Ok so does anyone have any opinions on the Leica Summicron-M 35mm f/2.0 ASPH? Will this do justice on my M9? The 1.4 seems to be available this september according to Dale's?
charles.K wrote:
The only supposed issue with the 35 Lux Asph I, is focus shift, but there are many copies out there where it is not an issue.
As in, it doesn't exist in the particular lens, or the shooter doesn't notice or care?
I suppose you are referring to users that have a lens/camera combo, where the focusing is accurate at f/1.4, and that's all that matters. Just curious.
JimBuchanan wrote:
As in, it doesn't exist in the particular lens, or the shooter doesn't notice or care?
I suppose you are referring to users that have a lens/camera combo, where the focusing is accurate at f/1.4, and that's all that matters. Just curious.
Yes, from what I have gathered focus shift is a design issue...not a single lens issue where some have it and some don't. If you are almost strictly using it at f/1.4 of course you won't see an issue. When stopping down is when the shift rears its head
JimBuchanan wrote:
As in, it doesn't exist in the particular lens, or the shooter doesn't notice or care?
I suppose you are referring to users that have a lens/camera combo, where the focusing is accurate at f/1.4, and that's all that matters. Just curious.
Ryan, is correct it is a design issue, and the very reason why version II was created. But I do know that a well calibrated 35 Lux Asph I, with a M9 will work very well, albeit some minimal compromises when stopped down. There many that do not experience this focus shift, and it has been discussed the chrome/brass versions seem to have less focus shift issues. I feel that getting the calibration with the M9 combo is critical to begin with capturing the DOF spectrum at all f stops.
Thank you, for the respond. That is want I suspected. I have found focus shift in my 35 Summicron ASPH and 50 Summicron, but not so much that f/2.8 or f/4.0 can't cover it up.
Just picked one up and not much time to shoot with it, just some junk around the yard, all at f/1.8 on the M9:
A bit of a swirly rendering here:
Wide open it's not super sharp, but still good enough where the text on the side of the ladder is very clear (naturally it doesn't translate at web rez):
My guess is the overcast sky in the background caused this image to go fairly flat. I ended up bumping up the black point to 20 and used a fairy aggressive tone curve. Unlike the other images here though, the contrast setting was at the LR default 25:
Ryan, didn't you at one time have one of these?
Initial thoughts:
Nice build quality, decent focus throw for accuracy, just barely cuts into the lower right 75mm frame line without the hood attached. Optically it reminds me somewhat of my Canon EF 50 f/1.2L, in that it also has that soft glow wide open, in this case through to f/2.5. At f/2.8 it's sharp. Maximum sharpness appears to be between f/4 until f/8. It exhibits focus shift. At f/2.8 it's about bang-on with my rangefinder. At wider apertures it front focuses; about 2.5cm when focused on an object 1.5m away. Though I have images where I thought the rangefinder was spot on and so is focus at f/1.8... so it's possible I'm just not always able to eyeball accurate focus. I'm reconsidering getting an eyepiece magnifier. However, I did some stationary tripod tests running through the aperture range and there is definite focus shift.
I haven't shot with it much in 'real world' conditions, but feel it's a bit on the flat side and might lose additional contrast in backlighting. While all except one image above were processed at the LR black point default of 5, most had contrast jacked to around 50 (though I also do this for many of my ZM images). Normally I would also add clarity, but with the nature of this lens being a bit smooth and soft, opted not to here in order not to excessively change the character of the lens. Contrast was further bumped, as well as colour saturation, through fairly strong tone curves. The point being all of the above images were adjusted to look pleasing (to me), rather than exhibiting straight from the camera rendering. At the moment I don't feel this lens will replace my 85L, but it may possibly give me a look similar to my 50L (I use it on an APS-H body, so the effective coverage is quite similar). And I need to explore the focus shift issue more to determine whether I can effectively compensate for it.
