Steve Spencer
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.2 #14 · Thypoch Simera 75mm f/1.4 ASPH. Review | |
nehemiahphoto wrote:
@Steve Spencer@
As usual, good thoughts Steve. We aren't going to quite agree but that is no issue. From owning the 50 and 35, they didn't feel very similar to me. The 50 felt higher contrast and much better resolution and resolution distrubution, with better close up performance, and appreciably better axial CA control and pretty smooth bokeh. I think the first things we notice in lenses tends to be contrast, resolution and bokeh. So in the aspects that largely give the lens it's feel, I think the 50 and 35 different.
If properties are egregious, like a ton of LoCal or pronounced field curvature, then that gets noticed (CV 50/1). I have only played with some RAW files on the 28. It felt smoother and higher contrast than the 35 and significantly better resolution-wise. Essentially a lot closer to the 50. I'll try one at some point--I'd still like to know if the e-mount version is actually optimized for e-mount before I buy. Tired of having to buy and test these. I am also not to happy about Bastian's report the 28/1.4 has all sorts of flare--the 35, 50 and 75 all seem to do better in this regard. Tons of flare in wides is really annoying often.
But focus transitions do seem pretty smooth across lenses--I hadn't considered that as a common trait.
Similar coma, low and optically corrected distortion are similar. But then again, those are very secondary characteristics (don't really distract from a photo except in specific use cases like astro/point light sources at night or architecture). I can't remember many reasonably sized 35 and 50 1.4 options for RF's that really have a lot of distortion (not the CV 35/2, 35/1.7, ZM 35/1.4 or CV 35/1.2 or CV 35/1.5 or FLE). That seems to more for AF lenses trying to downsize generally--like a FE 28 or Q28 Lux.
Anyway, I understand the attraction of the lenses for many--viable alternatives to CV and Leica's sky-high prices. I think by Thypoch essentially copying proven winners with the 35, 50 and 75 lenses, they know they have a product that is proven. And they can market these as a real Leica alternatives with some features that people are going to prefer--rounded aperture blades, reasonable prices and lower contrast (though I think leaning into lower contrasts and calling it cinema is actually probably cause they can't/or it's quite a bit harder to make these lenses with high-microcontrast WO) that's a lower risk and high reward proposition.
I don't like modern draws as much as many--meaning I won't pony up for Leica's used prices on the FLE and 50 Lux. So, these Simeras are attractive to me too. But really, how we define "similar" and "feels" and what not is very idiosyncratic. and given they were all from the same manufacture at the same time, the colors and contrast are going to make the lenses feel very similar in that way compared to other lenses....Show more →
I think we like some of the same things but also have our different preferences. Personally, for portraits I like moderately high contrast and micro contrast from lenses wide open. I could even define moderately as about 60% contrast at 40 lp/mm when measured (not theoretical) with MTF. Lenses I like with this sort of moderately high contrast include the Zeiss ZM 35 f/1.4, Zeiss 135 f/2 APO, Zeiss Otus 28 f/1.4, Zeiss Otus 55 f/1.4, Sony 24 f/1.4 GM, the Sony 85 f/1.4 GM (version 1), the Leica M 50 f/1.4 Asph, and I think the CV 75 f/1.5 fits here as well. These are all sharp lenses and I like sharpness.
That said for portraits I find some lenses have too much microcontrast and I see that when at 40 lp/mm the contrast approaches 80%. Lens that fit this category include all the CV f/2 APO lenses, the Sony 135 f/1.8 GM, the Sony 35 f/1.4 GM, the new Sony 85 f/1.4 GM (II), and the Zeiss Loxia 85 f/2.4. I haven't used them, but I suspect the Zeiss Otus 100 f/1.4 and the Leica L cron APO lenses would be too sharp for my portrait tastes as well.
Don't get me wrong, however, for other types of shooting (landscapes, architecture, many nature shots) I really like the super sharp lenses. I think the CV APO lenses are fantastic and I look forward to the new 28 f/2 APO Lanthar.
And in contrast, I also for a different look sometimes like some portraits with lower microcontrast with something around 40% or even 30% contrast at 40 lp/mm. Lenses that fit this bill include the Leica R 80 f/1.4, the Minolta Rockor 58 f/1.2, the ZE 35 f/1.4. Particularly when the magnification is lower or shots are downsized (especially from a bigger sensor), then I can really like these sorts of portraits too. Part of what I like about the CV f/1.2 Noktons is that you get this sort of look at f/1.2, but a nice higher contrast look to f/2 or f/2.8.
Where does this leave us in thinking about the Thypoch 75 f/1.4. I think it will be a nice portrait lens, or at least it looks like that so far. Wide open it looks like it will be a lower contrast type of look and stopped down to f/2.8 a higher contrast type of look. Compared to the CV 75, it will have 3 notable advantages: 1) it has a nice rounded 16 blade aperture; 2) it has a FLE and will probably have better close focus performance because of it; 3) from Fred's test it seems to have a flatter field of focus. That said, for my tastes I prefer the higher contrast look most of the time of the CV and I especially appreciate that stopped down the CV gets quite close to the extremely high contrast look that I like from the CV APO lenses, which would be nice for landscapes and architecture (I don't think the Thypoch will ever get close to that look). So, I think both lenses are interesting and have their pluses and minuses. I am interested to see more how they compare in Fred's tests.
Edited on Mar 20, 2025 at 08:32 AM · View previous versions
|
