As usual, good thoughts Steve. We aren't going to quite agree but that is no issue. From owning the 50 and 35, they didn't feel very similar to me. The 50 felt higher contrast and much better resolution and resolution distrubution, with better close up performance, and appreciably better axial CA control and pretty smooth bokeh. I think the first things we notice in lenses tends to be contrast, resolution and bokeh. So in the aspects that largely give the lens it's feel, I think the 50 and 35 different.
If properties are egregious, like a ton of LoCal or pronounced field curvature, then that gets noticed (CV 50/1). I have only played with some RAW files on the 28. It felt smoother and higher contrast than the 35 and significantly better resolution-wise. Essentially a lot closer to the 50. I'll try one at some point--I'd still like to know if the e-mount version is actually optimized for e-mount before I buy. Tired of having to buy and test these. I am also not to happy about Bastian's report the 28/1.4 has all sorts of flare--the 35, 50 and 75 all seem to do better in this regard. Tons of flare in wides is really annoying often.
But focus transitions do seem pretty smooth across lenses--I hadn't considered that as a common trait.
Similar coma, low and optically corrected distortion are similar. But then again, those are very secondary characteristics (don't really distract from a photo except in specific use cases like astro/point light sources at night or architecture). I can't remember many reasonably sized 35 and 50 1.4 options for RF's that really have a lot of distortion (not the CV 35/2, 35/1.7, ZM 35/1.4 or CV 35/1.2 or CV 35/1.5 or FLE). That seems to more for AF lenses trying to downsize generally--like a FE 28 or Q28 Lux.
Anyway, I understand the attraction of the lenses for many--viable alternatives to CV and Leica's sky-high prices. I think by Thypoch essentially copying proven winners with the 35, 50 and 75 lenses, they know they have a product that is proven. And they can market these as a real Leica alternatives with some features that people are going to prefer--rounded aperture blades, reasonable prices and lower contrast (though I think leaning into lower contrasts and calling it cinema is actually probably cause they can't/or it's quite a bit harder to make these lenses with high-microcontrast WO) that's a lower risk and high reward proposition.
I don't like modern draws as much as many--meaning I won't pony up for Leica's used prices on the FLE and 50 Lux. So, these Simeras are attractive to me too. But really, how we define similar and feels and what not is very idiosyncratic. and given they were all from the same manufacture at the same time, the colors and contrast are going to make the lenses feel very similar in that way compared to other lenses.
As usual, good thoughts Steve. We aren't going to quite agree but that is no issue. From owning the 50 and 35, they didn't feel very similar to me. The 50 felt higher contrast and much better resolution and resolution distrubution, with better close up performance, and appreciably better axial CA control and pretty smooth bokeh. I think the first things we notice in lenses tends to be contrast, resolution and bokeh. So in the aspects that largely give the lens it's feel, I think the 50 and 35 different.
If properties are egregious, like a ton of LoCal or pronounced field curvature, then that gets noticed (CV 50/1). I have only played with some RAW files on the 28. It felt smoother and higher contrast than the 35 and significantly better resolution-wise. Essentially a lot closer to the 50. I'll try one at some point--I'd still like to know if the e-mount version is actually optimized for e-mount before I buy. Tired of having to buy and test these. I am also not to happy about Bastian's report the 28/1.4 has all sorts of flare--the 35, 50 and 75 all seem to do better in this regard. Tons of flare in wides is really annoying often.
But focus transitions do seem pretty smooth across lenses--I hadn't considered that as a common trait.
Similar coma, low and optically corrected distortion are similar. But then again, those are very secondary characteristics (don't really distract from a photo except in specific use cases like astro/point light sources at night or architecture). I can't remember many reasonably sized 35 and 50 1.4 options for RF's that really have a lot of distortion (not the CV 35/2, 35/1.7, ZM 35/1.4 or CV 35/1.2 or CV 35/1.5 or FLE). That seems to more for AF lenses trying to downsize generally--like a FE 28 or Q28 Lux.
Anyway, I understand the attraction of the lenses for many--viable alternatives to CV and Leica's sky-high prices. I think by Thypoch essentially copying proven winners with the 35, 50 and 75 lenses, they know they have a product that is proven. And they can market these as a real Leica alternatives with some features that people are going to prefer--rounded aperture blades, reasonable prices and lower contrast (though I think leaning into lower contrasts and calling it cinema is actually probably cause they can't/or it's quite a bit harder to make these lenses with high-microcontrast WO) that's a lower risk and high reward proposition.
I don't like modern draws as much as many--meaning I won't pony up for Leica's used prices on the FLE and 50 Lux. So, these Simeras are attractive to me too. But really, how we define similar and feels and what not is very idiosyncratic. and given they were all from the same manufacture at the same time, the colors and contrast are going to make the lenses feel very similar in that way compared to other lenses.
