Charles, adorable dog portrait with the 75Lux
Ajay, congrats on the 35/1.2. Nice set and the 35/1.2 does draw uniquely. I like the "lucy" self portrait a lot! ... and no, I don't think I will upgrade my 35Lux ASPH to the CV 35/1.2.
charles.K wrote:
Ron, excellent synopsis I do agree there are intangibles, such as colour, contrast and unique rendering with the Leica glass, but of course at a price which may not suit.
dgenx24, very nice set! I really like the way the 75 Summarit renders.
telluridesstock, beautiful shot
Charles, yes, definitely intangibles. Last night I did a few on the fly environmental portraits with the CV35 f/1.2II at dusk, wide open, and really liked the results. I will need to investigate the off-center back focus that I've noticed more thoroughly. It could also be a matter of focus and recompose or slight rangefinder inaccuracy. But so far this lens and the Summarit are pretty much spot on with my M9, whereas my ZM50P is definitely off, and the ZM35C is also slightly off, but DoF usually covers this...
dgenx24 - great set! I briefly tried a CV 50 f/1.1 and couldn't really get it to work for me. It probably wasn't in sync with my rangefinder. Also, doesn't it have focus shift as it's stopped down? So far I haven't noticed this with the 35 f/1.2. While 35 and 50 are pretty close, I find I use both focal lengths a lot. But you might be right that you don't need both as fast lenses.
telluridestock: very nice image! I was initially going to get the 75 Summarit, but got the CV75 f/1.8 instead... which I haven't used all that much. I'm enjoying the 90 Summarit though. I think these lenses are under rated because they're Leica's low end glass...
Wow Joe, these are all excellent! If you force me to pick a favourite, it would be the first one, but I also really like the people placement in #2 and #3 is a great moment.
+1! I didn't mention, but the first shot on the last page at the carnival is just awesome as well! Great rendering in that shot, love what you did with the PP
Ron, phew, I'm somewhat relieved that you like the 90 Summarit! I think its time to consider swapping your ZM50 for a 50Cron? The 50Cron pairs really well with the 90 Summarit.
Joe, from what I've seen, there isn't much of a difference between the ZM50 Planar and 50 Cron, at least not enough for me to spend much more for the Leica. I'm kind of more inclined to go for the CV50 f/1.5 or finding a 50 Lux to benefit from the extra stop.
rsolti13 wrote:
+1! I didn't mention, but the first shot on the last page at the carnival is just awesome as well! Great rendering in that shot, love what you did with the PP
Thanks Ryan
Glad some of you are not complaining on my recent pp! I'm kind of working "blind" on my monitor right now. I upgraded to my NEC PA27 monitor recently and I just can't calibrate it accurately. The monitor is great but I'm having all sorts of conflicts with Win 7 and monitor profiling with my Spyder Elite 3. Really frustrating.
rscheffler wrote:
Joe, from what I've seen, there isn't much of a difference between the ZM50 Planar and 50 Cron, at least not enough for me to spend much more for the Leica. I'm kind of more inclined to go for the CV50 f/1.5 or finding a 50 Lux to benefit from the extra stop.
hehe Ron, you know I am partial to the "L" word I'll say skip the CV50/1.5. Its a great lens for the price but nowhere close to the 50Lux ASPH.
Ron, I tried the 50 Cron (both III and IV) at the same time as having the 50 Planar. I will say that with your style of PP the 50 Planar is definitely the lens for you. It is slightly sharper dead center than the 50 Cron and the microcontrast is far better. The 50 Cron is better though across the frame. The 50 Cron III that Joe has is very similar in rendering to the 90 Summarit you picked up. The newer 50 Cron IV and V (same optical formula) is more of a perfect lens....and in my opinion loses some character. I don't know why...but B/W with the 50 Planar is as good as it gets. It renders beautifully
charles.K wrote:
dgenx24, very nice set! I really like the way the 75 Summarit renders.
Thanks Charles, I should've stayed with canon. leica's money sucker!
rsolti13 wrote:
+1 here! Great shots with the 75 Summarit. I always felt that was the perfect long lens on the M8
thanks rsolti13! yea I always liked 100mm range for portrait and the summarit is perfect on M8 for me..
Bobu wrote:
Very nice! My favorites are #3 and #4. Hm, maybe I should get a 75 Summarit.
