Note to Fred: I didn't see a review or image thread for this lens. If I missed it, please move my post to that thread.
I just got a great copy of this lens and took it out for a spin today with the M11P. Sunny afternoon on Fort Lauderdale beach where spring break is in full swing. Initial thoughts - when I nailed focus (most of the time), the images were sharper than I expected from this pre asph lens with a 1993 build date. And it lived up to its reputation for warm, rich but not overly saturated colors, kind of reminding me of beautiful SOOC color images from the M9 with the original Kodak sensor.
I intentionally shot everything at f4. This weekend I'm going back and will shoot wide open at f2 to see how it compares to my 35 steel rim reissue, however I'm based on everything I've read and seen, I expect it to be not as "dreamy" as the SRR at f1.4.
Here are a few samples from today's shoot. Minimal post processing, and I didn't touch the colors or use any presets.
bokeh test shots at f2. I need to compare them to my 35 SRR at f2, however I think they're more restrained with more bokeh outlining than my 35 SRR would be at f1.4.
I'm thinking I'll be using the cron 35 for street more than the 35 SRR, and using the 35 SRR when I'm looking for dreamy landscape. We'll see
It's has threads to accept E39 filters and that's a step up from the two piece hood and Series VII the earlier versions used. I have the Voigtlander copy and it's the lens I use the most.
For a number of years the only lens I owned was a 35 ASPH V1 which is a great lens but lacks the character of the earlier lenses.
Have fun with it and it certainly is a great lens for street photography!
Toss it on the M6 and test it out with some Portra 160.
madNbad wrote:
It's has threads to accept E39 filters and that's a step up from the two piece hood and Series VII the earlier versions used. I have the Voigtlander copy and it's the lens I use the most.
For a number of years the only lens I owned was a 35 ASPH V1 which is a great lens but lacks the character of the earlier lenses.
Have fun with it and it certainly is a great lens for street photography!
Toss it on the M6 and test it out with some Portra 160.
yes - I just got a B+H thin pro filter since the lens is so exposed even with the hood on it (which did snap on easily after putting on the filter). Good idea, I'll put it on my M6 and take it for a spin when I return to Asheville next month.
I've got a bunch of Ektar 100 that I need to use up. What's your take on that film versus the Portra 160?
I like Extar! It has a bit more pop than Portra. It's like using the discontinued Portra Vivid Color. I'm working my way through a bunch of Fujicolor 200. Last year Midwest Photo had a special and was selling 36 exposure 3 packs for about twenty dollars.
I seem to be the only person posting images with this lens. No one else has love for it??!
Here are a couple more wide open, first one shows the distinctive bokeh balls. I'm thinking outlining of bokeh balls is an acquired taste, one that I've definitely acquired. Other people, I guess not so much.
here's a comparison. The first of each subject is with the 35 SRR at f2, second is the cron 35/2 at f2. Only adjustments were exposure, and for each set, I copied the adjustments for the first image to the second image.
To my eyes, they're very similar - even colors. In other words, I think at f2, both lenses operate just about the same although in other images I posted above (without direct comparisons to the 35 SRR) I had a subjective thinking that the colors of the cron 35/2 were punchier than those of the 35 SRR.
Because I was shooting at f2 in order to compare apples to apples, I didn't shoot the 35 SRR at f1.4. Had I done so, the out of focus areas/bokeh at f1.4 would have been more smeary than that of the cron 35/2 at f2.
One big advantage of the cron 35/2 is that it's min focus distance is .7M versus the 1M min focus distance of the 35 SRR. And that's one of the reasons I'm more inclined to reach for the cron 35/2 over the 35 SRR.
I still love the 35 SRR because wide open I think it imparts a dreamier/yesteryear look than the cron 35/2, althought that look of the 35 SRR largely goes away when shooting the 35 SR at f2.
In terms of bokeh, aesthetically I prefer the outlined bokeh balls of the cron 35/2 compared to bokeh balls of the 35 SRR at f1.4.
Here's a project for you. Find a volunteer to pose in front of a background that has a variety of colors. Licenses plates would be good but something similar. A series with each lens between f2 to f4, An added bonus would be both in B&W and color.
You street pictures with the V4 are great. These examples are good but show off what the lenses can really do.
brick33308 wrote:
here's a comparison. The first of each subject is with the 35 SRR at f2, second is the cron 35/2 at f2. Only adjustments were exposure, and for each set, I copied the adjustments for the first image to the second image.
