35lux has the same wonderful in focus transition I only see with Leica R lens. It is just great for portrait.
I am thinking about speed boost, maybe on Fuji X. If it works, I might be able to depart my Nikon body. The problem is 35lux might not be able to use on it without further surgery. There are already reports with issue with other R lens. 35lux is the lens I want try the most It would be interesting to see the 35/50cron, now they become lux
Alex, I want that sigma, but I think there are too many things going on, money need to be careful planed at this super fast digital age with so many things introduced; will be introduced; not to mention all those wonderful legacy lenses.
zhangyue wrote:
Alex, I want that sigma, but I think there are too many things going on, money need to be careful planed at this super fast digital age with so many things introduced; will be introduced; not to mention all those wonderful legacy lenses.
Hmm... I think that bokeh of both R35 incredible thing for other brands.
i want try this sigma just for interest... And more want to try futures Xenon's - 35 and 50, maybe it will be really interesting bokeh lenses. But this is not means that i sell my R-lenses
Yes, it is an older AF-S model with the aperture ring, but it is AF-S, i.e. supersonic wave motor or whatever they are called, not screwdriver. On the lens it says:
Nikon ED AF-S Nikkor 300mm 1:4D
So actually it is both a D lens, AND an AF-S lens Most AF-S lenses are G lenses, I think.
Hi guys, love the pictures!
I have the Summicron-R 50mm f/2, 2nd version, and i'm baffled with the resolution it can cramp out. I didn't got the lens cheap, paid almost as much for it as a new (that is including shipping and leitax adapter).
Now my question is regarding the Leitz Wetzlar Summicron-R 1:2/35 mm and Leitz Elmarit-R 1:2.8/90 mm. Now using the 50mm on my D800E I sometimes feel that I should have a wider alternative, not finding any good 35mm on the market (Sigma 1.4 is really good apparently), I've found the Summicron-R 35 f/2 alternative with serial nr 328..., my question is: Is the 35mm as sharp as or sharper than the 50mm I already own (sharpness is important for my work)?
And what about the 90mm? Will that outperform (sharpness wise) for instance the Nikkor 85mm 1.4g? I now that different focal lengths are difficult to compare but how would it perform comparing to Nikkor glass?
mehstein wrote:
Now my question is regarding the Leitz Wetzlar Summicron-R 1:2/35 mm and Leitz Elmarit-R 1:2.8/90 mm. Now using the 50mm on my D800E I sometimes feel that I should have a wider alternative, not finding any good 35mm on the market (Sigma 1.4 is really good apparently), I've found the Summicron-R 35 f/2 alternative with serial nr 328..., my question is: Is the 35mm as sharp as or sharper than the 50mm I already own (sharpness is important for my work)?
Central sharpness will be a bit higher with the Summicron-R 35/2, while the 50/2 is more uniform across the frame (and better in the corners). The 35/2 has significant field curvature (the surface of best focus is not a flat plane, but bends away from the camera towards the corners); this means the lens will be in sharp focus *somewhere* in the image, but not always where you might expect. If you shoot frame-filling flat subjects (including landscapes at infinity), field curvature is a problem (you will never get sharp corners); if you want one less-than-full-frame subject to be in very sharp focus, the lens can do that.
mpmendenhall wrote:
you will never get sharp corners
unless you focused at corner
mehstein wrote:
Hi guys, love the pictures!
I have the Summicron-R 50mm f/2, 2nd version, and i'm baffled with the resolution it can cramp out. I didn't got the lens cheap, paid almost as much for it as a new (that is including shipping and leitax adapter).
Now my question is regarding the Leitz Wetzlar Summicron-R 1:2/35 mm and Leitz Elmarit-R 1:2.8/90 mm. Now using the 50mm on my D800E I sometimes feel that I should have a wider alternative, not finding any good 35mm on the market (Sigma 1.4 is really good apparently), I've found the Summicron-R 35 f/2 alternative with serial nr 328..., my question is: Is the 35mm as sharp as or sharper than the 50mm I already own (sharpness is important for my work)?
And what about the 90mm? Will that outperform (sharpness wise) for instance the Nikkor 85mm 1.4g? I now that different focal lengths are difficult to compare but how would it perform comparing to Nikkor glass?
35cron is extremely sharp lens at center even WO. But the problem as mpmendenhall mentioned is FC. The lens never reach cross frame even sharpness. I feel Sigma definitely better on that than both Leica R cron&Lux if not all 35mm lens on the market. Nikon 1.4G should be pretty good once stop down.
As for 90 2.8, it is well regarded lens. I have M version, should be the same as R version. At f2.8, it is already pretty good,(though I feel my planar 85 and MP100 are sharper on D700, can't be compared directly) but after f4, I don't see any improvement visually from M9. It is outstanding. If you check its MTF, it is really can't be improved much even compare to 90AA.
But to be honest, I have not really seen many short tele not good cross frame stop down. The difficulty is usually happen before f2.8. Why not check MP100, and you don't need deal with stop down meter.
Have you ever compared the 35mm Summilux R to any M version?
Thanks
Andrew
I'd love to but I don't have 35lux M. They are really not supposed to compete each other but I feel Leica R has some relaxed quality which Leica M doesn't have. Could because of just age difference. All the R I have so far, other than 50cron, has pretty quick sharpness roll off from center to corner at WO. It could be problem once dealing with off center subject, but could be also be the reason that 'look' I got and like.
mehstein wrote:
Hi guys, love the pictures!
