'You lot' are to blame for my spending yet more money on photo gear!
With a large investment in Canon and alt lenses, I nevertheless have joined the 'M' community with an initially low investment. The catalyst was simply viewing the quality of images on this thread.
My investment has been low so far. An M8 bought for A$1500 and a CV35/1.4 for A$440. I bought the necessary UV+IR filter and lens hood separately.
My first forays with this combo were in the back garden, then Kuala Lumpur and now N Ireland where we are on a family visit. A low cost Jupiter 8 is also on the way. Yesterday I also fitted my C/Y 50/1.4 to the M8 with a $50 adapter and took a couple of sample shots. Incidentally I also notice a similar adapter is available for Leica R lenses, so why this 'revelation' about the incoming new M? ( I have Macro-Elmarit 60 and an Elmarit 28).
Here are a couple of shots for ricardovaste who asked about the CV35/1.4
I think I will seek out a ZM35 if my foray with the M8 continues to be pleasurable!
Here are three photos, all shot inside a Kuala Lumpur market.
Travelling only with an iPad ( but many kg of camera gear!), I have been trying out piRAWnha as a processor, then using Filterstorm to do a one-time scaling down to 900 pixels, so no stepwise sharpening. I normally use Capture One Pro so I am missing its capabilities!
Thanks for the earlier comments Michael, Edward, Charles
Michael, nice shots with the 50Lux ASPH a few pages back. #4 is my favorite, excellent. The 50Cron rigid continues to impress, nice set!
Edward, excellent shots with the ZM50P at the dance theater.
Gary, nice shots with the ZM35C.
Douglas, excellent examples with the 35CronIV. You really make me wish that I didn't sell my copy last year. I like how this lens is "imperfect" but most of all its so compact.
Tritran, nice shots with the Konica 50mm.
Ryankarr, nice family shots!
Allen, nice street shot! Like the girl's expression.
Joakim, nice set with the 35Lux. Looks really cold out there.
lenticular11, nice set with the CV35/1.4.
ricardovaste wrote:
At a glance I see the 35/1.4 Pre-Asph at £1,299 (best price I can find, but still good condition) and the Zeiss 35/2 seems to go at around £500. So almost three times the price for the Leica.
I'll probably be panned for asking but, the Voigtlander 35/1.4 seems to get 'bad' reviews because of softness and detail across the frame at wide and wider apertures. Is this not what the Pre-Asph 35/1.4 is partly noted for... but in a romanticized way?
My opinion, the 35/1.4 pre ASPH is probably a nice lens to have AFTER you accumulate some other lenses first but that's my opinion. As a one lens kit, and with the issues of flares, distortion, abbreviations, etc., and especially on price-value, I'm not that sure if it would be a good first lens. As Douglas and many others mentioned, the CV 35/1.4 renders very similar to the 35Lux but it does have focus shift, so unless you plan to shoot wide open or stopped down all the time, it might also limit its use. But if you like the look of the classic 35 Lux I would rather go for the CV and save some $$ towards another lens or put the savings towards a M9. If you don't mind the weight and size, consider the CV35/1.2 which is also excellent.
@lenticular11: Congrats! douglasf13 wrote:
The CV 34/1.4 is somewhat of a copy of the 35 Lux pre-asph. The CV is a little sharper in the center wide open (but still not that sharp,) and it has a little more distortion, I believe. A big issue for some with these lenses is focus shift. I have also noticed that all of my fast CV lenses tend to exhibit a little more purple fringing than other lenses, if that matters to you.
I personally went with the 35 Summicron IV. It has a medium contrast somewhere in between the older lenses and the newer asph lenses, and it is sharp centrally wide open with some swirl in the background, which I prefer over the more neutral background of the ASPH version. The edges don't sharpen up until you stop down a bit. The lens is also super small, which I really like....Show more →
Thanks for that. After doing some research I actually came to this conclusion. I’m not too fond of the flare with the 35/1.4 Pre-Asph, the longer MFD (1m). It seems to have a lot of coma at wide apertures too. I’m not sure how much those would bother me in real life though. But after comparing, the 35/2 Pre-Asph seemed to have a nice balance. Excellent optics, very small, no viewfinder cut off, 0.7m MFD. Thank you for those samples as well, the second one does demonstrate this well. I wonder how the first one would look at 1.4 though? :-). (Not that it matters of course!)
joe88 wrote:
My opinion, the 35/1.4 pre ASPH is probably a nice lens to have AFTER you accumulate some other lenses first but that's my opinion. As a one lens kit, and with the issues of flares, distortion, abbreviations, etc., and especially on price-value, I'm not that sure if it would be a good first lens. As Douglas and many others mentioned, the CV 35/1.4 renders very similar to the 35Lux but it does have focus shift, so unless you plan to shoot wide open or stopped down all the time, it might also limit its use. But if you like the look of the classic 35 Lux I would rather go for the CV and save some $$ towards another lens or put the savings towards a M9. If you don't mind the weight and size, consider the CV35/1.2 which is also excellent....Show more →
I do understand what you mean here. However, I have experienced different types of glass, so I don’t feel (and would prefer not) to test everything under the sun before arriving at one I like. I’m not sure how I’d use the lens, but focus shift does sound off putting / limiting. I guess it’s a question of when I’d want that extra stop of light… most of the time I’d be using smaller apertures, but occasionally for lowlight I’d go wide open, and occasionally simply for subject isolation. Those are the times when the 1.4 would count.
