Jump to content

35mm 1.4 floating vs non floating element


dant

Recommended Posts

Has anyone use both the floating and non floating element 35mm 1.4 lenses?

 

Can one see a big difference in IQ or is the difference in the pixel peeping?

 

Thanks

 

masses of threads on this here if you search, e.g.:

 

great summary:

 

 

 

 

The new FLE is considered slightly sharper but bokeh not as creamy

 

The old ASPH has focus shift which kicks in mostly between f2-f8 (inc.) but apparently there are a few lenses out there which were optimised for f2, which means you get focus shift f1.4, f2.8-f8

 

There is approx £1,000 difference in the UK new and second hand

 

In summary if you are shooting completely wide open or very closed down you will not notice. Some people have managed to live with the shift by working out how much to "lean in" in the shift zone, others say they couldn't live with it.

Most people say the 35mm FLE is the best 35mm lens ever made ever but I couldn't possibly comment ....

 

You pays your money you takes your choice .... ;)

Edited by colonel
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is a very interesting read.

 

Tim Ashley Photography | Leica M 240 with 35mm F1.4 FLE - some observations

 

 

I have the 35mm F1.4 ASPH that has considerable focus shift.

Don Goldberg adjusted it for me so that it focuses precisely for f/1.4.

That's what the majority of his customers want, he told me.

Then I try to avoid using it from f/2 to f/4.8.

From f/5.6 on depth of field seems to have caught up with focus shift. :D

 

I like the signature of my lens and I have no intention to get the FLE version. ;)

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is a very interesting read.

 

Tim Ashley Photography | Leica M 240 with 35mm F1.4 FLE - some observations

 

 

I have the 35mm F1.4 ASPH that has considerable focus shift.

Don Goldberg adjusted it for me so that it focuses precisely for f/1.4.

That's what the majority of his customers want, he told me.

Then I try to avoid using it from f/2 to f/4.8.

From f/5.6 on depth of field seems to have caught up with focus shift. :D

 

I like the signature of my lens and I have no intention to get the FLE version. ;)

 

I am sticking with my 35 Summicron V4 .

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

masses of threads on this here if you search, e.g.:

great summary:

 

 

The new FLE is considered slightly sharper but bokeh not as creamy

 

The old ASPH has focus shift which kicks in mostly between f2-f8 (inc.) but apparently there are a few lenses out there which were optimised for f2, which means you get focus shift f1.4, f2.8-f8

 

There is approx £1,000 difference in the UK new and second hand

 

In summary if you are shooting completely wide open or very closed down you will not notice. Some people have managed to live with the shift by working out how much to "lean in" in the shift zone, others say they couldn't live with it.

Most people say the 35mm FLE is the best 35mm lens ever made ever but I couldn't possibly comment ....

 

You pays your money you takes your choice .... ;)

 

 

Thanks for the rundown. Is the focus shift noticeable if you are shooting 6 feet away from a person as opposed to a tight face shot? I would be shooting mostly open around f2.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

A link mentioned in this thread talked about the Voigtlander 35/1.2. I didn't know about this lens. Is it on par with Leica's 35 for sharpness and IQ?

 

 

No

 

Thanks for the rundown. Is the focus shift noticeable if you are shooting 6 feet away from a person as opposed to a tight face shot? I would be shooting mostly open around f2.

 

 

Yes

 

Best Rgds

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a late 6 bit coded version of the 35 mm ASPH Summilux (pre-FLE) lens and being more a user of the EVF on my Leica M240 don't tend to have any focus shift issues. I find the lens acceptably sharp taking edges into account for landscape photography and am very impressed with the rendering of this lens. I believe the FLE is a touch sharper but the bokeh may not be as smoother.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A link mentioned in this thread talked about the Voigtlander 35/1.2. I didn't know about this lens. Is it on par with Leica's 35 for sharpness and IQ?

 

The 35 FLE is sharper (outresolves the M sensor), but this does not mean the Voigtlander is not a sharp lens.

And there is more to a photo than sharpness.

 

The rendering style wide open is very different. My personal opinion is that the Voigtlander has a much better bokeh than the FLE (alas, its only drawback) and a different character wide open that sometimes resembles the Noctilux f/1.

 

Try browsing the Flickr groups dedicated to each of these lenses. Some shots can be downloaded at full resolution.

