Request for image samples of 35mm f/1.4

[wide.angle]

I was considering a purchase, and would be interested in viewing some images taken with the 35 F1.4 SUMMILUX-M, especially showing off its use wide open performance (shallow dof). Can someone point me to a few?

[cbretteville]

Scott,
Here is a link to three shots taken at 1.4 with the 35 'lux-ASPH that shows some of what it can do wide open: http://www.leica-camera-user.com/arc...ght=haakon%27s

This one is the same, f1.4, 1/125 sec this time on on XP2 super. The distance to the tulip I focused on was about 1.5 meters.
2006017M6_35.jpg

Cheers,
- Carl

[cbretteville]

One more, this is an "available darkness" shot: http://www.leica-camera-user.com/peo...-men-work.html

- C

[imported_jtorral]

[jonathangraham]

cannot go wrong with this lens

[Cron]

as you asked for the "normal" M 1,4/35, take a look on this thread :

http://www.leica-camera-user.com/lei...html#post40912

Norbert

[vic vic]

ha ha ha scott - u want to examine a lens on the internet :-)))) common :-))
read erwin puts review of this lens, and ask one or two good photographers for their opinion and chartacterization. if they have some really good scans (very hig end scanners) or either good b/w print or good ilfochrom print of about 30x40 cm size - there is also a good examination of the lens in practice.

i think i know why u ask this question - normal lens for m8??? i have the same concidiration. im fuly confident that this is great lens (although i have never used it).

[leica_mage]

Originally Posted by vic vic

ha ha ha scott - u want to examine a lens on the internet :-)))) common :-))) [...]

Victor, you'd be surprised with how much of a lens' fingerprint can actually show through even on some low-resolution jpegs!

Try some of the PBase shots - after fifteen minutes you'll be saying: 'this is a pre-ASPH 35 'lux; that's an ASPH 'cron; that's a Summarit' faster than you can blink - and so on and so forth.

Cheers,

[vic vic]

hi kp, how r u...

ya, of course u can say something from the jpegs on interent, and indeed the posts people made here are good too, but still, i wouldnot concider about 2,000$ lens based on internet pictures. u know what i mean :-))) slides or b/w film on light table with two loupes (one for full frame and other for details) is needed to examine, or a real print (big of course). if it was cheap lens - no problems - like it keep on using it, dont like it, nothing much happened. but it is really expenssive investment (although im sure worthwhile when u do need it ) :-)))

[leica_mage]

Originally Posted by vic vic

hi kp, how r u...

ya, of course u can say something from the jpegs on interent, and indeed the posts people made here are good too, but still, i wouldnot concider about 2,000$ lens based on internet pictures. u know what i mean :-))) slides or b/w film on light table with two loupes (one for full frame and other for details) is needed to examine, or a real print (big of course). if it was cheap lens - no problems - like it keep on using it, dont like it, nothing much happened. but it is really expenssive investment (although im sure worthwhile when u do need it ) :-)))

Victor I'm well, thanks. It is always a great pleasure to "bump into" you on the forum.

I absolutely agree about prints, and especially about slides/film with the two loupes. In fact nothing beats the loupes on the light table for helping you understand what and how much you've captured.

Victor, guess what? A beautiful, sexy, brand-new MP is coming my way. Silver chrome, of course... I'm thinking of selling the M6 and eventually going for a second MP, in black paint this time.

Best,

Best,

[vic vic]

h kp - congrats, congrats and again - congrats. great move, now it is your turn to make fotos of sexy mp, ha ha :-))))
which ones - 0.72 ???

[lct]

Internet pictures cannot show the full resolution of a lens of course, although 100% crops may be quite usefull in practice, but resolution is a parameter amongst others in photography, the least interesting one from an artistic standpoint IMHO.
Even a 200KB file can show more important features like contrast, color rendition, vignetting, bokeh, distortion and grain.
Look at the pics above for instance. We can view very well the kind of bokeh one can get with the 'lux 35 asph at full aperture.
In that and many other things, internet pictures are irreplaceable IMHO.

[Confusion Circle]

I have a picture taken wide open, but I must scan it...

[vic vic]

first of all- the photos are cool, especially the building and the bascket ball :-)))

about resolution - oh no, i dont speack about resolution at all (here no chances at all to talk about it on the internet pictures. u need imacon/creo scanner, or keinzle/durst enlarger with finest schneider/rodenstok lenses to see it. or of course, x10 schneider loupe.
i do talk about aesthetics. contrast - how do i know that u see on the monitor what i see. i have calibrated monitors, sure, but even here, i have to convert photos to gamma 2.2 for internet, and then also, small picture gives totally different impression then big ones - ya aesthetically (leave that resolution aside - dont mind about it now).
and also, when u develop slides - it is totally different if u do it with tetenal 3 steps process (almost like junk) or a true kodak 6 steps. they just give their additional value. so, so many variables here... i dont even want to start talking about black and white developments :-)))), contrast issues, micro contrats, local contrast, grain impression, sharpness impression etc etc.
when i think about the lens, i try to summerize all those variables (mostly by intuition) and see what can be done with this or that one.
for example, there is one lens that i really want - the noctilux. why??? because i imagine to myslef that in putting some variables together i can get something that i will not with asph lensess.
even in terms of out of focues areas... of course the lens plays important part here, but so do the diffeeance between rodinal and id-11 develpoers. im seriuos, u just can see it. add to it the lighting conditions that only make another important variable on the out of focus "look".

[leica_mage]

Originally Posted by vic vic

h kp - congrats, congrats and again - congrats. great move, now it is your turn to make fotos of sexy mp, ha ha :-))))
which ones - 0.72 ???

Victor yes, 0.72. With 50mm and 90mm lenses I'll have the x1.25 magnifier attached the way I do now on the M6. With the 35mm, no magnifier. For the 21mm I'll eventually get, I need an external VF anyway. So both 0.58 and 0.85 are not an option for me.

By the way, superb post on the Noctilux and the role that development plays in rendering the look of OOF areas. My next purchase is a Noctilux also. I thought I'd go for the ASPH 'lux instead, but being an obsessed available darkness shooter, how can I at least not try the Nocti??

Best,

[humanized_form]

i love this lens.

[leica_mage]

The ASPH 'lux: I love it too; so much that I shall get it to complement my... ASPH 'cron! After the Nocti!!

Cheers,

[albertwang]

Okay, do we have any Summilux-R photos now?

[MP3]

A wonderful Asph with the classic leica fingerprint, great three dimensional color rendition and depth Best, Matthew

[wide.angle]

Thanks for all the replies.

I think Carl's first post of the B+W of the tulips came closest to giving me the information I was looking for (especially providing the distance to subject, thanks), along with the first posts from Jorge and Jonathan. I only wanted to get a general feel for what the 35mm at f/1.4 looks like in terms of dof, vignetting, bokeh, and perspective. At the very least, it is the extra stops that give this lens something different than its less expensive leica brothers.

It is one thing to read numbers describing this and another to just see it in use, even by jpeg. I am well aware that the lens's sharpness, and other features are plenty for me. I'm also well aware that sharpness, contrast, and color would be at least very difficult to judge online since other factors potentially mask what the lens offers. And I'm planning to use it as a wide (35mm), not as a normal perspective.

Currently I use a 40mm (Minilux) and a 21, 28, 45, and 90 (non leica rangefinder).

My next purchase will be a film-holding box with a viewfinder.

Cheers.