35 Lux 'M' on the M9

[erlingmm]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This whole discussion started out with an unlucky/disgruntled user, and one picture from a sunny garden. Based on this one example, several posters have more or less written off the lens. I find this strange, but not untypical for the Forum discussions. Another thread ricocheted after an early user added strong vignetting (without notice) to the example pictures.

 

Fortunately, there are several sources with more systematic approaches to evaluating this lens, and several pictures from more typical use of the lens than garden photography in strong sunlight. I am aware of the following:

- Sean Reads discussion of fast 35mm lenses (just published), with lots of example photos, and a favourable conclusion about the lens

- Erwin Puts discussion of the lens

- Steve Huffs review (even if you think he is too enthusiastic, there are lots of example photos to evaluate)

- The LFI article in the last issue about the 35.

 

I encourage people who want a serius discussion about this lens to check these sources. My general impression of the conclusions is that the new 35 is optically very similar to the previous model, but with little or no focus shift, and slightly better sharpness. I would find it very strange if the new 35 is discarded, especially based on the high status of the previous model.

 

Peoples preferences (and wallet) may lead them to looking at other options, but that is a different matter.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[henning]

There is no difference between front/rear bokeh. It appears different due to the distance to camera, and depth of field as well as compression ratio.

 

This is not correct. There definitely is a difference between front and rear bokeh. Google 'Harold Merklinger bokeh' for some articles written by this scientist from Halifax, Nova Scotia on the subject. He had a number of articles published some years ago when bokeh first became a common topic. His investigations show irrefutable evidence that there is a difference front and back, and that difference can be huge.

 

Henning

[leicashot]

This is not correct. There definitely is a difference between front and rear bokeh. Google 'Harold Merklinger bokeh' for some articles written by this scientist from Halifax, Nova Scotia on the subject. He had a number of articles published some years ago when bokeh first became a common topic. His investigations show irrefutable evidence that there is a difference front and back, and that difference can be huge.

 

Henning

 

Respectfully, I have better things to do, and still believe that it has more to do with the way people compose than it does with differences individuals lenses have with front/back bokeh rendition. It's just all silly anyway.

[leicashot]

This whole discussion started out with an unlucky/disgruntled user, and one picture from a sunny garden. Based on this one example, several posters have more or less written off the lens. I find this strange, but not untypical for the Forum discussions. Another thread ricocheted after an early user added strong vignetting (without notice) to the example pictures.

 

Fortunately, there are several sources with more systematic approaches to evaluating this lens, and several pictures from more typical use of the lens than garden photography in strong sunlight. I am aware of the following:

- Sean Reads discussion of fast 35mm lenses (just published), with lots of example photos, and a favourable conclusion about the lens

- Erwin Puts discussion of the lens

- Steve Huffs review (even if you think he is too enthusiastic, there are lots of example photos to evaluate)

- The LFI article in the last issue about the 35.

 

I encourage people who want a serius discussion about this lens to check these sources. My general impression of the conclusions is that the new 35 is optically very similar to the previous model, but with little or no focus shift, and slightly better sharpness. I would find it very strange if the new 35 is discarded, especially based on the high status of the previous model.

 

Peoples preferences (and wallet) may lead them to looking at other options, but that is a different matter.

 

No one has written off this lens, only many actually agree that the bokeh isn't anything special, which it isn't, but really like I said before, if people cared more about their ability to use the lens than the bokeh it produces....

[DFV]

As far as I know I am still waiting for mine (with anticipation...). Bokeh is really the least of my concerns in this focal anyway. If it performs only slightly better than the previous that is more than sufficient for me.

[Jeff S]

- Erwin Puts discussion of the lens

 

Read all the posts. I quoted this review where he calls the bokeh 'a bit unruly.' Sean Reid only has first impressions at this point; not his full review.

 

Each person should draw his/her own conclusions based on actual needs and use, which has already been said.

 

Jeff

[Clandrel]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Sean Reid only has first impressions at this point; not his full review.

 

 

 

Jeff,

 

Check out http://www.reidreviews.com

The full test is up...

 

/c

[JLV]

A little sample of new luc Bokeh @f1,4

 

All the best,

 

Jean-Luc

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[JLV]

Sorry, nionew luc but new Lux:p

[Jeff S]

Jeff,

 

Check out http://www.reidreviews.com

The full test is up...

 

/c

 

Thanks. It wasn't there when I posted; showed up hours later.

 

Jeff

[lars_bergquist]

Respectfully, I have better things to do, and still believe that it has more to do with the way people compose than it does with differences individuals lenses have with front/back bokeh rendition. It's just all silly anyway.

So you have better things to do than reading up on some facts. Well Sir, if so, I have better things to do than reading your postings.

 

Respectfully, the old man from the Age of Evidence (now obviously past)

[leicashot]

So you have better things to do than reading up on some facts. Well Sir, if so, I have better things to do than reading your postings.

 

Respectfully, the old man from the Age of Evidence (now obviously past)

 

I feel sorry for someone who feels the need to be so disturbed.

[tashley]

As the 'unlucky/disgruntled' user I can happily say that I haven't written it off and will be getting a replacement: the bokeh is IMHO indisputably nervous or hectic or busy or whatever but I need a fast, sharp 35mm with insignificant focus shift and the new 35 lux will be just that when I get one that Leica has bothered to check before selling! As to the bokeh, as others have observed you don't generally go to a wide for great bokeh and those wides that have it also tend to have a host of 'issues' such as (read and/or here) CA, field distortion, focus shift, soggy corners, etc....