 

P.S. Before buying, you may want to wait for the Zeiss 35/1.4 that should be presented at Photokina in a few days.

Edited by CheshireCat
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sticking with my 35 Summicron V4 .

 

Me too. Had the (non-FLE) 35/1.4, and 35/2 ASPH, not sufficiently impressed by the improvements in practical use vs on paper. If something happens to my V4 I've still got my ratty but perfect-glass V3 to back it up. A better-constructed lens than the V4, albeit a tad bigger and heavier. Performance so close it's a draw.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the 35 pre-FLE Summilux that I sent to DAG for focus adjustment along with several other lenses. His comment was that all my Leica lenses had been a bit off, and benefited from adjustment. So I don't know specifically how he dealt with the focus shift issue. Or even if this lens suffered from it noticeably.

 

As I became serious about photography in the 60's, I developed the habit of avoiding wide-open apertures for image quality reasons. So I use my Summilux mainly in the f/2 - f/8 range, including with the M typ 240. I have not noticed any focus shift.

 

FWIW, DAG had also adjusted my C-Sonnar ZM that came optimized for f/2.8 and showed focus error wide open, but after his adjustment I no longer notice focus shift there at any aperture.

 

I do have other 35mm options that also work very well:

v1 Summicron that I got new in 1967, recent CLA, adjustment & coding by DAG

f/2.8 Summaron with goggles

f/1.4 Nokton SC

f/2 Biogon ZM

I also have the f/2.8 C-Biogon ZM but it gives pink edges on the M so it goes on an M8.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do check the rendering differences they are IMO very different lenses in how they look. I really like the pre FLE and yes it shifts but much less than my 50 Summilux V3 and V4. It has a reputation for focus shift but this is not an exclusive lens problem to the 35 1.4 you can work round if you know the lens.

 

I'd personally take the pre FLE over the FLE every time. Worth reading the older threads it's been a while since we've had a good in depth technical/subjective lens debate I miss them !

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I must have a weird copy of the pre-FLE Asph. Its a crackingly good lens and from my (fairly extensive) use at ALL apertures, suffers from very little focus shift in practice. Perhaps its my copy (I doubt it) but it works very well indeed - its not perfect and exhibits some odd flaring at times and interesting effects around substantially blown highlights, but as a practial, usable, fast medium wide its pretty good and I've not had any real issues with focus shift (some with operator error though!).

 

I also have the 35mm pre-aspheric Summilux which is a lovely little lens, though its wide open performance might now be considered 'poor' but is useful at times. And I have a Canon 35/1.4L which is another excellent lens and capable of great results (if I can be bothered with its bulk - it has specific applications which is when it gets used).

 

So why am I bothering to post? Well because there is a tendency to obsess over perceived inadequacies of some lenses. In practice these are often not particularly significant with a well adjusted copy of the lens in question unless you have very specific requirements which push you into using them where they may not be optimal.

 

Buy the lens you like and can afford and enjoy using it - if the thought of focus shift worries you then go for the FLE. If you prefer the 'look' from the pre-FLE then go for that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps its my copy (I doubt it) but it works very well indeed.... and I've not had any real issues with focus shift (some with operator error though!).

 

So why am I bothering to post? Well because there is a tendency to obsess over perceived inadequacies of some lenses.

 

Why do you doubt it? Do you think other users are all just making stuff up. I've (somewhat ludicrously) owned seven of the modern ASPH 35mm lenses (3 x Summicron, 2 x pre-FLE and 2 x FLE) and can say without any doubt that the focus shift on the two pre-FLE Summilux lenses was a real genuine problem in normal use (the difference between the point of intended focus being "in focus" and "out of focus" at middling apertures), not my imagination nor a product of a "tendency to obsess over perceived inadequacies". All the other 35mm lenses I've owned (including a Summarit) have been fine. Funny that.:rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you doubt it?

I must have an odd copy (and the only one I've owned), because mine doesn't exhibit the same apparent degree of focus shift that others report. Same optics, so I'm genuinely puzzled because I can't see how mine can be that different - adjustment is one thing but differing optical performance is another thing entirely.

