Regarding #2, I find that shot a bit comical. It's the kind of scene that a Rokkor 58/1.2 would thrive on and wholeheartedly add to the craziness producing something looking like a Van Gogh on drugs oil painting. With the 75 Cron on the other hand and its perfectly neutral bokeh it's like forcing a sane person into an asylum and the poor thing is trying to make sense of all the craziness and failing completely
The 35 Lux ASPH (the 1994-2010 version) has a nice Leica aspherical character bokeh - meaning similar to the 50 Lux ASPH. It is better on the M8.2 because the corners can evolve into a double image bokeh on the M9. I suspect the newest 35 Lux will have similar bokeh. Here's a wide open shot from last night taken at 1/12th & ISO 1600 on the M9 - so not razor sharp -
Could be, Joe I posted a lot with the Leica over on l-camera-forum, even while it was still called leica-camera-forum back in 2006 and 2007, before Stephen K. Lee sicced his lawyers on anyone using the Leica name for anything. In the time since then I have used the M8 more and more just for travelling, using other cameras for various projects. I have also more or less stopped doing the kind of walking-around shots that are so popular on this forum, doing more focused, project-based work, so I am posting less. I have a few shots over on the Kodak SLR thread, and a few on the ZF/ZM/ZE thread, and a few more on the alternative thread.
John, yepp that bokeh is similar to what you get from a Zeiss 35/1.4 which is also an aspherical lens. The big difference though is the DOF transition (sharpnes-to-blur transition). Leica seems to have a much sharper envelope than Zeiss giving stronger subject isolation but less feeling of depth in the image.
John, are you back with a M9?? Read your blog that you sold the M9 and went back to the M8.2? Interesting.
Luka, I'm not familiar with Zeiss glass. Is the 35/1.4 or other Zeiss glasses sharp wide open?
Carsten, hope to see you hang around this thread and post some pics once a while. You have a wealth of Leica knowledge. I was at L-camera forum, some very "serious" people there, but there are many friendly ones too.
joe88 wrote:
Luka, I'm not familiar with Zeiss glass. Is the 35/1.4 or other Zeiss glasses sharp wide open?
Joe, the Zeiss 35/1.4 that I have is a lens from the late 60's adapted from Rollei mount. It is not as sharp wide open as the 35 Lux ASPH but is according to MTF charts slightly sharper than the pre-ASPH 35 Lux. Modern Zeiss lenses for DSLRs (i.e ZE/ZF mount) are as a rule - with some exceptions (50/1.4 Planar and 85/1.4 Planar) - sharper than their modern Leica M counterparts both wide open and stopped down. They are however not as well controlled for LoCA wide open. So Leica M tend to have an edge when it comes to producing an image free of any aberrations while Zeiss ZE/ZF tend to have an edge when it comes to sharpness and micro contrast.
The Zeiss ZM rangefinder lenses on the other hand are neither as sharp as their DSLR counterparts wide open nor as sharp as Leica M. Zeiss has apparently had different priorities there. They are as a rule cheaper than the ZE/ZF lenses, have inferior build quality and are optimized for sharpness when stopped down a bit. There are exceptions to this rule as well (the 15/2.8 Distagon and 85/2 Sonnar). They do tend to be better controlled for distortions than their DSLR counterparts. I'm guessing it has something to do with not having to work around a mirror box.
Carsten, hope to see you hang around this thread and post some pics once a while.
+1
---
I made some A4 sized B/W prints today from the M9 and I was very pleased with the results. I have not tried printing anything larger yet though. Does anyone know how large prints one can get from an M9 image?
Luka, thanks for the info. Good to know. I'm just making a wild guess, but is it possible that the ZM lenses are less "clinical" since Zeiss does not (yet) have a digital rangefinder? Film is more forgiving.
Joe, it's possible. But it's also clear that Zeiss has positioned itself between Voigtländer and Leica in terms of price and lens quality.
Sorry Edward, I have not been using the X1 lately, only the 5DII and not much at that. The weather has been awful and I have really not had the time to go out and shoot properly.
Regarding the 75 Cron, I have been going through my images and I've been looking at flare performance, which is mixed.
Best case:
Second order flare (I do like the diffraction stars though):
Worst case (veiling flare):
The lens hood was extended in all three cases. So shooting directly into a light source isn't much of a problem but with a strong light source just outside the frame you can get some nasty veiling flare. With decentered light sources you can get some pretty complex second order flare. They seem to be fairly limited to a specific area so they can probably be removed in post without too much effort.
I made some A4 sized B/W prints today from the M9 and I was very pleased with the results. I have not tried printing anything larger yet though. Does anyone know how large prints one can get from an M9 image?
Luka, I am quite amazed with the results from ther larger prints that can be achieved from the M9. A lot of the shots I print at A3+ size with the Canon pro 9500II printer, as its rendering with B&W is excellent. All the shots so far, I have done for people have this beautiful Leica rendering quality coming through. For larger prints, I send directly to the pro Labs. Obviously there are size limitations, but depending on your viewing distance and subject, the rendering still shines through.
Just received my long awaited 75 Summilux for portraits about 30 mins ago. These are the first few shots.
I must thank Carsten and Jeff for their advice on this lens. I was reluctant, because of the perceived size, but it is truly one of the nicest lenses I have had for portraits. Enough said, usual portaits with my office staff All the shots are with f/1.4 wide open.
I guess what skews this list a little is the lack of proper counterparts to the 50MP and 100MP. Is the ZM35 really sharper than the ZF35? I also presume that you meant ZM85 > ZF85, not ZM85 > ZM100. That would just be a weird comparison.
In general, the ZM designs have an optical advantage in that the short distance from sensor to lens allows more compact designs, leaving the designer's hands a little freer. For example, retrofocus designs create very large wide angle lenses, with somewhat fragile performance. The ZF21 is really a wonder, but even it has an Achilles heel in its moustache distortion. Symmetrical designs can cancel out a lot of aberrations, which are more difficult to fix in retrofocus designs.
Nice portraits, Charles! I don't recall explicitly recommending the 75 Lux to you, but it is a fantastic lens, if you can control the occasional wild boke. Quite sharp in its own way, with a slight veil overlaying the sharpness, it is very kind to imperfect skin, or skin showing a little age. It is not soft enough to "rescue" anyone though
I have wanted to sell mine for a while, but I can't get myself to do it. I think it might be fantastic for me on the M9, but it'll be a while before I find out, since my priorities are elsewhere at the moment. I have just ordered a Sigma 50/1.4, and after that, I will get a ZF.2 35, either 2.0 or the new 1.4, and then I will exchange my ZF21 for a ZF.2 21. This will all take some time since most of my money goes to family expenses. I can hardly wait for my girlfriend enter the workforce properly (she is studying), so that the pressure on me lightens up a little.
Well, due to popular request I might have to dust off my M8 and get back to making some photos with it Maybe I can dig out some old photos to tide me over until I get productive again.
Excellent information on the 35 Lux's.
