As seen in the resolution and contrast tests at infinity, the Thypoch Ksana 35mm f/2 Aspherical delivers very strong center performance, but away from the center, especially in the corners, performance drops as the focal plane shifts and the outer regions fall slightly out of focus. Interestingly, this behavior is not present when the lens is adapted to a Sony body with a thicker sensor stack, which suggests it is optimized for mirrorless systems rather than its native M mount implementation.
When analyzing the field curvature shape, particularly at longer distances, the curvature becomes more inward when tested on the Leica, while it appears more neutral on the Sony. This difference aligns with the performance variations noted earlier.
Below are the field curvature patterns for the Ksana 35mm f/2 at f/2, from close focus to long distance, first on the Leica M10-R and then on the Sony A7R II.
Most 35mm lenses tend to show some degree of barrel distortion depending on their optical design, but that's not the case with the Thypoch 35mm f/2 Aspherical. Straight out of the camera, distortion is virtually nonexistent. I didn't need to apply any correction in Lightroom, which shows how well-controlled this lens really is. Distortion correction is definitely one of its standout strengths, especially given its wide angle of view and compact form.
The only real drawback I have seen is the noticeable vignetting, which is understandable given the lens's small size. But considering the overall performance, that feels like a reasonable trade-off.
No correction needed.
LEICA M10-RThypoch Ksana 35mm f/2 Aspherical lens35mm1/200s100 ISO0.0 EV
wolfloid wrote:
Why, in the midfield comparison with the CV f2 is the foreground bush so much sharper in the Typoch images at f2 and f2.8?
What is this? Field curvature? Mis-focus?
Given the field curvature results Fred posted, it appears to be field curvature. Interestingly, it seems you would get that on Leica but not on a Sony camera.
May 21, 2026 at 05:41 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
nehemiahphoto wrote:
But I think with Thypoch’s thinking, they have slyly again not added contacts and kept production manufacturing lower because M Mount lenses don’t use contacts. Users expect contacts from E or Z or L or E native lenses—but not adapted m-mount lenses. They also cut costs by not having to release lenses in different mounts with different body housing like CV.
And yes, we have the Loxia 35/2 and Septon 40/2, both of which I prefer so far to this new Ksana 35/2, but both are stuck to e- amount. Or E and Z if adapting. With RF, L and M out of the equation, that’s a lot of the market pie Thypoch is cutting themselves out of.
And you are right—I do like even smaller lenses than you do. I mostly use small lenses even by rangefinder standards to the point where I accept some considerable trade offs. And I’m with you too, I can’t say I like a lot of their design choices. I think with each release, it is becoming apparent that they are more than budget option but also not super serious/sophisticated. Their new 24-50 underscores this again. Good lens for a moderate amount of money with compromises....Show more →
I totally agree with your reasoning here and might add that for people who want to use a lens on both Leica M mount cameras and mirrorless cameras without modifying the mirrorless camera Thypoch might be a really interesting compromise. It isn't optimized to either Leica M or mirrorless but it isn't totally compromised for either as well. Personally, I would rather have mirrorless lenses optimized to mirrorless and Leica M lenses optimized for Leica M, but particularly if you shoot mirrorless as your primary system adapting the Thypoch lenses might be preferred to adapting Leica M lenses. So the mirrorless shooter who perhaps also shoots Leica M for film, these lenses could be a useful solution. They are optimized for mirrorless but without some niceties like contacts and focus aids, but they also work with your Leica M film camera. That isn't my situation, but there are several shooters around here that it is and for them in particular Thypoch lenses could be a good option.
His sharpness test at infinite sharply disagrees with yours @fredmiranda on the sensory stack with A7rii versus Leica. His testing shows the lens is better on the M10.
Both you are among the best technical reviews and a hard disagreement is quite peculiar. I can't recall that happening. Thoughts?
May 21, 2026 at 09:22 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
His sharpness test at infinite sharply disagrees with yours @fredmiranda@ on the sensory stack with A7rii versus Leica. His testing shows the lens is better on the M10.
Both you are among the best technical reviews and a hard disagreement is quite peculiar. I can't recall that happening. Thoughts?
Minor disagreements have shown up, but only rarely in the past. I agree this is a more major disagreement. I suspect thqt Thypoch just lacks consistency in manufacturing this lens so that it is adjusted to one type of sensor glass thickness and that is why they aren't designing different lenses for different mounts--that is something they can't pull off. It might be due to element spacing and they just can't manufacture the lenses consistently enough to be tuned to one sensor stack thickness.
