Ok. A couple of things to add. Can't be longer than a fifty equivalent and must be at least 2.0.
2.8 on an m8 is going to push the iso too much i think and on a shorter focal length won't give me enough subject isolation it would seem. I'll play around with 2.0 and 2.8 on the x1 and see what iso I'm hitting on average, but I'd guess 1600 if I hand hold well, which may be cleaner than 1250 on the m8, I'll have to look.
The other thing is finding the right version leica lens. It's daunting! I can't seem to find things on eBay or similar that match. I'll check the local shop too. But there's only one shot. Maybe two.
There's a lens on ebay which is said to have smooth focus and clear optics.. but it is beat to hell...there is also no description of which version it is and I have no idea how to discern the different versions...
Ed: It's a bit outside your budget, but what about the CV 35f/1.2? CameraQuest apparently still has stock at $1200. Unfortunately. when the lens was discontinued they jacked up the price about $300... and I was thinking of getting one. I'm going to wait since rumor has it there will be a replacement.
Sorry, not a self portrait... just got around to processing some stuff from December:
Ryan, I really like the first 35 Corn ASPH series, it looks like you have definitely found a lens that suits you. Very nice mood in the shots and the 35 Cron rendering definitely suits the images.
rsolti13 wrote:
It seems like 80-90% of your shots lately have been with the Lux. New lens hasn't worn off yet, huh?
I think I could have the 35 Lux as my only lens and I would not feel that I'm missing the other ones too much. When I have it on the camera, I really don't feel like removing it so even when I bring along 4-5 lenses, I still end up just using the Lux.
joe88 wrote:
We've hit over 150 pages on this thread, we've seen some gear porn and unshaven legs , why not share some self portraits with your digital M or X? Since this IS the camera that you see many take pictures of the camera or themselves in front of the mirror. I wonder why?
Joe, I don't know - in some ways I think it's better not to see photos of the persons you speak with on a forum. When you get a face you also get age, sex etc.. things that usually have a meaning in social interactions. Without a face you will judge the person only by what he/she posts without any preconceptions. However since so many have posted...
I think it was one of my first shots with the ZM50/1.5.
Charles, superb shots!
I think you may be right about the RAW development as the primary difference that I see is in the colors. There is however also a difference in the DOF-falloff where the 35 Lux II seems to me to be a bit closer to what you get from the 50 Lux ASPH or the 75 Cron.
Thanks all for sharing! I think its nice to put a face to the wonderful shots posted on this thread. I think we're pass the stage of anonymity on this thread
Phil, that's a fuzzy self portrait, must have taken a bit of pp since the Leica glass is normally tack sharp?
Ron & Edward, there is a new CV 35/1.2 coming out. You can read about it on the www or threads in FM.
Thanks Charles . Very very nice shots, the last portrait and the beach with the dog are winners! Beautiful!
Luka, its nice to finally see the talent behind the pictures! Excellent B&W set, gorgeous tones, especially #4! #2 is also very nice, I like the balance provided by the foreground snow balls.
Ron really like the one with the trail. IF I had a nit, it would be to whiten the dirty snow some from all the tracks. great image and color. Strange, this image is in quotes, why does it not look like it is? hmmm, maybe something I am missing here at fm on this quotations.
Phil - are you having any issues focusing the lens accurately?
The usual: ZM35 f/2.8
Hello,
If your referring to the above shot, no it is a painting that was practically all black, even hardly noticeable in person. Trying to get the exposure was the hardest thing and get the texture to show was my issue. I thought it was an interesting shot that will spark one to think on it
Ok - not really mushrooms. After the 500D I thought it would be fun to see what else I could put in front of the sensor. This is a pinhole, no lens on the M9.
Charles' and Luka's last posts with the 35mm Summilux just made that lens go up in price by 15% and my lust for it even more...I wish I can find one at a decent price
On Thursday my two rental lenses arrived.
The Zeiss 21 2.8 and
The Voigtlander 15 4.5.
So far I have only tested them on my M8.2 and have been gravitating towards the 15 much more than the 21. I am considering purchasing a WA lens for my M8 and M6. I am mainly considering the CV 15 and the Zeiss 18.
Is the Zeiss 18 noticeably better than the voigtlander 15?
Is their a big difference in the focal length between 15 and 18?
How is the handling of the 18? one thing I like about the 15 is its compact size.
Tomorrow I will be shooting the Zeiss 21 2.8 on my M6.
Here are some shots from the M8.2 and the Voigtlander 15 4.5
Kyle, nice set. The CV15 looks like a nice lens. Is this the coupled version? I like the tree shot and the interior shot best. Did you notice any uneven sharpness on this lens? On the truck shot, the right headlamp and bumper looks sharp but the license plate and GMC logo seems a bit off?
