Jonas B wrote:
After having compared the CV35/1.2 to the Lux35/1.4 ASPH pre-FLE, and compared them quite thorough, the sad truth is that you need both of them.
The Lux has less LoCA and better bokeh in most situations. The CV aperture blades are nicer (imo) though. The CV is sharp edge to edge when stopped down while the Lux can't render anything sharp from border to border to save its place in the bag. As you mentioned, wide open the Lux beats everything, stopped down to f/2.4 or f/2.8 the CV is as good or better.
This is my experience from one copy of the CV and two different 35Lux lenses, on the Nex-5 and then the 5N.
EDIT: I forgot to mention the CV35/1.2 has zero focus shift. It's sometimes convenient being able to focus at f/2 (higher contrast and easier focus in some situations) and then open up. The Leica has to be focused at the working aperture all the time....Show more →
Jonas, I agree with nearly everything you wrote, but not about the bokeh. The Summilux 35 has in some situation a really nervous bokeh (comparable to the Zeiss 2.0/35ZE), while my experience with the VC 1.2/35 was, that the bokeh of this lens is always smooth (wide open).
But I've personal experience only with the VC Version 1 and Summilux Version 2 (FLE) and both second versions (VC and Leica) seem to have a slightly better sharpness combined with a slightly less smooth bokeh.
And you are absolutely right about the focus shift, even my Summilux FLE is not useable at f/2.0 at close distances due to focus shift, although on a NEX this should not be problem.
Great shot, but it does look somewhat punchy, i.e. too strong contrast/too high black level, and maybe too much saturation. It is a great regret of mine that the iPad can't be calibrated, and the iPhone too for that matter.
I wrote:
After having compared the CV35/1.2 to the Lux35/1.4 ASPH pre-FLE, and compared them quite thorough, the sad truth is that you need both of them. ...and sebboh replied:
this statement cracked me up. i agree with everything you say having seen your comparisons, however the use of the word need is hilarious. i must show this to my wife to justify why i need so many lenses.
Oh, I got that from this forum. I'm not sure who posted a comment saying something like "...I would need a technical 35 as well". uoho? you?
You need them, no doubt....
Jonas, I agree with nearly everything you wrote, but not about the bokeh. The Summilux 35 has in some situation a really nervous bokeh (comparable to the Zeiss 2.0/35ZE), while my experience with the VC 1.2/35 was, that the bokeh of this lens is always smooth (wide open).
But I've personal experience only with the VC Version 1 and Summilux Version 2 (FLE) and both second versions (VC and Leica) seem to have a slightly better sharpness combined with a slightly less smooth bokeh.
Hi Boris,
I in turn have used the 35Lux ASPH pre-FLE only but both the CV35/1.2 versions. There is not much of differences between them. They are the same size, weight and style, v2 focuses a little closer and has, again a little, higher contrast and I think that makes it look sharper. Sample variations are possible of course. The magenta or purple pollution is still there in v2.
All samples above were taken when searching for problems. The two series of images below (direct comparison again) were also taken in that technical spirit (at the former Coop meat factory in Berlin in between other shots there) but at least resembles real images. They are about 1MB each: 2-3m, distant background
and a bit closer, OOF highlights
The 35Lux bokeh is to my eyes either better or the about the same as the CV35/1.2 looking at "smoothness", depending on what situation or shooting distances. When adding features as less fringe and LoCA there is no doubt I prefer the 35Lux ASPH (pre-FLE) and there is something I would like to call "beautiful and gentle to the eyes" in many of the images from that lens.
I know it's considered bad form to promote something that's in the buy & sell.
But given the Voigtlander 35mm f1.2 Nokton frenzy that's been going on in this thread lately, and given that I'm a longtime Fredmiranda contributor and trusted buyer/seller, perhaps you'll allow me to point out that I've just listed a 35mm f1.2 v1 for sale on another forum where you might not otherwise have noticed it.
vallejo wrote:
Just ordered a mint Carl Zeiss Jena Mc 135mm to use with the Nex 5n, any experiences with this combo?
[ ],André
No experience with it but I have been looking for a CZJ 135mm for a while now. Since you said "MC", I take it this is the 135/3.5? Which mount did you purchase?
I've been looking for the older 135/4 in Leica mount. A couple have came and went on eBay over the last few months (I missed both unfortunately), they're a little hard to come by. There are some samples of this particular combo (5N + 135/4) on Flickr that convince me these 135 Sonnars can produce beautiful results on the NEX, I do wonder how difficult focusing will be though.
vallejo wrote:
Just ordered a mint Carl Zeiss Jena Mc 135mm to use with the Nex 5n, any experiences with this combo?
[ ],André
I've owned the CZJ 135/3.5 MC for a few years, and, while I've not used it much on the 5N, I've enjoyed it on other cameras. You can shoot it wide open without much worry, and it is a pretty nice size, for an SLR lens. In fact, it's the only SLR lens that I've kept for my NEX rotation. Great lens for the money.
The ZM 50/1.5, Contax G 90 and CZJ 135/3.5 MC give me a pretty nice set of Sonnar teles on the 5N.
vallejo wrote:
Just ordered a mint Carl Zeiss Jena Mc 135mm to use with the Nex 5n, any experiences with this combo?
[ ],André
I have an old Jena 135/4. Aperture lever does not work, it's full of dust and the mount lacks a pin to hold it fixed. But it works very well. For me it's a tricky focal length but I was surprised how good I found it to be. I think there are multiple vresions, 2.8, 3.5 and 4 and zillions of mounts. Mine is an Exakta.
^ Awesome catch, Wilhelm. This sums up why I have been trying to chase down that lens. I'm being stubborn and holding out for an LTM version... they are out there.
