Wonderful, intelligent and informative testing Fred. Thank you!
I looked at each set blindly, not look at the Exif till after I judged the images. For each, I took some notes like this.
Scene 1:
I prefer the blur quantity and quality of pic 2
I prefer the lower contrast and softer nature of pic 2
I prefer the SA off and on axis of pic 2
I prefer the decreased DOF in pic 2
I dislike the slight swirl of pic 2 and prefer pic 1 in that sense
I prefer image 3 last in nearly all ways
It appears that image 2 has a bit more FC than image 1 and 3 which I dislike.
I prefer the less on axis clarity of image 2.
Pictures 1 and 3 have better LoCal correction for my preference.
Overall, I had a strong preference for image 2, then 1 and distantly image 3. This ended up meaning I pretty easily preferred the Apollon for this scene.
I thought in a blind comp for myself, I would have preferred the SR over the Apollon. There was little differences in my preferences across scenes, but the trend of strongly preferring the Apollon continued. I do prefer the SR colors though from what I can tell, and I would probably enjoy them even more in post. I do like the wider FOV of the LLL though.
I am impressed--the Apollon did better than I thought it would. I have been trying to get my hands on one for a while--too bad they are so hard to find. This is the lens I was hoping the MS-Optics Apoqualia would be--but that lens had less SA and drew a bit more modern than the Apollon or 35 Lux Pre-ASPH.
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Wonderful, intelligent and informative testing Fred. Thank you!
I looked at each set blindly, not look at the Exif till after I judged the images. For each, I took some notes like this.
Scene 1:
I prefer the blur quantity and quality of pic 2
I prefer the lower contrast and softer nature of pic 2
I prefer the SA off and on axis of pic 2
I prefer the decreased DOF in pic 2
I dislike the slight swirl of pic 2 and prefer pic 1 in that sense
I prefer image 3 last in nearly all ways
It appears that image 2 has a bit more FC than image 1 and 3 which I dislike.
I prefer the less on axis clarity of image 2.
Pictures 1 and 3 have better LoCal correction for my preference.
Overall, I had a strong preference for image 2, then 1 and distantly image 3. This ended up meaning I pretty easily preferred the Apollon for this scene.
I thought in a blind comp for myself, I would have preferred the SR over the Apollon. There was little differences in my preferences across scenes, but the trend of strongly preferring the Apollon continued. I do prefer the SR colors though from what I can tell, and I would probably enjoy them even more in post. I do like the wider FOV of the LLL though.
I am impressed--the Apollon did better than I thought it would. I have been trying to get my hands on one for a while--too bad they are so hard to find. This is the lens I was hoping the MS-Optics Apoqualia would be--but that lens had less SA and drew a bit more modern than the Apollon or 35 Lux Pre-ASPH. ...Show more →
That's a fantastic way to examine this! I agree with your discoveries. When it comes to the lenses, the Apollon is incredibly lightweight compared to the other lenses. (I've added pictures of the lenses without their hoods in the first post)
The Apollon only weighs 70 grams, while the Steel Rim weighs 214 grams. (That's three times more!). The Apollon's hood is also as light as a feather.
The Voigtlander lens is undoubtedly the most well-corrected among them, and many people may appreciate this quality. Additionally, it has the least optical vignetting.
Well. This comes at the perfect time. I just bought the VL 35f1.4 II and was wondering about it vs the 8E LLL.
Hard to beat the Voigtlander. What a lens. And it only cost me $200 with my Ultron trade. Based on this I think I’ll keep it for now until I can get a Summicron.
I have the single coat version so it cuts down a bit on that contrast. Voigtlander tends to be quite contrasty so I would recommend the SC versions for people who want to avoid too much of it.
Well. This comes at the perfect time. I just bought the VL 35f1.4 II and was wondering about it vs the 8E LLL.
Hard to beat the Voigtlander. What a lens. And it only cost me $200 with my Ultron trade. Based on this I think I’ll keep it for now until I can get a Summicron.
