photographer, and if pleasing bokeh is what one desires, it is the photographers knowledge of backgrounds, light and the limitations of his tools that is whats really important.
I agree--but you said the 35 Lux ASPH bokeh isn't harsh but you posted photos that wouldn't exhibit your point. Fred posted crops with noticeable outlining and some nissen bokeh. That's all. I don't like perfectly smooth bokeh either.
nehemiahphoto wrote:
I agree--but you said the 35 Lux ASPH bokeh isn't harsh but you posted photos that wouldn't exhibit your point. Fred posted crops with noticeable outlining and some nissen bokeh. That's all. I don't like perfectly smooth bokeh either.
This is what I said
"I actually don't think the bokeh is all that harsh on the 35 Lux FLE."
It's not, to me, objectionably harsh. And I purposely avoid those types of situations where it could be. Even when I had my 200 2L or with my 90 APO or my Voigt 50 1.2. I avoid including things that I might find objectionable. Just like I avoid other things because what one puts in the frame matters. And I am the one controlling my images.
I had the lux pre-fle and fle and if there was ever a point light source near the corner particularly if I wanted the shot to be in colour it was quite ugly. The pre-fle was slightly better, arguably because it had more aberrations when used up close which softened the bokeh.
I like that I won't have to worry about oof areas as much with this Voigtlander, much like my 35/1.4ZM.
Yes, indeed, we are spoiled/spoilt, with so many really good 35mm options. I was just looking at some of the images created with my Zeiss Distagon 1,4/35mm ZM, and could not find any with a displeasing background, that I could “blame” on the lens. I could fault the lens for being so large, but, really, I seem to like a lens that has some some amount of heft, to help steady the shot, and, especially if moving quickly about, and/or on uneven ground, a lens with some amount of gripping surface is less likely to be fumbled. I formed my opinion of what a Leica lens “should” be, in size and handling qualities, with the Summilux-M 50mm ASPH, which is not compact or light in weight.
I should stop looking at other 35mm lenses, unless, of course, I simply want to try a different paintbrush. I have certainly accumulated several 50mm paintbrushes…