Bastian does have different resolution in the two cameras he is using with the Sony being higher resolution and therefore a tougher test, but that doesn't seem to be nearly enough to explain the inconsistency in his and Fred's results. My guess is that it is inconsistency in the particular lenses.
His sharpness test at infinite sharply disagrees with yours @fredmiranda@ on the sensory stack with A7rii versus Leica. His testing shows the lens is better on the M10.
Both you are among the best technical reviews and a hard disagreement is quite peculiar. I can't recall that happening. Thoughts?
This is a bit puzzling. I may be mistaken, but I believe we're using the same approach of focusing once at the center and not refocusing for other parts of the frame.
I just tested this again this morning on my Leica M10-R and M10-P, and I'm getting identical results on both bodies. At this point, I can only report what I'm seeing from the lens I received.
Bastian's assessment was correct in this case. I normally verify centering as a first step before any resolution or contrast analysis, since even small decentering can significantly affect results at a pixel level.
I've been testing multiple lenses this month, and I believed I had already completed a proper centering check for this copy. Looking back at it now, it's clear I didn't do a thorough enough centering verification before proceeding with sample testing.
The lens is clearly decentered to a degree I haven't seen in quite a while, and the issue is significant enough that it invalidates any resolution or contrast comparisons from this sample.
Because of that, I will pause further testing of this lens until I can evaluate a proper copy. I will also remove the current resolution and contrast results from both Leica and Sony bodies, as they are not representative of a properly centered sample.
The corner comparisons included below are from my centering check and clearly show the imbalance in the optical field. From the crop shown on the "right", it's clear that the Ksana performs very well in the corners on the Leica M when properly centered.
Left: The corner used for the sample | Right: The same area after rotating the lens upside down for a centering check
In Bastian test of the Ksana, the flare resistance that is showed defeats the all purpose of the lens for me, I’m still curious of the results you might have in some more various situations.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Minor disagreements have shown up, but only rarely in the past. I agree this is a more major disagreement. I suspect thqt Thypoch just lacks consistency in manufacturing this lens so that it is adjusted to one type of sensor glass thickness and that is why they aren't designing different lenses for different mounts--that is something they can't pull off. It might be due to element spacing and they just can't manufacture the lenses consistently enough to be tuned to one sensor stack thickness.
Bastian does have different resolution in the two cameras he is using with the Sony being higher resolution and therefore a tougher test, but that doesn't seem to be nearly enough to explain the inconsistency in his and Fred's results. My guess is that it is inconsistency in the particular lenses....Show more →
Yes—minor disagreements among solid reviewers due to preference, different bodies, testing methodology, etc. happens. But that one was a red flag. I also immediately assumed it was copy variation, but Fred stated earlier on the thread his copy was good.
Good thought on why Thypoch isn’t producing lenses for different sensor stacks—it hadn’t crossed my mind they don’t have the QC/expertise/ability. I just figured it was cost production measure. Maybe it’s both.
@fredmiranda@ Glad it was caught. I am surprised they sent out a review copy that is that badly decentered…silly mistake IMO.
From Bastian’s review, the lens differentiates itself with much smoother bokeh and lower contrast and resolution than the CV 35/2 Ultron, at least WO. Both lenses due well with flare (good job here Thypoch) and LoCal correction. Assuming you can get a good copy of this Ksana 35/2, looks like we have two well corrected but distinct options.
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Yes—minor disagreements among solid reviewers due to preference, different bodies, testing methodology, etc. happens. But that one was a red flag. I also immediately assumed it was copy variation, but Fred stated earlier on the thread his copy was good.
Good thought on why Thypoch isn’t producing lenses for different sensor stacks—it hadn’t crossed my mind they don’t have the QC/expertise/ability. I just figured it was cost production measure. Maybe it’s both.
@fredmiranda@@ Glad it was caught. I am surprised they sent out a review copy that is that badly decentered…silly mistake IMO.
From Bastian’s review, the lens differentiates itself with much smoother bokeh and lower contrast and resolution than the CV 35/2 Ultron, at least WO. Both lenses due well with flare (good job here Thypoch) and LoCal correction. Assuming you can get a good copy of this Ksana 35/2, looks like we have two well corrected but distinct options. ...Show more →
I got a bit too comfortable with Cosina sending over 'sample' copies that are basically cherry picked, perfectly centered for reviews. I did check the Ksana 21/3.5 for centering, but somehow I skipped doing the same for the Ksana 35/2 and only verified rangefinder alignment before starting the review.