------
Found a few more 35CronIV shots from last year when I looked through the hard drive this evening. About as close as you can shoot with the 35CronIV 0.7m MFD on #1 & 2?
If your referring to the above shot, no it is a painting that was practically all black, even hardly noticeable in person. Trying to get the exposure was the hardest thing and get the texture to show was my issue. I thought it was an interesting shot that will spark one to think on it
Phil
Hi Phil,
Sorry I wasn't more specific. I just meant if you've had any issues in general with focus as I've read it can be a bit of a challenge with the longer fast lenses.
Hi Doug,
Thanks. The thing with the trail is it's a well traveled sidewalk and in Germany they sprinkle "Streugut" on snow covered or icy walkways, which is fine gravel about 4-5mm in diameter and results in the discolouration. In hindsight, my nit with the photo is that the snow on the rooftops looks a bit too bright relative to the sky. It was a one shot capture that I intentionally exposed for the sky, then opened up in post.
Another ZM35 f/2.8 to go with the previous images:
Kyle: I just picked up the CV 15 but will use it on the M9. Your images look very good, very free of vignetting or colour shifts. Have those been processed through cornerfix? On the M9 the 15 definitely has colour shifts and a fair amount of vignetting. I was thinking of getting the ZM18 based on Luka's excellent images with it, but since I already have the ZM21 f/2.8, it would be very closely spaced. Plus the 15 was so tempting, considering the price. After about 50 or so images with the 15 I'd say it's probably a bit lower in contrast than what I'm used to from the ZM lenses, but I still need to do a proper comparison.
On an M8, given the choice of 15 or 18, I would probably opt for the 15 since it will give a roughly 20mm equivalent angle of view, which is an angle of view I really like.
Regarding the ZM21 f/2.8: It's a nice lens. Good sharpness, but wide open you'll find that the corners go soft, especially on FF. The lens has a fair amount of field curvature that bends away from the camera towards the corners. Not that big a deal in real life use unless you plan to photograph a lot of flat subject matter. Beyond around f/5.6 this is no longer a problem. It has essentially no CA, such as tree branches against blue sky. The CV 15 though does have post production fixable CA.
Joe: I was going to get the uncoupled 15 because I wasn't so crazy about the relatively large hood on the coupled version, but after looking at some images of the lens realized that the hood wasn't all that large. It gives something for fingers to grab when mounting it.
I used it for some indoor shots of friends today, all wide open. I'm glad I got the coupled version because while the depth of field for this lens is fairly deep, when working between 1-2 meters from the subject, accurate focus is still necessary.
Straight from the camera, no cornerfix. You can see some red/magenta along the left side, though this image masks it fairly well:
And with LR processing to my taste (but no cornerfix):
These were at ISO 1250 and I can see that with the WATE @ 16mm coding there is already some additional noise in the corners. Adding cornerfix would likely push the noise considerably higher.
Coding the lens as the 21 non-ASPH or 24 2.8 ASPH removes more of the colour shift and vignetting than the WATE @ 16mm, but I want the EXIF to note a relatively accurate focal length, so will use cornerfix a fair amount to clean up the remaining colour shift.
Joe- Nice Shots. I especially like the last one. Thanks, I am using the coupled version. I didn't notice any focusing issues, but now that you mention it I am recognizing that the GMC isnt as sharp as the headlights... hmmm.
Ron- Thanks Ron, nice architecture shot! All of my shots have been taken without a uv/ir filter and without any cornerfixing. I was quite surprised at the results. I'll take a roll with the 21 today on my M6 and let you know how I like it.
Such a hard decision to make as there are so many good Wide Angles out there...
Doug - great find getting that light from the billboard
Charles - more great work
Luka - great shots...I really like your 2nd one
Ron - love your pic on the prior page...great colors
Joe - great series...I like the 2 b/w shots best
Joakim, great timing on that 2nd (or luck ).
Kyle, I too went back and forth thinking about the CV 15 + ZM 21 or just a ZM 18....simplicity won for me. I am trying to keep my kit relatively small so I settled in between. Now...to buy one
Yes the 90 requires more patience when using. I want the 90 to be my favorite lens, but the focal makes it a tad harder to get sharper images, but once you do it is nice, I even bought a 1.25 magnifier eyepiece., but that requires for the subject to be as close to right angle as possible, at least for me, maybe my technique is wrong (someone help?) I also noticed like many of you know already here is that the 90 works well on some cameras and on some it doesn't do to well, they pretty much have to be paired or calibrated by leica. My 90 works awesome with my older M8 and it's terrible with my current M9. Like microadjustment with canon, to bad we don't have some sort of electronic MA on Leica's, I know there is a mechanical way, but does that work well and is it a simple procedure?
, actually I consider that long in my book 