I have the single coat version so it cuts down a bit on that contrast. Voigtlander tends to be quite contrasty so I would recommend the SC versions for people who want to avoid too much of it.
I don't notice a significant contrast difference between single-coated and multi-coated versions of the CV 35/1.4 II lens, except when shooting against strong light where veiling flare can become more noticeable in the SC version. However, this occurs only in specific situations.
All these lenses exhibit a similar classic rendering, but upon closer analysis, they still have distinctive characteristics in their draw.
Fred Miranda wrote:
That's a fantastic way to examine this! I agree with your discoveries. When it comes to the lenses, the Apollon is incredibly lightweight compared to the other lenses. (I've added pictures of the lenses without their hoods in the first post)
The Apollon only weighs 71 grams, while the Steel Rim weighs 214 grams. (That's three times more!). The Apollon's hood is also as light as a feather.
The Voigtlander lens is undoubtedly the most well-corrected among them, and many people may appreciate this quality. Additionally, it has the least optical vignetting.
Despite I don't like the images as much, the CV does offer some very real advantages--cheaper, easy to find, great build, still in production, SC or MC option, and some are going to like the higher degree of correction. Character lenses are funny things--it's really if you like it or you don't, and if not don't bother. I don't see much of a rhyme or reason for preference. We don't buy these types any degree of correction. It's just really about the aesthetic of the image. I see all these lenses as being somewhat similar, but also fairly distinct.
I know I like my 35 Lux Pre-ASPH better than the SR, but that Apollon does look interesting to me. And the 0.3 MFD is a huge differentiator to my mind. Two questions about the Apollon though.
1) What's the performance on a Leica vs Sony sensor stack? The 35 Apoqualia was one of the few RF 35mm's that performed well on both.
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Despite I don't like the images as much, the CV does offer some very real advantages--cheaper, easy to find, great build, still in production, SC or MC option, and some are going to like the higher degree of correction. Character lenses are funny things--it's really if you like it or you don't, and if not don't bother. I don't see much of a rhyme or reason for preference. We don't buy these types any degree of correction. It's just really about the aesthetic of the image. I see all these lenses as being somewhat similar, but also fairly distinct.
I know I like my 35 Lux Pre-ASPH better than the SR, but that Apollon does look interesting to me. And the 0.3 MFD is a huge differentiator to my mind. Two questions about the Apollon though.
1) What's the performance on a Leica vs Sony sensor stack? The 35 Apoqualia was one of the few RF 35mm's that performed well on both.
The great thing about MS Optics lenses is that they work well with Sony cameras. There are some differences because the sensor stack is thicker, but they are not as noticeable compared to Leica and Voigtlander M lenses. Yes, they perform excellently on the TAP2. I use them on my Sony A9. The only MS Optics lens that requires a modification to work on the TAP2 is the Aporia 24/2, but all you need to do is unscrew the tab stick.
Great showcase here! It think it really goes to show that for a character 35mm, you really don't have to spend the money if you don't want to! All 3 are good options!
Its funny though, in the picture with the 40 on the mailbox wide open, you called out your preference for the Voigt, I would be the opposite and go the SR. The Voigt just looks to harsh for my eyes there. Again though picking hairs.
What I did notice though is the LLL 35 didn't really bring anything to the table for me. Its slower, and didn't really show anything special that the other 3 lenses couldn't. At the price point, the Voigt would be a much better option IMO.
Very interesting comparison! I have the 36/1.3 Apollon and also CV 35/1.4 Nokton classic (E-mount version). I also have MS-Optics Apoqualia 35/1.3 Slim II which would also qualify as a character lens, but since I got the Apollon I haven't used that one very much as Apollon beats it in a few important areas. I'd also count Kistar 40/2.4 as a character lens that would also make for an interesting comparison with these (I have the original E-mount version but nowadays there is also an M-mount version available with same optics).