I think I’ll see if I can scout a lens before prices jump up. But for now I think I’ll sit back and wait on any body… perhaps an M8 will be fine if just going B&W, but I think I might find that and even the M9 a bit too limiting for lowlight. So I best get saving…
ricardovaste wrote:
I do understand what you mean here.
Not sure which part you didn't understand?
My opinion is that the 35Lux pre ASPH's use is somewhat limited in use by all the faults you mentioned, unless you specifically wish to draw on these "characters" to achieve a specific look to the images. So I would say other lenses such as the 35Cron or ZM35 Biogon might be a more useful lens to own as a all purpose one lens kit. And if you really like the look of the 35Lux pre-ASPH, I mentioned to consider the CV 35/1.4 since its the same optical formula as the 35Lux pre ASPH, very similar rendering and about 1/5 the price. With the savings of getting the CV 35/1.4 over the 35Lux preASPH, you could add a second lens at another FL to your M kit. Don't get me wrong, I love my Leica lenses, just that you find more value for your $$ with some of the excellent CV or Zeiss M mount lenses rather than a vintage Leica M lens.
I've shot with a M8 and 35Cron IV and I don't see the f/2 aperture being a real limitation for low light. f/1.4 is nice to have but if you really want to have a very sharp 35/1.4 lens for your Leica kit, you either have to fork out $$ for 35Lux ASPH or get the heavy and large CV 35/1.2 The 35FL is somewhat of a dilemma for many Leica shooters, its either cheaper lenses with trade-offs or pay much more for the 35Lux ASPH. Nothing really in between.
Looking briefly at some listings for the 35Lux pre-ASPH, I think for about the same price, you could even get two lenses, say a ZM 35C and a CV 35/1.2.
Also if 35FL on full frame is what you like, have you also considered the CV 28/1.9 lens? That lens also works really well on the M8. Less issues of field curvature compared to the newer CV 28/2 Ultron and none of the focus shift issues.
Sorry for the confusion Joe :-). What I meant was I see the point of 'going on a journey' with finding different lenses (which was only part of your point), but that I'd rather take as small of a journey as possible. But yes, I do acknowledge your other comments on the lenses mentioned, I didn't mean to dismiss them. Perhaps I shouldn't over look the CV35/1.4 then... do you know at what point focus shift become irrelevant? Meaning I can obviously shoot at 1.4 at any distance (assuming the rangefinder works...) and I can obviously shoot at f11 at middle and far distances w/o trouble... When shooting closer distances, I wonder at what aperture focus shift is compensated for by DOF.
I do actually like the look of the images I've seen from the 35/1.2, I think I read an enthusiastic review from Mr Huff, but it would be too big for me. If I'm being entirely honest 40mm is perfect for me, but after that I'd prefer 35mm. There are a couple of what I think are "decent-good" 40mm lenses (VC 40/1.4, Minolta/Leica 40/2), but I'm not sure the M9/new frame well for 40mm.
Caveat is that I haven't actually owned the CV 35/1.4 (opps ). My observation is based on reviews I somewhat trust (eg Reid Reviews which I was a subscriber) or feedback from friends who have owned this lens. Its sharp at between f/1.4 to f/2 then focus shifts from there to f/8. The amount of focus shift can vary depending on the QC of each lens. Also note that there are 2 variants, single coated and multi-coated versions but both exhibit similar focus shift patterns.
lenticular, congrats
Richard, very nice wedding portfolio If pricing is the issue, maybe opting for a M9 with 35 Lux pre Asph, maybe a good combo for your style
ricardovaste wrote:
Sorry for the confusion Joe :-). What I meant was I see the point of 'going on a journey' with finding different lenses (which was only part of your point), but that I'd rather take as small of a journey as possible. But yes, I do acknowledge your other comments on the lenses mentioned, I didn't mean to dismiss them. Perhaps I shouldn't over look the CV35/1.4 then... do you know at what point focus shift become irrelevant? Meaning I can obviously shoot at 1.4 at any distance (assuming the rangefinder works...) and I can obviously shoot at f11 at middle and far distances w/o trouble... When shooting closer distances, I wonder at what aperture focus shift is compensated for by DOF.