To my eyes, they're very similar - even colors. In other words, I think at f2, both lenses operate just about the same although in other images I posted above (without direct comparisons to the 35 SRR) I had a subjective thinking that the colors of the cron 35/2 were punchier than those of the 35 SRR.
Because I was shooting at f2 in order to compare apples to apples, I didn't shoot the 35 SRR at f1.4. Had I done so, the out of focus areas/bokeh at f1.4 would have been more smeary than that of the cron 35/2 at f2.
One big advantage of the cron 35/2 is that it's min focus distance is .7M versus the 1M min focus distance of the 35 SRR. And that's one of the reasons I'm more inclined to reach for the cron 35/2 over the 35 SRR.
I still love the 35 SRR because wide open I think it imparts a dreamier/yesteryear look than the cron 35/2, althought that look of the 35 SRR largely goes away when shooting the 35 SR at f2.
In terms of bokeh, aesthetically I prefer the outlined bokeh balls of the cron 35/2 compared to bokeh balls of the 35 SRR at f1.4.
Thanks for doing this, it's really rare to see side by side comparisons like this, and I’d say I agree with your assessment. At f/2, the overall look and rendering are very similar, even down to the shape of specular highlights. That's part of what makes the 35/1.4 pre-ASPH feel like two lenses in one.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Thanks for doing this, it's really rare to see side by side comparisons like this, and I’d say I agree with your assessment. At f/2, the overall look and rendering are very similar, even down to the shape of specular highlights. That's part of what makes the 35/1.4 pre-ASPH feel like two lenses in one.
agreed. that's the reason I love my 35 SRR. And it would have been the PERFECT lens had Leica given it a .7M min focus distance rather than its 1M min focus distance just to make it more like the pre asph version.
but no worries, I've got the 35 SRR at 1.4 for that creamy dreamy look that the cron 35 v4 doesn't quite have, and I've got the cron 35 v4 for its .7M min focus for those special environmental portraits. And of course both lenses are tiny and light weight which to me is everything.
brick33308 wrote:
agreed. that's the reason I love my 35 SRR. And it would have been the PERFECT lens had Leica given it a .7M min focus distance rather than its 1M min focus distance just to make it more like the pre asph version.
but no worries, I've got the 35 SRR at 1.4 for that creamy dreamy look that the cron 35 v4 doesn't quite have, and I've got the cron 35 v4 for its .7M min focus for those special environmental portraits. And of course both lenses are tiny and light weight which to me is everything.
Absolutely, the difference between 0.7m and 1m is very noticeable when focusing up close, and if you're happy with the f/2 look and speed, that is definitely something to consider.
I've always wanted my 35/1.4 SR 'reissue' to focus closer than 1m, so I modified it to reach 0.75m, which is quite close to 0.7m. I also shoot with a German version of the Leica 35mm f/1.4 pre-asph that now focuses down to 0.62m, which is the limit of Leica M rangefinder coupling. That's also a noticeable difference compared to my SR when it comes to close focusing. So when I want the closest possible distance with RF coupling, I just use that 0.62m hard stop.
These girls were the ones responsible for the 0.62m project.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Absolutely, the difference between 0.7m and 1m is very noticeable when focusing up close, and if you're happy with the f/2 look and speed, that is definitely something to consider.
I've always wanted my 35/1.4 SR 'reissue' to focus closer than 1m, so I modified it to reach 0.75m, which is quite close to 0.7m. I also shoot with a German version of the Leica 35mm f/1.4 pre-asph that now focuses down to 0.62m, which is the limit of Leica M rangefinder coupling. That's also a noticeable difference compared to my SR when it comes to close focusing. So when I want the closest possible distance with RF coupling, I just use that 0.62m hard stop.
These girls were the ones responsible for the 0.62m project. ...Show more →
brick33308 wrote:
some more with the cron 35 pre asph v4 shot this morning. Some wide open, others at f16 so that I could walk around using it as a point and shoot.
The nicknames originally came from photographers, but Leica has picked up on them as well. They even refer to those two lenses you enjoy as the "King of Bokeh" and the "true" King of Bokeh.
You're definitely well served!
On a side note, it does feel like many newer Leica lenses lean toward a more abstract, less imperfect bokeh, which seems to be the direction these days, even if it drifts a bit from what was once considered "royal".
The term "King of Bokeh" has been around for a few decades (before digital) but I never saw the justification. It's a pretty ordinary lens that happens to occupy the sweet spot for Leica M (35mm). I own it and prefer the prior v3 for the haptics and cleaner DOF scale. The additional element of the v4 seems to have no detectable effect.
