Damn, it looks like the VM has more color punch than the FLE in some scene. Gotta see more user samples. I like that the FLE is sharp wide open making 1.4 landscape possible, but the size of the VM is unbeatable...
thrice wrote:
Maybe I'm a traditionalist but I'm not shooting any landscapes at f1.4 😳
Night scape on M240 is pretty much needed, and I don't carry tripod...I have no problem shooting f2 on my 35 summicron asph, good enough just wished I have faster shutter speed or lower ISO.
Do you have a link to these nightscapes shot handheld at f/2 on an M? I shoot mine either with a tripod then stack for DR and exposure or on an equatorial mount but I'd love to see good results be possible at f/2 on an M.
jeffersoncasey wrote:
Night scape on M240 is pretty much needed, and I don't carry tripod...I have no problem shooting f2 on my 35 summicron asph, good enough just wished I have faster shutter speed or lower ISO.
airfrogusmc wrote:
... I purposely avoid those types of situations where it could be. ...
If there are situations where it could be harsh then it is harsh, in those situations.
Unfortunately, people coming to comparison opinion pieces aren't likely to know how hard light or specular point sources are going to affect images. It takes a certain level of creativity and talent and years of practice to develop those skills.
The discussion should really be about the light, always the light... You choose your tools and use them, according to the light.
mapgraphs wrote:
If there are situations where it could be harsh then it is harsh, in those situations.
Unfortunately, people coming to comparison opinion pieces aren't likely to know how hard light or specular point sources are going to affect images. It takes a certain level of creativity and talent and years of practice to develop those skills.
The discussion should really be about the light, always the light... You choose your tools and use them, according to the light.
mapgraphs wrote:
Unfortunately, people coming to comparison opinion pieces aren't likely to know how hard light or specular point sources are going to affect images. It takes a certain level of creativity and talent and years of practice to develop those skills.
What are you basing this assumption of the knowledge and skill of other forum participants on?
And does that include yourself and @airfrogusmc@ since, ya know, you're both here in this comparison piece.
I will never tire of people who engage and comment on gear forums to express how it's not about gear and those analysing and discussing gear are doing it wrong. Like everyone who wants to assess gear somehow doesn't know it won't make their photography better.
I can't speak for Alan but I base that generalized comment on what I see posted and discussed, over and over and over and over again. My observations, my bad.
I'll say it again, if bokeh were the reason I was making a photograph I would use something that was more in line with that like say a 200 2L. But thats me. The 35 1.5 looks like a fine lens. It is nice to have so mnay choices. We can't all prefer the same things but I have had no issues using hte 35 Lux FLE. But again I don't use any lens, if bokeh is important, in situations where it doesn't play to the strength of the tool I am using.
We get it, you think no one should consider the importance of bokeh in a 35mm. That's fine, you've shared your subjective opinion on it 👍
airfrogusmc wrote:
I'll say it again, if bokeh were the reason I was making a photograph I would use something that was more in line with that like say a 200 2L. But thats me. The 35 1.5 looks like a fine lens. It is nice to have so mnay choices. We can't all prefer the same things but I have had no issues using hte 35 Lux FLE. But again I don't use any lens, if bokeh is important, in situations where it doesn't play to the strength of the tool I am using.
My apologies, your persistence every time someone shared a different perspective made me think you wanted to impress yours upon others. Ok well, you do you then mate.
airfrogusmc wrote:
Did you read my post? I never said no one I said I...BIg difference.
You legend, that looks great.
I'll have to dust off the printer.
qiu0717 wrote:
Made this ollux style hood for this lens. Looking more streamlined. It also hide some length of the lens in the hood and make it seem shorter.
qiu0717 wrote:
Made this ollux style hood for this lens. Looking more streamlined. It also hide some length of the lens in the hood and make it seem shorter.
Any chance of just making black trim rings if you don’t want to use a hood? I got a cv 35 1.4 v2 and a Distagon zm 35 1.4 that would be very interested…
I was thinking about making that rim as well. Voigtlander has too many "Steel rim" and it sometimes looks distracting,.
Desmolicious wrote:
That is fantastic!
Love the aperture cut out.
Any chance of just making black trim rings if you don’t want to use a hood? I got a cv 35 1.4 v2 and a Distagon zm 35 1.4 that would be very interested…
qiu0717 wrote:
I was thinking about making that rim as well. Voigtlander has too many "Steel rim" and it sometimes looks distracting,.
I think it may be a bigger seller than the hood. Because some people like to go w/o the hood, but these lenses w/o the hood look unfinished due to the shiny chrome ring.
p10. #16, that's a great idea, especially the genius cutout. Luckily, CV thought better of the distracting bright rings for their Sony releases, but they sure proliferate in the VMs. They even toned the page banner to remove the appearance of them:
