The CV 75 1.8 is a lens I'm interested in and would love to see as many samples as you care to post, and of course read as much feedback about it as you wish to offer.
It's kind of in line with my theory about the 50/2 cron coding vs. the 50/2 ZM... I noticed that exposure's were different and color balance was also different.. So I think I'll keep my M9 set to off on all my lenses and just adjust myself as needed.
charles.K - I have the traveler (second smallest) and markins Q3T, find that's not a bad setup for lightweight, but I don't have a plate yet for my M9 since I haven't really thought about using it with a tripod.
charles.K wrote:
My understanding the chrome/brass or titanium versions have very little if any focus shift.
That always sounded like internet bologna to me. If it's the same optical design, it's the same optical design.
That being said, it's possible that some of the lenses had their focus calibrated so that the focus shift was hidden better by DOF at various apertures. Like with the ZM 50/1.5 being calibrated at f/1.5 or f/2.8.
I still have a hard time getting over the idea of focusing and then recomposing..
I mean for 80% of my shots, I do it, especially with people. But with objects that I don't normally shoot (things that haven't registered as instincts) I shoot more center then I'd like to.
Take for instance this shot I took today for fun:
50/2 ZM @ f/2
It really bothers me looking back, not because I'd want to keep this shot, but because I forgot to think. I wish I had recomposed after focusing on the bud, but I just took the shot.
Sometimes my brain is just so conditioned that I still have difficulties after a month+ of decent M usage
Anyone else struggle sometimes?
Denoir you don't count, 90% of your work must be shot on infinity focus
EDIT:
Thought I'd just add the shot I liked (and by shot I liked, I mean the only other shot I took)... This one I didn't recompose either, but for this one, I composed first, then just focused onto whatever was in the center of my RF since anything could have been the FP here.
adamdewilde wrote:
Denoir you don't count, 90% of your work must be shot on infinity focus
Ha! You are soo wrong there. About 80% of my shots are wide aperture landscape photography - i.e. not at infinity. With the M9 only, perhaps 70%. You should not be fooled just because I happen to be using the 18/4 a lot now. It's my newest lens and as such it gets more attention. I don't do close ups with the M9 that I do a lot with the 5DII.
I have basically by now the rule of thirds in muscle memory. If I take a snapshot without any particular thought behind the composition I automatically recompose after focus.
Ryan, beautiful shots!!! Love #1 Must post some shots with the CV 75/1.8!
Adam, very nice shots
Luka, enjoying your excellent series of winter in Stockholm
Kidtexa, I agree, there should be no difference between the black lighter version to the heavier brass version. Personally I would go for the black version because of the difference in weight.
denoir wrote:
Comparing the 50/1.5 Sonnar vs the 50 Lux is very interesting. Same focal length, more or less the same aperture yet as different as two lenses can be. Since both are German lenses, I'd say that the 50 Lux to the 50 Sonnar in rendering style what Thomas Mann is to Friedrich Schiller is in writing style. The Lux produces a much more strict, precise, formal and technical rendering while the 50/1.5 a far more free artistic one. From a pure technical performance point of view the 50 Lux blows the Sonnar away in every department - the latter suffers from every optical aberration known to human kind. And yet, I'd take the Sonnar any day over the Lux. It comes down to personal preference. To use another analogy from literature, ...Show more →
Yet again a question of taste, which words are chosen. I find the 50 Lux ASPH to be poetry, and the 50 Sonnar to be maybe slam poetry, sometimes heavy-handed, sometimes gentle, sometimes bang on, sometimes way off
kidtexas wrote:
That always sounded like internet bologna to me. If it's the same optical design, it's the same optical design.
That being said, it's possible that some of the lenses had their focus calibrated so that the focus shift was hidden better by DOF at various apertures. Like with the ZM 50/1.5 being calibrated at f/1.5 or f/2.8.
None of us have tested enough samples to make a statistically valid comparison, but enough of us have seen the same result that I don't believe it is bologna. Mine is chrome, and has little, if any, focus shift. The two black copies I have tested had noticeable focus shift, one quite severely.
Keep in mind that there is a possible physical reason for this. The chrome and titanium versions are made of brass (you can't chrome aluminium), which is very easy to machine, whereas the black copies are made of aluminium alloy, which is much harder to machine accurately.
There are certainly good black copies out there. I have not yet heard of a bad chrome or titanium version, but that could be coincidence.
carstenw wrote:
Yet again a question of taste, which words are chosen. I find the 50 Lux ASPH to be poetry, and the 50 Sonnar to be maybe slam poetry, sometimes heavy-handed, sometimes gentle, sometimes bang on, sometimes way off
Well, yes and no. There is no denying that the 50 Lux has a far more technical rendering than perhaps any other fast 50mm. Excellent aberration control, gaussian background blur etc Although not quite as neutral as the 75 Cron, it is still exceptionally neutral.
From that perspective, "poetic" is the last word I'd use for it. I don't mean that as a criticism. The 21/2.8 Distagon (ZE) is my favorite lens and "poetic" is the last word I'd use to describe it as well.
Anyway, I suppose we can say that it's a good thing we have a couple of different lenses to choose from to suit the variations in taste and leave it at that.
Nice B&W shots, Ryan. Tell me about freezing, I'm in Orlando FL for work and it was 20s F last night! I'll be very interested to see your shots with the 75/1.8 Heliar.
Nice shots Luka, that's the thing with the ultra wide ZMs, I love to try these lenses but am not too keen with having to correct color cast for most shots.
Adam, nice shots. I tend to put the subject in the middle if I shoot wide open and need to take a fast shot or if they are moving. Its just one aspect of the rangefinder/manual focus you have to deal with.
My black 35Lux supposedly has very little focus shift, I'll test it when the M9 returns.
denoir wrote:
Well, yes and no. There is no denying that the 50 Lux has a far more technical rendering than perhaps any other fast 50mm. Excellent aberration control, gaussian background blur etc Although not quite as neutral as the 75 Cron, it is still exceptionally neutral.
From that perspective, "poetic" is the last word I'd use for it. I don't mean that as a criticism. The 21/2.8 Distagon (ZE) is my favorite lens and "poetic" is the last word I'd use to describe it as well.
Anyway, I suppose we can say that it's a good thing we have a couple of different lenses to choose from to suit the variations in taste and leave it at that. ...Show more →
Yes, in the end it is all opinion. Even our descriptions are coloured by our preferences.
Again you choose the word technical to describe the 50 Lux ASPH, whereas I would never in a million years use it. And the word I prefer for it, magical, you would probably never use. You find the 50 Sonnar very interesting, I find it a mess of aberrations, optical compromises and crazy boke, with an occasional interesting, successful shot. It is difficult to understand how people with perhaps otherwise similar opinions about life, the universe and everything could react so differently to two lenses.
Anyway, opinions are part of what makes life so interesting.
Thanks Joe Great street capture! f/8.. zone focusing?
Regarding color cast -it can be automated. Corner fix can be run in batch mode to process a series of images. I have been thinking about making an LR plugin out of it as it is open source. Perhaps I'll have some time to look into it over the Christmas holidays.
I forgot to answer this:
joe88 wrote:
Revisiting the 35/75 2 lens combo, I might just get a 75 Summarit instead of a 75Cron if I want a 2 lens kit. Only concern with the Summarit series is the rubber focus grip, just don't know how durable it is? Anyone has some experience with this lens?
Before I chose the 75 Cron, I had the chance to test a 75 Summarit. Optically it is superb. At f/2.5 it's actually sharper than the 75 Cron. I would have chosen it without hesitation had it not been for the focusing ring. I don't know how durable it is but it did not feel good to use. It had just a feeling of cheap rubber. So I chose the Cron instead.
carstenw wrote:
You find the 50 Sonnar very interesting, I find it a mess of aberrations, optical compromises and crazy boke, with an occasional interesting, successful shot. It is difficult to understand how people with perhaps otherwise similar opinions about life, the universe and everything could react so differently to two lenses.
Oh, I won't dispute that it's a mess of aberrations etc - they did it on purpose to emulate their famous 50 Sonnar from the 1930's. Stopped down beyond f/5.6 it changes characteristics completely - local contrast goes up, it becomes sharp and there is no trace of any aberration. It's strangeness wide open is part of the attraction to me.
In one way it is with lens preference like with music, literature etc - i.e highly individual regardless of anything else. In a way I find it more surprising that one can actually find demographic patterns. We did an informal poll in the Zeiss thread a couple of months ago, and it turned out that 2/3 of the participants were engineers. I found that very interesting. Part of the explanation is of course that the gear is relatively expensive but that doesn't explain it fully.
I'm curious, what do you think about the Noctilux - new and old? I'm really in awe of the 0.95 rendering - I really like it. The old f/1 one, not so much.
What I read from several sources was that it was the perfect combinatin of a 75 Lux and 75 Cron. I guess it is, but I would rather have it one way or the other. It is soft....very soft until about f/8. Great in some situations, horrible for how I like to shoot . The worst aspect of the lens is the CA. VERY visible even through f/5.7. Bad CA ruined literally half the shots I took today. It is a fairly large lens, but it doesn't get in the way of the framelines at all and shows up slightly in the VF. Bokeh is very nice and the lens renders in a very cool tone. Final verdict: I will try something else
joe88 wrote:
Thanks for sharing Ryan. Like the bike shot best. Maybe you should try another copy of the 75/2.5 Heliar?
Yeah, the Summarit would be nice for what I like but this will be my least used length. The 75 CV Heliar may get another shot . I think my problem last time was the camera itself b/c focusing the Heliar Classic was very easy....even wide open
Interesting observations Ryan. Is the CA the kind typical of fast tele lenses on digital cameras (LoCA?) that isn't easily correctable? Would it be possible for you to post an image typical of the problem, perhaps also with a 100% crop?
Must post some shots with the CV 75/1.8!
