RoamingScott wrote:
I would HIGHLY doubt they are optimizing for anything but M, if that
They are shipping what look to be their own adapters to other mounts with review copies, and the odds you get a perfectly gapped adapter is very slim.
Oh, I know. That was sarcasm. It’s just funny because it’s an APO lens where you were paying, usually, for some higher degree of optical perfection. Between the QC and sensor stacks! At least there is a magnet.
RoamingScott wrote:
I would HIGHLY doubt they are optimizing for anything but M, if that
They are shipping what look to be their own adapters to other mounts with review copies, and the odds you get a perfectly gapped adapter is very slim.
Oh, I know. That was sarcasm. It’s just funny because it’s an APO lens where you were paying, usually, for some higher degree of optical perfection. Between the QC and sensor stacks! At least there is a magnet.
Struggling to decide it this fills any gap or need for me. I've paid the $10 reserve fee just in case, but I suspect I may pass. The Color Skopar 35/3.5 is my goto for super small, the Ultron 35/2 for everyday, and if I want "fast" then it's the Nokton 35/1.2. Ok, the 30cm focusing vs the 50cm of the Nokton might be handy, but overall this sits a bit to "in between" - unless it's a stellar performer of course!
RoamingScott wrote:
I just got an email offering one for review, so I'd expect to see more impressions around the web soon.
Did someone else receive an email from a third party marketing company based in China which asked if willing to test this lens and asking for additional shipment information? I was also contacted and verified the sender of the email who confirmed that it would be a free sample and could also be kept after the review is written. I provided the info and never heard back even after I asked about the next steps and if the sample was sent. Did anyone made similar or different experience here?
retrofocus wrote:
Did someone else receive an email from a third party marketing company based in China which asked if willing to test this lens and asking for additional shipment information? I was also contacted and verified the sender of the email who confirmed that it would be a free sample and could also be kept after the review is written. I provided the info and never heard back even after I asked about the next steps and if the sample was sent. Did anyone made similar or different experience here?
Same. I emailed them yesterday as a followup, crickets. Was your contact "Evan"?
RoamingScott wrote:
Yeah. I think they are legit, I just think it's typical overseas bad communication.
edit: after looking into the domain, QQ is like China's google, and the agent.QQ part is reserved for AI agents. We've probably been talking to AI
I don't think so because after the first contact with "Evan", I asked specific questions about modalities of this shipment and potential cost associated, and the response was prompt and directly answering all my questions - unlikely this was AI even I wouldn't fully exclude it either. Possible that a bunch of potential reviewers were collected and will be now "evaluated" who gets the cut depending on answers provided (review time, way of reviewing etc). Also possible in the best case they already are in the process of sending it but didn't further bother to provide information when asked (which would be weird I know).
Since they contacted us I don't think it was just spam - they seem to really target photographers.
Definitely gonna be reading any reviews carefully on this one. Interestingly, if it's a modern/sharp rendition then it could be my Ultron which suddenly looks redundant. I have "characterful" covered with the Nokton and small with the Color Skopars. But the role where the Ultron sits is the one most at risk if this is good.
DevonRob wrote:
Definitely gonna be reading any reviews carefully on this one. Interestingly, if it's a modern/sharp rendition then it could be my Ultron which suddenly looks redundant. I have "characterful" covered with the Nokton and small with the Color Skopars. But the role where the Ultron sits is the one most at risk if this is good.
If I ever get a copy of this lens to test (see conversation above), I also plan to compare it to the CV 35/2.0 Version I which I own.
retrofocus wrote:
If I ever get a copy of this lens to test (see conversation above), I also plan to compare it to the CV 35/2.0 Version I which I own.
Cool. Yeah, I turn to the Ultron 35 f/2 when I want small(ish) and sharp with more modern rendition. So if this were also small(ish), sharp, and close focusing then it'd be a possible contender in that space.
ftllens wrote:
I can't remember for the life of me! But maybe Juha can chime in if he remembers!
Unfortunately I don't remember either... As I only ever use M-mount lenses adapted on mirrorless and never on a rangefinder camera, I don't personally need those detents and I don't usually pay much attention to them. I don't have any memories of there being one but can't say for sure.
“Thank you for your interest in our upcoming 35mm f/1.7 APO lens.
Yes, it does. When the focusing ring reaches the 0.7m rangefinder focusing limit, there is a slight tactile click/stop, allowing you to easily feel when you have reached the rangefinder's focusing limit.
We hope this helps. If you have any other questions about the lens, please feel free to contact us.
I like the detents a lot on those of my M-mount lenses that have it.
Reasons: they often indicate where image quality can be really good for the established base of M cameras as well as for MILCs, FLE or not.
They are a 'ready reference' for focus ring location, subject distance, and are useful for setting up bokeh shots.
They enhance utility for users who you may sell the lens to later on, who will appreciate the time-saving detents offer in short focus optics.
And they are a user-oriented natty adjunct, an always welcome feature that builds trust in the maker.
From Matt Osborne re the Simera 35mm: 'you have a soft stop at 0.7m. Perfect for rangefinder camera users, especially Leica M film cameras. (The soft stop bump prevents accidental mis-focusing when the rangefinder disengages below 0.7m).'