I have the Summicron-R 50mm f/2, 2nd version, and i'm baffled with the resolution it can cramp out. I didn't got the lens cheap, paid almost as much for it as a new (that is including shipping and leitax adapter).
Now my question is regarding the Leitz Wetzlar Summicron-R 1:2/35 mm and Leitz Elmarit-R 1:2.8/90 mm. Now using the 50mm on my D800E I sometimes feel that I should have a wider alternative, not finding any good 35mm on the market (Sigma 1.4 is really good apparently), I've found the Summicron-R 35 f/2 alternative with serial nr 328..., my question is: Is the 35mm as sharp as or sharper than the 50mm I already own (sharpness is important for my work)?
And what about the 90mm? Will that outperform (sharpness wise) for instance the Nikkor 85mm 1.4g? I now that different focal lengths are difficult to compare but how would it perform comparing to Nikkor glass?
'Is the 35mm as sharp as or sharper than the 50mm I already own (sharpness is important for my work)?'
No it's not - even in the centre. Do you need all-of-frame sharpness, what aperture do you shoot at? Most wide angle/normal Leica R lenses have fall-off mid-frame, but strong central sharpness. And lovely bokeh, tonal transitions, colour purity, and much more that make them incomparable to Nikkor lenses IMOm, they are connoisseurs' lenses. Best cross-frame performance at 35mm in Leica R is the 35-70/4 zoom. But what you like/want in the 50/2 the 35/2 has, very likely...
35cron is extremely sharp lens at center even WO. But the problem as mpmendenhall mentioned is FC. The lens never reach cross frame even sharpness. I feel Sigma definitely better on that than both Leica R cron&Lux if not all 35mm lens on the market. Nikon 1.4G should be pretty good once stop down.
As for 90 2.8, it is well regarded lens. I have M version, should be the same as R version. At f2.8, it is already pretty good,(though I feel my planar 85 and MP100 are sharper on D700, can't be compared directly) but after f4, I don't see any improvement visually from M9. It is outstanding. If you check its MTF, it is really can't be improved much even compare to 90AA.
But to be honest, I have not really seen many short tele not good cross frame stop down. The difficulty is usually happen before f2.8. Why not check MP100, and you don't need deal with stop down meter.
The 35/2 e48 yes, extremely sharp in the center on WO, e55 - just sharp.
Seems that new Sigma better than the R35/1.4 in all parameters, exclude the sharpness on wo in the center only (difference ~5% by mtf) and the bokeh (but the last your own taste)
See on the pictures, like not like... this is main criteria. Now the huge quantity of lenses which optically better that R lenses. But what you founding - it's your choice. My opinion - almost all leica-r this is art lenses, they are not ideal for any light conditions or not give to you extremely optical quality. But they give you the pictures, and when you see on this pictures you can forgot about "ideal lenses" dreams. But if you need extreme lenses optically in any light conditions - leica r this is not so correct choice.
Philip, you will be surprised for 35cron R sharpness at center. I think it is sharper or at least as sharp as 50cron R in center. That is from my experience and their published MTF.
carstenw wrote:
So actually it is both a D lens, AND an AF-S lens Most AF-S lenses are G lenses, I think.
You're right. All the shorter primes went straight from screw drive to AF-S G. There've been just 8 AF-S D lenses -- 17-35/2.8, 28-70/2.8, 80-200/2.8, 300/4, 300/2.8, 400/2.8, 500/4, and 600/4 -- and all but the 17-35/2.8 and 300/4 have been replaced with AF-S G's.
It is this with Leica R lenses - you don't judge them by the usual criteria, esp. my favourite ugly one of 'sharpest'. In the sense of producing 'very attractive images', how many doubt the Leica lenses in general do so? Some are also remarkable *optically* most would agree, 280/4, 90AA and a few more besides.
Interesting question I think...the main aim of my photography is to use lenses that, in concert with modern sensors, colour processing and software get this job of making appealing images done...it's not some scale of measure IMO, far from it in fact.
I am pretty surprised most people feel otherwise and head off in indecent pursuit of 'sharpness'.
zhangyue, I can point you to the MTF and give you a reasoned analysis if need be. I am right in what I say, but we must acknowledge that many lenses have the appearance of greater what you might call 'sharpness' - but the optical bench does not lie! I am on the look out for a 35/2 but by no means would I care for central sharpness as the yardstick of its worth, but good to hear you like that one too.
What is all this OT alphabet soup model Nikon talk doing here now ;-)
Sharpness is not that relevant as this decent level but just want to pass right info. I assume we are talking about WO. At f5.6, 50cron become too good to beat and 35cron' real weakness start to show.
All lenses are born sharp under the sun, it is the way they are used which differs.
For my own sanity, I acquired different allegedly "sharp" lenses and to cut a long story short. I ended up with 3 lenses, namely the CO60 and the 90AA x 2.
They are rather superlative lenses and the CO60 borders on the useless (for my needs) while the 90AA is a pleasure to use, more so on large res sensors a la D800/E.
All 50's and 35's don't even come close to the CO60 and 90AA. I also admit not being a fan of the 35mm and as for 50mm, I favor the Lux50E60 and the Nikkor 50/1.2Ais (stopped down).
It would be interesting to see the 35/50cron, now they become lux 