Thank you very much for the kind words guys! Much appreciated.
Hiepphotog, regarding the diamond shaped highlights, I did notice them too and they puzzled me for a while, until I realized the lamps were not round but rather squarish shaped coils. But definitely I will watch out to see if this happens again and whether the lens is causing it or not.
hiepphotog wrote:
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.
I noticed this also in some of my shots with the lens at PPE... The first one Edward posted is a pretty good example. Normally towards the edges the round light balls tend to go more cats eyes, but here it's different. It's like the top and bottom of the cats eye is chopped, leaving an odd angular shape. I'd guess there's mechanical vignetting/blockage somewhere causing this.
Here is one from Canmore which is about an hour drive from my house. I really love B&W mountain shots (if you haven't figured out already) with lighting such as this.
Looking at my PPE images, it happens wide open too and seems to be dependent on camera to subject to background relationships.
Images where the subject is quite near, distant specular light sources blur out pretty normally, though at the edges hint at something slightly odd. It's when the subject is somewhat farther away and the background isn't as dramatically blurred that this effect seems to be more noticeable. It may also happen with nearer subjects with little background separation, but I don't have any of those kinds of images with it, yet.
I don't think it will be a deal breaker for me, not even close, because the lens is otherwise such a great performer. But like any lens, it's going to be a matter of learning where it works better and where it shows some less desirable qualities.
Some crops from my PPE images... I think all were wide open:
focus was fairly near ~2.5-3m, crop is at left side of frame, near the edge:
From same position, focus was maybe 6-7m:
Some of the odd shape will be due to the light shining through the structure of the ceiling supports, but there should be some true point light sources there too.
I think some of it is due to how the lens shows double-edged effects towards the outer zones:
Near focus ~2m:
~7-10m focus:
You can see the double images of the Phase One text. It's like as the lens is defocused, the image is split and skewed apart. With specular light sources, it's going to stretch/smear in a diagonal direction. I think this is what's happening in some of the shots, combined with the cats eye effect.. And it gets weirder near the edge of the frame.
In focus, probably ~10m away:
Out of focus - focus was on a subject ~3-4m away. Was also recomposed so it's now at the right edge of the frame:
Left edge of the same frame, model was probably ~20m away:
Couple more examples of the double edge/image defocus:
Both were at the outer right zone of the frame, but not at the edge. The second was about rule of thirds placement.
I have reviewed my images of yesterday and I have to agree with Ron. The squarish OOF lightsources are consistent in every frame. They start appearing about the middle of zone B and are not affected by the aperture, as long as they are OOF. It must be some aspherical element causing this phenomenon.
Looking at my PPE images, it happens wide open too and seems to be dependent on camera to subject to background relationships.
Images where the subject is quite near, distant specular light sources blur out pretty normally, though at the edges hint at something slightly odd. It's when the subject is somewhat farther away and the background isn't as dramatically blurred that this effect seems to be more noticeable. It may also happen with nearer subjects with little background separation, but I don't have any of those kinds of images with it, yet.
...
Some crops from my PPE images... I think all were wide open:
focus was fairly near ~2.5-3m, crop is at left side of frame, near the edge:...Show more →
From same position, focus was maybe 6-7m:
this is one of the things that was reminding me of the c/y 35/1.4. here is a similar crop from it:
Beautiful, Gary
I see you have solved the colorshift issues with the zm18!
hiepphotog wrote:
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.
Wow, great eye. Now they are obvious.
The Zeiss diamonds
One has to wonder about the aperture also. My little Sonnetar has a wonder german aperture that makes perfect circles always.
But many other lenses I own are making different shapes at different stops.
There's already an R lens and a medium format thread where some S shooters contribute. Not sure how many X and T shooters there are? This thread should really be renamed Leica Camera Picture Thread, or just add S, which should have been done long ago.
I like the broad scope, though can appreciate that if you want to find images specific to a certain non-M camera, that it is difficult to sift through the thread.
Derek - thanks for that example. I can see there is some similarity.
dolina wrote:
Anyone on the page that perhaps this thread should be split up already?...Dedicated R, M, X, T and S threads?
rscheffler wrote:
There's already an R lens and a medium format thread where some S shooters contribute. Not sure how many X and T shooters there are? This thread should really be renamed Leica Camera Picture Thread, or just add S, which should have been done long ago...I like the broad scope...
Seems to me that the value of this thread, besides its general collegiality, is the immediate and recurring gratification of seeing new pictures — as opposed to trying to make it into a compendium for reference, a purpose for which it is too long and not really "searchable". In my view there's little point in making it into something else that exists already on LUF and RFF, both of which I find tiresome (too much pontification and argument by the frequent posters).
I would have thought that the R will be sharper than the pre FLE. I also own the pre FLE and I really like the rendering, its sharp while retaining smoothness. The Zeiss seems to have a lot more pop than the pre FLE but it has very different bokeh from the lux. I don't think the difference will always be obvious but under the some circumstances it is easy to see the differences in rendering.
aly324 wrote:
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. ...Show more →