 

FWIW I've owned at least a lot of Leica M 35mm lenses (actually probably more than I can remember to put down here) over the last 30 years including 5 pre-aspheric Summicrons v. 2. 3. & 4.), 3 pre-aspheric Summiluxes, the current Summarit and the pre-FLE Summilux (I still own a v.4 Summicron) and my pre-FLE Summilux Aspheric simply doesn't produce focus shift which bothers me in practice. Which is why I query the problem. And before shooting me down, consider that we hear of problems here on the forum but hear less about those lenses which are ok. I just wonder if the focus shift (which wasn't a problem in film days) is as widespread and significant as many would have us believe? If, as has been stated, the lens can be adjusted to optimise it for specific apertures, then I assume (can someone correct me?) that this is carried out by adjusting the position of the rear element group relative to the front.

 

My problem with the FLE idea is that I can't see how it can improve close focus performance (the advantage of the floating element design as stated by Leica) AND compensate for focus shift which is aperture dependent. I can understand that it can increase close performance but not how it deals with aperture dependent focus shift because the FLE mechanism is not linked to the aperture (as far as I am aware). Perhaps someone with better optics theory might care to explain? And perhaps, just perhaps, the focus shift which has been observed is actually variable between lenses depending on the absolute individual lens assembly?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If, as has been stated, the lens can be adjusted to optimise it for specific apertures, then I assume (can someone correct me?) that this is carried out by adjusting the position of the rear element group relative to the front.

 

I don't think the adjustment is as sophisticated as that. For those lenses where focus shift is apparent, the adjustment is usually about choosing which aperture has the most 'precise' focus. In other words, the user might want F2.8 to be bang on and have F1.4 slightly front focussing and F5.6 slightly back-focussing.

 

My problem with the FLE idea is that I can't see how it can improve close focus performance (the advantage of the floating element design as stated by Leica) AND compensate for focus shift which is aperture dependent. I can understand that it can increase close performance but not how it deals with aperture dependent focus shift because the FLE mechanism is not linked to the aperture

 

I agree. I've always thought it unlikely that a floating lens designed to improve close focus could be the solution to focus shift but, in practice, the FLE lens doesn't suffer from the phenomenon (it probably does at the live view focussed pixel peeping level). I suspect that the FLE is built using an optical design that has better correction for spherical aberrations and is manufactured to higher tolerances than its predecessor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the adjustment is as sophisticated as that.

 

I suspect that the FLE is built using an optical design that has better correction for spherical aberrations and is manufactured to higher tolerances than its predecessor.

I wonder if the two things are actually part of the same phenomenon? Adjusting the whole lens for a specific aperture seems an awkward solution, and perhaps the problem lies in the physical lens design of the pre-FLE. If the rear section is not easily adjustable relative to the front because of the lenses' mechanical design then, depending on its manufacturing, its specific location may be set on manufacture and neither optimal nor easily adjustable.

 

Adjusting the whole lens will deal with the outcome of this at a specific aperture or apertures but wouldn't deal with the adjustment needed in relative positions of rear and front lens groups. Redesigning with a floating rear section solves adjustment (because it almost certainly has to be adjustable) and improves close focus performance because that's what such a design does. Which might explain why some lenses exhibit less focus shift than others? Just conjecture I know but there has to be a reason for variance in the pre-FLE's performance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
Has anyone use both the floating and non floating element 35mm 1.4 lenses?

 

Can one see a big difference in IQ or is the difference in the pixel peeping?

 

Thanks

 

The main purpose for the FLE design was to compensate for the loss of contrast that is present in fixed lens designs where the distance has been optimized for both detail and contrast, which causes a loss of contrast at near. The FLE designs, like the Summilux 50mm retain contrast at all distances because of the FLE group that moves for changes in distance.

 

The small amount of correction needed for focus shift is secondary.

 

Also, the new FLE is improved in the area of flare and reduced tendency for secondary reflections. The changes in the lens coatings was claimed to be the reason the delay in production. Also, the lens mount was changes to be have less internal reflections.

 

The FLE version not only improves focus shift, it gives a noticeable punch in contrast at near as compared to the non-FLE that was optimized by design for distance photography.

 

The only disadvantage I reported in 2010 when I discovered distance specular highlights produce edgy harsh bokeh. It was first mentioned in post #19 in this thread of new ornery of the newly released (and delayed) FLE: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m-lenses/145451-where-new-35-luxs.html

 

Rick

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...