I liked the results of Apollon pretty much in these comparisons overall and it helps that it works well on Sony, and I really like the tiny size, low weight and close-focusing capabilities. Leica results were also pretty consistent and pleasing. CV was a bit up and down, in some cases I liked CV results among the best but sometimes they were also near the bottom. I also didn't find anything especially appealing on the LLL results. I haven't bought any of the LLL lenses personally as they tend to be more expensive than CV and MS-Optics lenses in Japan, probably somewhat due to weak yen.
Anyway, it was very nice to see how these compare side-by-side.
I also tend to prefer the MS-Optics over the other lenses, the rendering is quite to my liking, I really wish those lenses were more easily available. I was wondering if the Single Coated version of the Voigtlander might give it an edge in the comparison. I don’t know exactly how the coating impact the output but what I find lacking in the CV rendering in this comparison is the less warm tones and the higher contrast that does not play in its favor. Maybe the SC version with less contrast may gain more bouncing light in the shadows and less cooler tones.
I would also be curious to see some comparisons with the CV 40mm 1.4, I guess it has been already compared to the CV 35mm on the forum?
Juha Kannisto wrote:
Very interesting comparison! I have the 36/1.3 Apollon and also CV 35/1.4 Nokton classic (E-mount version). I also have MS-Optics Apoqualia 35/1.3 Slim II which would also qualify as a character lens, but since I got the Apollon I haven't used that one very much as Apollon beats it in a few important areas. I'd also count Kistar 40/2.4 as a character lens that would also make for an interesting comparison with these (I have the original E-mount version but nowadays there is also an M-mount version available with same optics).
I liked the results of Apollon pretty much in these comparisons overall and it helps that it works well on Sony, and I really like the tiny size, low weight and close-focusing capabilities. Leica results were also pretty consistent and pleasing. CV was a bit up and down, in some cases I liked CV results among the best but sometimes they were also near the bottom. I also didn't find anything especially appealing on the LLL results. I haven't bought any of the LLL lenses personally as they tend to be more expensive than CV and MS-Optics lenses in Japan, probably somewhat due to weak yen.
Anyway, it was very nice to see how these compare side-by-side....Show more →
Thank you for sharing your insights on this lens comparison, Juha. You have hands-on experience with most of these lenses and can discern the variations in image rendering.
In my perspective, the primary distinction lies in the size and weight of the Apollon 36/1.3 lens. It's incredibly lightweight at just 70 grams, and it maintains its compact form even with the lens hood attached. Another lens that stands out to me is the Steel Rim, which offers a slightly higher contrast than the pre-asph v2 but retains some uncorrected characteristics. All of these lenses are high performers when stopped down to f/2, and particularly at f/2.8. So, dual personality.
The LLL 35/2 8-Element is the sharpest lens and has unique field curvature. I like its character too but it's heavy (all brass) for a 35/2 lens. It's about the same price as the Apollon here in the US.
However, considering the price point, a used CV 35/1.4 II Nokton lens could be an excellent choice for most photographers. It also adapts well to mirrorless cameras, including those with Fuji APS-C sensors. In fact, its image rendering is remarkably similar to that of the native Voigtlander 35/1.2 Nokton X-mount lens. I'll be posting a detailed comparison in an upcoming review.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Thank you for sharing your insights on this lens comparison, Juha. You have hands-on experience with most of these lenses and can discern the variations in image rendering.
In my perspective, the primary distinction lies in the size and weight of the Apollon 36/1.3 lens. It's incredibly lightweight at just 70 grams, and it maintains its compact form even with the lens hood attached. Another lens that stands out to me is the Steel Rim, which offers a slightly higher contrast than the pre-asph v2 but retains some uncorrected characteristics. All of these lenses are high performers when stopped down to f/2, and particularly at f/2.8. So, dual personality.
The LLL 35/2 8-Element is the sharpest lens and has unique field curvature. I like its character too but it's heavy (all brass) for a 35/2 lens. It's about the same price as the Apollon here in the US.