I do actually like the look of the images I've seen from the 35/1.2, I think I read an enthusiastic review from Mr Huff, but it would be too big for me. If I'm being entirely honest 40mm is perfect for me, but after that I'd prefer 35mm. There are a couple of what I think are "decent-good" 40mm lenses (VC 40/1.4, Minolta/Leica 40/2), but I'm not sure the M9/new frame well for 40mm.
I've not used a 40mm on the M9, myself, but I've read that, if you file down the lens mount a bit to bring up the 35mm framelines, it matches up to the framelines quite well at most distances, whereas you usually get a little more "air" around the frame with a 35mm lens.
Choosing a 35 was tough for me, because they each have positives and negatives. I considered the CV 35/1.2, and I had one for a day, but it had a scratch on the front element, so I sent it back. It was so large that it would be only an occasional lens for me, so I haven't repurchased one. Even the 35 Lux ASPH is too large for my everyday lens. It finally ended up being between the Cron IV and ASPH, and I chose the IV for its size and the slightly swirly bokeh at close distances, since I think it separates the subject a little more interestingly. However, the IV does have coma at the periphery until stopped down, and I don't think it is ever as sharp across the frame as the ASPH (and I think the CV 35/1.4 is even less sharp across the frame.) The ASPH is certainly a "better" lens, in the technical sense, from what I've seen, except for slightly more distortion and maybe flare potential. I haven't been using the IV for that long, so there's a chance I may switch to the APSH someday, but such a tiny lens with a bit of character is hard to trade in.
Excellent shots Allen. The first street portrait is my favorite.
My video rig. Probably the lightest 35mm Steadicam setup in the world (for now)
My initial impressions is that I will probably keep the RX1 to supplement my existing M setup and won't need a Leica Type 240. The RX1 is perfect for what I intend to use, that is as a full frame "B" cam to my M setup, and also to shoot 24fps full frame videos (I am probably a minority here on FM when it comes to shooting videos). Its actually quite decent for stills and the AF and focus peaking is a bonus. The macro mode of 0.2 to 0.35m is really useful, something that is a big plus over the 0.7m MFD on the Leica M. It also has a built-in video stabilizer which is not available in the upcoming Leica M. For me, the RX1 is not about ultimate IQ, but for the fun factor in a full frame format. I find many of the comparisons of the RX1 to the ZE/ZF lenses on full frame DSLRs, quite pointless. It cannot replace a DLSR nor a M9, but it comes quite close performance wise to those cameras, abeit at a steep price of admission.
Carsten, its definitely a step up from the built in mics on our cameras. Highly recommended for near broadcast quality sound. For true cinema broadcast quality, you probably need a better mic with XLR inputs with a separate preamp and/or recorder. So it depends on your reference point, but for the majority of use, the video mic series will more than suffice.
The nice thing about the Rodes are that they come complete with a hot shoe shock mount and long lasting 9V batteries (over 60-70 hours). There is a separate high past filter to cut out the a/c and compressor hum and a separate gain for -10 or +20dB to either match the input to your camera or to boost the signal, say for birding or telephoto shots. The main negative thing with these Rodes are that the shock mount is basically rubber bands and can dislodge easily if you are not careful, so you will hear many complains on this aspect but for the price, you can't go wrong. The other negative thing are that the battery compartment is not that easy to access, but its not a deal breaker.
The one above is the stereo video mic pro. This is great for stereo recordings, live events or ambient surroundings. If you need isolation, want to capture dialogue, are using a longer lens say if the subject is more than 6-7 ft away, you probably want to get the mono version, the video mic pro shotgun mic. Go for the pro version as its more compact. Also, its good to buy the dead cat sound muff for outdoor use. For Nov and Dec, Rode is throwing in a free $199 sync software called Plural Eyes for the video mic series. Its a great software from RED even if you don't use it http://www.rodemic.com/news/free-pluraleyes-3-software-with-vmp-svmp-this-november-december
As with our obsession with lenses, you will probably need more than one microphone And if you want to step up one level, look at the Rode NTG 3 or the Senheiser MKH 416 or similar, but you will need a preamp such as this http://www.juicedlink.com/
Joe, great setup
I agree with you on the RX1, amazing camera, excellent IQ and so much fun to use. No point having a cam if you don't take it with you The RX1 IQ, as good as it is, does not have the clarity or edge that the M9 with Leica lenses have, at lower ISO's. Obviously at a cost! The reality though, is RX1 IQ, will only be limited by the photographer's eye and PP'ing technique rather than the minor technical limitations in comparison.
( I have Macro-Elmarit 60 and an Elmarit 28).
). My observation is based on reviews I somewhat trust (eg Reid Reviews which I was a subscriber) or feedback from friends who have owned this lens. Its sharp at between f/1.4 to f/2 then focus shifts from there to f/8. The amount of focus shift can vary depending on the QC of each lens. Also note that there are 2 variants, single coated and multi-coated versions but both exhibit similar focus shift patterns.
