philber wrote:
Congrats on your purchase, Edward! I really loved having my hands on that lens, and look forward to receiving mine as and when it pleases MM. Leica. OTOH, your comments about clinical rendering and relative lack of 3D don't jive with my own impressions on a A7R. 3D was simply best ever, and rendering could only be called clinical significantly stopped down (at least f:5.6)
Thank you very much Philippe! Greatly appreciated.
I didn't use the lens much since I got it due to a shoulder injury. I'm much better now so I will try to test it in different scenarios. I think it looks technically perfect from 2.8 on the M240 with its ultra thin sensor cover. I'm sure it needs a couple of stops more on the A7R so basically our observation is similar. The 3D is very subjective but I feel it has a good 3D rendering but not as pronounced as with the c/y which in my opinion is the king of 3D.
So, I get a call at 6:45am today, Saturday, from Leica NJ. Of course I did not take it, but I get a nice message from lady with swiss accent:
"Oh Mr ...., we got your camera and we happen to be working today, and could you please call me back at ...., as I don't have your zip code! But if I don't answer, don't leave a message I will call you back.."
I called later and she was very nice. You can't make it up.
Too many to comment, but really interesting, varied and beautiful work from everyone, great to see!
I framed my first image from the Leica yesterday... well sent it to be framed... that is usually a good sign . In honesty it's just a slightly funny family photo, but it makes people laugh, so that's always a good thing...
Taking it to Copenhagen for a few days in March, should be good fun to explore with it! Also, we've recently moved, so a new place to explore and document with it there...
Here are some shots from today with the ZM 35/1.4. I am not as selective as usual in posting, so apologies in advance. Most shots around f/2-2.8, a couple wide open.
Thanks for the samples Ed, they look great and there's a discernible difference in rendering from the lux. It really does remind me of the ZF version. Do you find the size a problem at all? I'm under the impression that they're the same size as the v3 noct.
Thank you Ryan! I never used the ZF but I wouldn't be surprised if they draw similarly. The size and weight aren't really a problem but the VF blockage is. I got some badly framed shots because I couldn't see the lower right part of the frame but I think it needs some getting used to.
rirakuma wrote:
Thanks for the samples Ed, they look great and there's a discernible difference in rendering from the lux. It really does remind me of the ZF version. Do you find the size a problem at all? I'm under the impression that they're the same size as the v3 noct.
How would you characterize the difference in rendition from the Lux?
I had the pre-FLE Summilux M on my A7R, intending it to replace my beloved but rather ponderous Summilux-R 35. The pre-FLE was obviously sharper (but undone on the edges by the Sony sensor) and more contrasty and consequently more dramatic (1st and 2nd attachments), but I find the colors from the R more pleasing (following attachments), more richly subtle and more drawing you in than punchy.
These samples from the ZM look quite different from both. The ZM looks very transparent. Very beautiful in its own way. They make the M seem like drama goggles and the R romance goggles.
Edwards, I see strange diamond-shaped specular highlights toward the edges and corners in the ZM 35 shots. Were they taken at WO? Nonetheless, this lens pops like no others (save the two massive Otii)
Edit: Seeing the same diamond shaped highlights in Lloyd's shots.
