Summarit 35 - Sean's Review

[sean_reid]

Originally Posted by mas

Sean, you've saved me a considerable amount of money and helped me get some better images. Thanks.

I'm very glad to hear that, thank you. Reviews of the other Summarits should be finished over the next couple of months. I apologize for the delay but I'm also trying to devote time to articles for people who don't use DRFs, etc.

Cheers,

Sean

[sean_reid]

Originally Posted by mas

Hmm-Just realized that perhaps it would be better to wait for Sean's really soon-to-come imminent review of the CV 35/1.4. At least one person will be waiting impatiently to see that.

Michael

It's not here yet, alas...

Cheers,

Sean

[sean_reid]

Originally Posted by ChrisC

Sean - Keep swimming against that particular 'tide'. I've long believed that a contrasty-lens combined with capture contrast to be a horrible combination; it was true for shooting transparency film, as it is true for digital. Perhaps the film lesson was slower to learn because you can't tell with certainty whether shadows and highlights are properly protected by checking a transparency on a light box with a loupe. As your reviews demonstrate; histograms tell the story of digital file capture explicitly.

............... Chris

They do indeed.

Cheers,

Sean

[mas]

Sean, do you expect that the new CV 35 1.4 will be caffeinated?
Michael

[batmobile]

Originally Posted by lct

Because your pic is not contrasty enough to show any doubled lines or bright OoF zones with sharp edges like these.

I've just put six rolls thru mine and compared it to a 25 f2 biogon absolutely side by side out of curiosity and the CV's bokeh is almost identical. The ZM's OOF is frationally smoother but you are having to compare very hard and keep switching back and forth to be sure. To all intents and purposes the CV (mine is a pancake 2) has perfectly reasonable bokeh and I shot at all distances, with min focus subjects and infinity background, with specular highlights - the lot. I included min focus subjects with inifinity including dark connifers against a blazing bright Afghan sky etc. Anything that messed up the CV messed up the Biogon too and that lens has among the smoothest bokeh of modern ligh performance lenses IMO. You really could not split them.

The rest of the CV's performance was superb. It is an absolulte stunner for the money and once past a little vignetting wide open it was extremely close to the biogon edges at f4 and pretty well there at 5.6 (centres being equal). The biogon is the king of edge performance and for the CV to be so very close is quite something.

Anyone who thinks the CV skopar 35 2.5 is not right up there with the very best in all regard either has a bad one or has not used one (or is relying on second hand images from the internet, which they neither took nor compared side by side to see how another lens would perform).

[lct]

Perhaps you're right but i've used this lense once and rejected it immediately for its harsh bokeh. I was asking for contrasty pics with allegedly smooth bokeh i my old posts above. Still didn't get one so far. Would you mind to show me one here? Just curious as i don't mind to be proven wrong at all.

[batmobile]

I'b back in the UK and busy trying to dent a backlog of negs. I will see if I brought any of the CV test rolls back with me and if so I will see if I can print something. Its all mono so no quick uploads of digi files unfortunately.