 

I think the new lens is probably as close to what I want as anyone currently makes and a properly calibrated example will likely join my armoury for good...

 

 

 

This whole discussion started out with an unlucky/disgruntled user, and one picture from a sunny garden. Based on this one example, several posters have more or less written off the lens. I find this strange, but not untypical for the Forum discussions. Another thread ricocheted after an early user added strong vignetting (without notice) to the example pictures.

 

Fortunately, there are several sources with more systematic approaches to evaluating this lens, and several pictures from more typical use of the lens than garden photography in strong sunlight. I am aware of the following:

- Sean Reads discussion of fast 35mm lenses (just published), with lots of example photos, and a favourable conclusion about the lens

- Erwin Puts discussion of the lens

- Steve Huffs review (even if you think he is too enthusiastic, there are lots of example photos to evaluate)

- The LFI article in the last issue about the 35.

 

I encourage people who want a serius discussion about this lens to check these sources. My general impression of the conclusions is that the new 35 is optically very similar to the previous model, but with little or no focus shift, and slightly better sharpness. I would find it very strange if the new 35 is discarded, especially based on the high status of the previous model.

 

Peoples preferences (and wallet) may lead them to looking at other options, but that is a different matter.

[georgio]

@JLV

Lovely shot of that Gibson guitar, great DOF example.

GEO

[tashley]

I've got my replacement and it is much, much better. I'm still not 100% sure it's perfect but have the following observations and when I have time I'll post shots.

 

1) I mounted it on an Oly Pen with adaptor and shot a series of frames, focussed at 10X magnification view on the LCD, and established that there is in effect no focus shift from F1.4 thru F8 at at subject distances of 2.5 metres and about 80 metres

 

2) I mounted it on an M9 and did a series of comparative shots against the CV Skopar F2.5 and there is consistently sharper performance in the centre of the frame at F2.8 from the CV; not by a huge amount, and a bit of extra sharpening for the 35 Lux file removes the difference but it is certainly there. The CV is however MUCH weaker in the corners.

 

3) If I focus using a 1.4x magnifier on an intricate subject about 80 metres away using the Lux, the very centre of the frame is a touch unsharp though as you move towards the mid parts of the frame and the edges, it gets sharper. However if you pull focus a bit closer than the RF indcates (and remember this is a RF which is well calibrated to all my other glass) the centre gets to peak sharpness without taking the edge of sharpness off the rest of the frame. This indicates to me that there is some spherical effect on focus, as there was with the last generation 35 lux. But I can't test this on the Oly with adaptor because sharpness falloff from centre is too prevalent to make any conclusions.

 

4) The 35 lux has nicer and less busy bokeh than the CV, though it also seems about 1/3rd of a stop slower. Its bokeh on most subjects seems really quite nice, far better than my foliage shot higher up this thread. It is quite pleasing on rounder shapes, less so on thin straight ones.

 

There... a keeper I think though more testing to be done and I might eventually get it very slightly tweaked if I decide that the slight lack of sharpness on centre is a calibration issue rather than a spherical field focus effect. But I like it, I like it!

 

Best

 

Tim

[wlaidlaw]

Tim,

 

So sorry to hear about your new 35 Lux. Perhaps you are just not meant to have a decent 35 Lux, just like I am meant never to have a Voigtlander lens which performs better than the bottom of a 19th century wine bottle. I have offered to lend you my ASPH 35 Lux, so that you can see, that there are some decent ones out there (along with UFO's etc)

 

As far a bokeh is concerned I am guess that TANSAAFL applies. As you apply more and more correction, with multiple aspherical surfaces, high refractive index glasses and internal focusing, then bokeh deteriorates. Some feel that this is borne out by the current range of Zeiss ZM Biogon lenses, which with their simpler and maybe more old fashioned design, produce better bokeh. I think this does not apply to the 50 Planar, which I have and I don't like its bokeh a whole lot, although it is super sharp on focus.

 

My own bokeh meister is my late 1950's West German Zeiss 50mm/f1.5 Sonnar on an Amadeo Muscelli Contax to Leica M adapter. I think this is about as gentle as bokeh gets.

 

Wilson

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[leicashot]

Not to take away form the above post, but the 50 Lux ASPH is probably the benchmark for quality of wide open performance and correctly corrected out of focus areas with minimal distortion of rendering.

 

This lens is so accurate that it can appear quite boring to some, lacking any character or craziness...and I found the ultimate test plant,

 

[tashley]

Not to take away form the above post, but the 50 Lux ASPH is probably the benchmark for quality of wide open performance and correctly corrected out of focus areas with minimal distortion of rendering.

 

This lens is so accurate that it can appear quite boring to some, lacking any character or craziness...and I found the ultimate test plant,

 

 

The 50 lux is the best lens I have ever owned, for its amazing combination of accuracy and poetry. I also love its bokeh. It's just a bit too long for my regular use so it gets left behind far more than it deserves!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Clandrel]

Not to take away form the above post, but the 50 Lux ASPH is probably the benchmark for quality of wide open performance and correctly corrected out of focus areas with minimal distortion of rendering.

 

This lens is so accurate that it can appear quite boring to some, lacking any character or craziness...and I found the ultimate test plant,

 

WOW!

[zlatkob]

WOW!

 

I agree! That is wow bokeh. Really superb. By comparison, the bokehmeister above it seems to me to be the very opposite; I don't see the gentle bokeh in that photo.