rji2goleez wrote:
Trying out a borrowed 35 Summilux (11663). Me like!
Well….what do you think? I know you have the ZM 35 1.4 which is an awesome lens, but the size of the Lux compared to the ZM is night/day. I had the ZM and tried the 35 Lux….the rest is history . Different rendering between the two and to be honest, I liked the results out of the Zeiss slightly better, but the size/handling of the Lux won me over
rsolti13 wrote:
Well….what do you think? I know you have the ZM 35 1.4 which is an awesome lens, but the size of the Lux compared to the ZM is night/day. I had the ZM and tried the 35 Lux….the rest is history . Different rendering between the two and to be honest, I liked the results out of the Zeiss slightly better, but the size/handling of the Lux won me over
That's pretty much the story in my opinion as well. The size surprised me in a good way. And while superfluous, the lens is gorgeous. And yet, the rendering of this lens is wonderful. The word that comes to mind is buttery and yet sharp. I'll have this lens for a few weeks to enjoy.
I quite enjoyed using both digital and film in Venice last summer. Nothing terribly original, but it was interesting to see how cameras and lenses compared in these sorts of conditions. Here are a couple of examples (this isn't meant to be any sort of scientific comparison, because they were taken with different lenses).
(This is the first time I've posted pictures to this thread; apologies if I've done something dumb with the file sizes.)
LEICA M11Voigtlander VM APO-LANTHAR 50mm F2 Aspherical lens50mmf/6.81/800s64 ISO+2.0 EV
No, this is not yet another pic of a random dog photobombing my composition, but of a washed up dolphin in distress.
I did not do anything because they always say to wait for the professionals to arrive.
. Different rendering between the two and to be honest, I liked the results out of the Zeiss slightly better, but the size/handling of the Lux won me over