Boris
thanks Boris!. I should get more leica.. lol.. any leica..
rscheffler wrote:
dgenx24 - great set! I briefly tried a CV 50 f/1.1 and couldn't really get it to work for me. It probably wasn't in sync with my rangefinder. Also, doesn't it have focus shift as it's stopped down? So far I haven't noticed this with the 35 f/1.2. While 35 and 50 are pretty close, I find I use both focal lengths a lot. But you might be right that you don't need both as fast lenses.
thanks!
I only had my leica set up for two weeks now. I didn't get a chance to come up with any conclusion yet.
And as for CV50 1.1, I've been shooting wide open most of the time so far. no focus shift yet.. I might be wrong. If I had m9, 35mm will be better fit for me than 50mm but again I got lot to learn about rangefinder stuff...
M9 with a blurry old 50/1.5 Summarit I love the colors and the feel of this lens when you adjust the black point (out of the box it's very washed out and flashed looking)
I'm having such a hard time deciding on a 35mm for my m8!
I've got a 35/1.2 II on order from camtec (leicaboutique) in montreal but they're still waiting on the next shipment of this lens.
Of course, because I've had all this time to think about the purchase before it's arrived, I've got myself second thinking!!
I guess the real question is, should I save my money and get either the CV 35/1.4 or CV 35/1.2 version I?
Unfortunately, the 35/2 biogon is too slow and the 35 Lux is out of my price range at the moment.
Really, I'm just not sure if the 35/1.2II is worth the price tag when compared to the CV35/1.4 and the old 35/1.2 (if bought used.)
Thoughts anyone?
Edit: I justt realized that as of today I've been a user on fredmiranda.com for four years! Neat haha.
Brody, it really comes down to what look do you want. The CV 35 f/1.4 and CV 35 f/1.2 render totally differently. The CV 35 f/1.4 has a very wild glow to it that closely resembles a 35 Lux PRE ASPH. It is not very sharp, yet nice and compact. The 35 f/1.2 is larger, yet far closer in rendering to a modern 35 Lux ASPH. There is a small difference in size between the VI and VII...with the VII being a little smaller. Based on samples I have had, the 35 f/1.2 VII is sharper and contrastier
Great series of shots Joe!
Nice look to the set of pics Daniel.
Ajay - lovely set.
Charles, marvellous pics!
Ron, love the GMC Truck series - the colour and mood is amazing.
here are some recentl ones from a not-so-sunny Singapore -
joe88 wrote:
hehe Ron, you know I am partial to the "L" word I'll say skip the CV50/1.5. Its a great lens for the price but nowhere close to the 50Lux ASPH.
Thanks Joe. So you're saying I should save the hassle and just get the most expensive option and be done with it?
Ryan, thanks for the added info about the 50 Cron versions. I would definitely like a 50 that is more consistently sharp across the frame at wider apertures, but I think if I'm going to spend a couple thousand, I might as well go all out and get the Lux for 'a bit' more
Brody, I agree with Ryan... if you want a fast 35 that is pretty sharp wide open and very good through the entire wider aperture range, and don't want to spend $5K, then the CV 35 f/1.2II is about the only option I can think of. The CV 35 f/1.4, IIRC, also exhibits focus shift at wider apertures, which could be cause for some frustration. The used original f/1.2 version might be an option but IMO its price has been inflated because Cameraquest raised their price $300 as soon as it was announced as discontinued. It used to sell for $900 new. I wouldn't pay that much for a used one even though it's probably a decent lens.
Daniel, that old Summarit has a lot going on! Very cool.
dgenx24: you should notice focus shift at wider apertures, say between f/2 and f/4. Beyond that depth of field masks the shift. That's what I notice with the Canon 50L, and even though it has an aspherical element (the CV 50 f/1.1 does not), it's somewhat under corrected for spherical aberration, which I believe is also the case for the CV and is responsible for focus shift. See here for a better explanation (assuming it's correct): http://diglloyd.com/articles/Focus/FocusShift.html
dgenx24: you should notice focus shift at wider apertures, say between f/2 and f/4. Beyond that depth of field masks the shift. That's what I notice with the Canon 50L, and even though it has an aspherical element (the CV 50 f/1.1 does not), it's somewhat under corrected for spherical aberration, which I believe is also the case for the CV and is responsible for focus shift. See here for a better explanation (assuming it's correct): http://diglloyd.com/articles/Focus/FocusShift.html
I just did a quick dirty test at 1.1 & at 4.
Yes. .there was focus shift.. haven't noticed since I barely use those aperture range(fortunately).
my cv 35II just shipped, it'll be interesting to see how the two compares..
I'll say skip the CV50/1.5. Its a great lens for the price but nowhere close to the 50Lux ASPH.