Seeing your link to the Bastian review was the nudge I needed to go back and properly test the 35/2 for centering. That turned out to be the cause of the odd results I was seeing. All good, I'll update the results accordingly.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I suspect thqt Thypoch just lacks consistency in manufacturing this lens so that it is adjusted to one type of sensor glass thickness and that is why they aren't designing different lenses for different mounts--that is something they can't pull off. It might be due to element spacing and they just can't manufacture the lenses consistently enough to be tuned to one sensor stack thickness.
While I am not a lens designer, and my thoughts therefore should to be taken with a grain of salt, this seems highly unlikely. Unless there is one sensor glass thickness that is somehow easier to manufacture or design for, and less vulnerable to manufacturing issues, why would they not be able to produce lenses optimized for different sensor stacks (albeit with quaity issues for both specs)? I just don't see how manufacturing consistency issues would affect this.
I think nehemiaphoto's thought about one size fits all for cost saving makes far more sense.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I got a bit too comfortable with Cosina sending over 'sample' copies that are basically cherry picked, perfectly centered for reviews. In the past I would test 2 or 3 copies but it's not longer needed for this brand. I did check the Ksana 21/3.5 for centering, but somehow I skipped doing the same for the Ksana 35/2 and only verified rangefinder alignment before starting the review.
Seeing your link to the Bastion review was the nudge I needed to go back and properly test the 35/2 for centering. That turned out to be the cause of the odd results I was seeing. All good, I'll update the results accordingly....Show more →
I think this really highlights how fortunate we are to have both you and @BastianK providing such excellent and consistently reliable reviews. When your findings diverge significantly, it immediately signals that something unusual is going on — which, in this case, proved to be true.
So thanks again to both of you for all the work you put in for the benefit of the global photography nerd community
Hi all,
Okay, got my copy yesterday before seeing Bastian"s review. Sent it back 'cause it was not very good on Leica ev1. Thought it was me for a while. I guess, I got a decentered copy as well. Reminds me of the old days when Voigtlander had lots of inconsistent copies and you had to test a few lenses to find the best one. Hope this is a one off, 'cause I love the Simeras and the Ksana 21 which are fine.
Joe D.
tunisia wrote:
Reminds me of the old days when Voigtlander had lots of inconsistent copies and you had to test a few lenses to find the best one.
Indeed. I think I'd be buying this lens from someplace like B&H with generous return terms.
Bastian's review does look promising from a rendering/character(less) perspective if looking for smooth and more modern than characterful/charmingly flawed. In this respect, it appears to be a potential alternative to the VM 35/1.7. However, the VM is probably sharper across the frame at equivalent apertures if this is of importance.
I purchased a new Thypoch Eureka 50mm f2 lens earlier this month. Today was my first opportunity to take it out and I discovered that it does not seem to be able to produce sharpness at all in the central 2/3 of the frame at and near infinity. I also noticed that, while the spots that I focused on were not sharp, some areas behind that were a little sharper and some areas on the edges and closer were somewhat sharp. Super weird. It is being sent back.
Really seems that they are having some QC issues, at least with the non-Simera line.
Abuttolph wrote:
I purchased a new Thypoch Eureka 50mm f2 lens earlier this month. Today was my first opportunity to take it out and I discovered that it does not seem to be able to produce sharpness at all in the central 2/3 of the frame at and near infinity. I also noticed that, while the spots that I focused on were not sharp, some areas behind that were a little sharper and some areas on the edges and closer were somewhat sharp. Super weird. It is being sent back.
Really seems that they are having some QC issues, at least with the non-Simera line....Show more →
Did you try a controller test with live view and a decentering test?
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Did you try a controller test with live view and a decentering test?
I did not test using a test chart or brick wall type of evaluation. However, I shot several images in a few different scenes. I focused using the rangefinder, a few tests with the lens in the infinity position, and using the Visoflex. In all cases, there were enough things (trees) in the scenes to see what was happening with the focus. There was not a single image in which the spot that I focused on was sharp. Actually, the only places that approached being almost acceptably sharp were on the outer parts of the frame and were closer to the camera than the focus point. In some images, nothing at all was in focus.
The problem seems worse than decentering as not one single image was sharp anywhere in the central area of the frame. I suspect that one of the lens elements is defective.