When I picked up the 75 I also had the chance to do a quick shootout between the CV 28 f/2 and the ZM 28 f/2.8, because now with a ZM 50 f/2 on it's way to me for Tuesday, I'm thinking the 35-50 gap is a bit close and could go with a 28 between the 21 & 50. I'll possibly replace the ZM 35 C with the CV 35 f/1.2 MkII in the summer for when I need speed. Anyway, the CV 28 f/2 was better than I expected. On it's own it's a decent lens, though it does exhibit focus shift and the corners only get sharp around f/11, which surprisingly also appears to be where the lens attains highest resolution. The ZM on the other hand is the lens I would opt for unless I could not live without f/2 and couldn't afford the Leica. Typical Zeiss micro contrast and better global contrast. very sharp wide open in the centre, though corners are kind of soft. Corners sharpen up well at f/5.6, and the lens peaks around there or f/8 as well.
Charles: nice images on the previous page. Very nice separation effect in the first image.
Thanks Charles. I'm kind of hoping the CV can be my poor man's 75 Lux, though of course the difference between f/1.4 and f/1.8 will be considerable. I still want to try a 75 Summarit in comparison. If the CV 75 doesn't really sharpen up for more technical types of photos until f/2.8-4, then I'm not so sure about the extra size required for f/1.8. The irony is I can see myself amassing quite a lens collection, contrary to one of my original M9 objectives of creating a simplified equipment set. But so far, other than the cost of the M9, it's been fun putting together a kit where all of the lenses, other than the ZM21, have been under $1000 US and are all very good performers.
rscheffler wrote:
When I picked up the 75 I also had the chance to do a quick shootout between the CV 28 f/2 and the ZM 28 f/2.8, because now with a ZM 50 f/2 on it's way to me for Tuesday, I'm thinking the 35-50 gap is a bit close and could go with a 28 between the 21 & 50. I'll possibly replace the ZM 35 C with the CV 35 f/1.2 MkII in the summer for when I need speed.
I have found over time that both the 35 and 50 focal lengths are useful in my kit. They are not really replacements for each other, so my original plan of ending up with 21/28/50/90 is kinda shot. I think I will perhaps swap the 28 Cron for a 24 Elmarit, but I am not sure yet. I will defer the decision until I have a FF digital M.
What I have found, however, is that the 75 focal length is not really for me. I always end up taking the 50 and 90 and leaving the 75. The 75 Lux is a brilliant lens, but so is the 90AA in its own way.
JimBuchanan wrote:
As in, it doesn't exist in the particular lens, or the shooter doesn't notice or care?
As in some copies have it and some don't. Mine (a chrome one) is very minimal, covered by DoF. A new copy that the Leica store near me had exhibited huge amounts, being totally out of focus at f/2.8 and f/4. There have been a large number of reports from chrome and titanium owners that theirs are fine, when tested. Possibly this is due to brass being easier to machine accurately than aluminium alloy.
As best I can tell from gathering information both good and bad copies can be within Leica's tolerances, and the design is simply more sensitive to slight differences in element placement than is usable with digital.
With film it worked fine, because the emulsion itself has depth, and so there are multiple depths at which the light can be focused and caught, yielding an image which always appeared sharp.
Nice report Ron, seems like cv lenses all retain that swirly boke. no?
I actually like that look when shooting wide open.. a lot of people don't I guess..
Carsten, interesting thoughts. I would have thought the 28/50 would have been more useful than the 35/50.. anything wrong with the 28 in particular or?
My father came to visit this weekend and we took him down to the Eastern Market in DC, since he enjoys those sorts of venues. I also had a couple of prints made of the portraits I took there last weekend and hand-delivered them to the folks who had so kindly let me take their picture. They were extremely appreciative. I have to be honest, it felt pretty good. I'm not sure they recognized that they were doing me a favor and providing me with the same level of joy by letting me take their portrait
We didn't hang out down there very long, but I did manage to take a few more photos. All were taken with the 90 Cron pre-AA.
I caught these ducks making a fuss when someone was picking up one of their wooden babies.
I actually remembered to take a photo of some of this guy's artwork since I missed it last week.
You should have seen this guy working his wire. It was incredible watching him turn thin wire into some pretty amazing animal sculptures.
I think these girls were raising money for school, but they sounded pretty sweet.
Just a quick capture of some of the old architecture in Capitol Hill
nice one Kyle.
Nice capture