However, considering the price point, a used CV 35/1.4 II Nokton lens could be an excellent choice for most photographers. It also adapts well to mirrorless cameras, including those with Fuji APS-C sensors. In fact, its image rendering is remarkably similar to that of the native Voigtlander 35/1.2 Nokton X-mount lens. I'll be posting a detailed comparison in an upcoming review....Show more →
Thanks Fred! Yeah, I've seen some FujiFilm YouTube video where FujiFilm representative interviewed Cosina representatives and they talked about Cosina's lenses for Fuji X and it was mentioned by Cosina that 35/1.4 Nokton classic was used as a base for design of 35/1.2 for X.
I think it was this one, related discussion is from 7min 30s or so (in Japanese):
?si=-OoSZNVB2Y3lP7vw
2nd video in the same series:
?si=kiCL1O_uotlsYme6
Will be looking forward to the comparison! I'm also planning to buy the X-mount 35/1.2 sooner or later.
Juha Kannisto wrote:
Thanks Fred! Yeah, I've seen some FujiFilm YouTube video where FujiFilm representative interviewed Cosina representatives and they talked about Cosina's lenses for Fuji X and it was mentioned by Cosina that 35/1.4 Nokton classic was used as a base for design of 35/1.2 for X.
I think it was this one, related discussion is from 7min 30s or so (in Japanese):
?si=-OoSZNVB2Y3lP7vw
2nd video in the same series:
?si=kiCL1O_uotlsYme6
Will be looking forward to the comparison! I'm also planning to buy the X-mount 35/1.2 sooner or later.
Thanks for sharing those links! I do wish there was an English translation available, but from what I gathered, they discussed the CV 35/1.2 X-mount's resemblance to the CV 35/1.4 II M-mount. I noticed this when comparing their image rendering. Interestingly, they also brought up the XF 35/1.4, which happens to be my preferred Fuji autofocus lens. I'm considering comparing all three lenses.
By the way, I did a comparison today, and one of the benefits of the 35mm f/1.2 X lens is that when you use it at f/1.4, it produces a slightly smoother image compared to when it's wide open. At f/1.2, it closely resembles the rendering of the 35mm f/1.4 Classic lens.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I don't notice a significant contrast difference between single-coated and multi-coated versions of the CV 35/1.4 II lens, except when shooting against strong light where veiling flare can become more noticeable in the SC version. However, this occurs only in specific situations.
All these lenses exhibit a similar classic rendering, but upon closer analysis, they still have distinctive characteristics in their draw.
Yea I’ve seen comparisons SC vs MC for this particular lens and out in the sun is when you see the differences more. If flare doesn’t come in they’re nearly identical. Maybe sometimes the colors are a bit different. Hard to go outside and keep everything exactly the same if it’s not a controlled environment.
The Ultron II though was a lot of contrast all the time to the point of being ugly for me. Other people like that but I got so used to my 50 Summicron is stuck out like a sore thumb. So I appreciate the softness more gentle rendering of the Nokton.
Here’s a question. What’s your verdict as far as barrel distortion Nokton vs Steel Rim vs LLL 8E? If you were to rank them from least barrel distortion to most.
Fred Miranda wrote:
The great thing about MS Optics lenses is that they work well with Sony cameras. There are some differences because the sensor stack is thicker, but they are not as noticeable compared to Leica and Voigtlander M lenses. I use them on my Sony A9.
Thanks for that insight. As a Sony user it bodes well for me. And thank you for the all the examples to mull over. I preferred the Apollon in every set though I did like the OG Summicron often. The others were too well-corrected. It's one of the issues I have with LLL, the lenses always seem too polite in that regard. I shoot Voigtlander APOs on my A7RIV and am interested in something that provides "la differance" to the usual.
Fred Miranda wrote:
MS Optics lenses are optimized for the Leica M but most of the ones I tested seem to perform better on cameras with thicker sensor stacks, such as Sony cameras, compared to other M lenses, where I notice a noticeable increase in FC.
Even better for me, that is, assuming I can find one.
I tested this very thing at typical distance on a modded versus Sony stock sensor. I wish the other manufacture's would do this for fast RF 35mm's
Thanks for pointing that out. That's helpful. I contacted MK-Direct whether they would be producing more and they sent me to MS-Optics. I sent them an email so we'll see.
