Fred Miranda wrote: EMH2025 wrote:
My lens arrived yesterday, it rained most of the day, but there was a brief window when it suddenly cleared (in Tucson) and that was my chance to try the 35 1.4 AA. I noted some parallels with the 1966, light falloff for landscape is quite severe, but close to medium distance doesn't matter and is enhancing of 3D pop (wide open small Saguaro in morning light). For landscape a stopdown to 2 or more is better. What seems remarkable already to me with a brief use is how film-like the imagery looks without using a film emulation, indeed when I ran through film emulations with Cobalt I decided Adobe profiles was more than enough and the film emulation was overkill at least on this image.
Weather will improve next days and I should have lots of good light time to give the new lens a spin .
Great samples, and congrats on picking up the lens. Was the first shot at f/4 and the second wide open? Beautiful scenery.
I just picked up the 1966 again too, this time in silver chrome. I previously had the titanium version.
Yes 4 and then wide open , I am finding scenery still looks film like > 2.8 but the light falloff for scenics is an issue while open is enhancing for closer photos whether people or plant portraits. Even at 2.8 and 4 it still retains a film like look, it is much like a wider 1966 in my hands the use of which seems a comfortable mimic to me, with a lighter package (!). The glass difference in 1966 does render different but both have a vintage filmy look. On the scenery - the view from driveway- over the years I have developed a lot of stand here spots, the scenic is a flat rock I stand on which makes reproducing a scene easy from lens to lens. I like the 1966- but it a bit heavy- that lead glass is so obvious. I think both lenses 1966 and 35 1.4AA are a bit challenging to use for scenics, has to be right light and is stop sensitive both are easy for closer photos. I'd say the same about the 0.95 Leica noct, in my hands I find scenics are a challenge to get my vision for their photo, but quite easy to use closer.
tried to find my inner ansel adams this morning- planned photo- I knew with the clearing sly the Moon would be in a good position with the cactus on the side of the house, I waited for my moment, and tried to get a BW with my adams inspiration with the 35 1.4 AA it had to be at 4 to get the Moon in a better focus, wide open was terrible. It was finally cold here, avoids the issue of rattlesnake encounter in the underbrush, I avoid this stand spot when it is warmer using this photo spot as the snakes are there.
I added a second color version of this shot wide open, the troubling aspect is not only the light fall off that might be edited/cropped, but have a look at the way the moon is rendered at 1.4 is doubled for infinity using the Saguaro as point of focus. I need to spend a lot more time with this lens and scenics, much to learn, and a lot of trial and error to see what works and what doesn't- close in is easy and the lens is great.
Fred Miranda wrote: EMH2025 wrote:
My lens arrived yesterday, it rained most of the day, but there was a brief window when it suddenly cleared (in Tucson) and that was my chance to try the 35 1.4 AA. I noted some parallels with the 1966, light falloff for landscape is quite severe, but close to medium distance doesn't matter and is enhancing of 3D pop (wide open small Saguaro in morning light). For landscape a stopdown to 2 or more is better. What seems remarkable already to me with a brief use is how film-like the imagery looks without using a film emulation, indeed when I ran through film emulations with Cobalt I decided Adobe profiles was more than enough and the film emulation was overkill at least on this image.
Weather will improve next days and I should have lots of good light time to give the new lens a spin .
Great samples, and congrats on picking up the lens. Was the first shot at f/4 and the second wide open? Beautiful scenery.
I just picked up the 1966 again too, this time in silver chrome. I previously had the titanium version.
Yes 4 and then wide open , I am finding scenery still looks film like > 2.8 but the light falloff for scenics is an issue while open is enhancing for closer photos whether people or plant portraits. Even at 2.8 and 4 it still retains a film like look, it is much like a wider 1966 in my hands the use of which seems a comfortable mimic to me, with a lighter package (!). The glass difference in 1966 does render different but both have a vintage filmy look. On the scenery - the view from driveway- over the years I have developed a lot of stand here spots, the scenic is a flat rock I stand on which makes reproducing a scene easy from lens to lens. I like the 1966- but it a bit heavy- that lead glass is so obvious. I think both lenses 1966 and 35 1.4AA are a bit challenging to use for scenics, has to be right light and is stop sensitive both are easy for closer photos. I'd say the same about the 0.95 Leica noct, in my hands I find scenics are a challenge to get my vision for their photo, but quite easy to use closer.
tried to find my inner ansel adams this morning- planned photo- I knew with the clearing sly the Moon would be in a good position with the cactus on the side of the house, I waited for my moment, and tried to get a BW with my adams inspiration with the 35 1.4 AA it had to be at 4 to get the Moon in a better focus, wide open was terrible. It was finally cold here, avoids the issue of rattlesnake encounter in the underbrush, I avoid this stand spot when it is warmer using this photo spot as the snakes are there.
