new 35mm 1.4 lens

[Daniel Leung]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi,

 

I bought the old version of 35mm 1.4 lens mid last year. my dealer showed me the new version yesterday, siad to be with improvement on focus shift. do you guys think it is worth it to get the noew version?

 

Tks

Daniel

[Advertisement]

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

[lars_bergquist]

I owned the old version for a decade. I sold it and pre-ordered the new version as soon as I knew it was coming.

 

The v.1 lens is fast and lovely, but practically useless from 2.0 to 4.0 because of the focus shift. That is a debilitating drawback. The new version is as fast and lovely as its predecessor, but can be used without worry at all apertures. Case closed.

 

This is true if you shoot digital. With a film M, you can live with the phenomenon, because it is mitigated by the depth of the film emulsion. The utterly two-dimensional digital sensor brings it out unmercifully.

 

The old man from the Age of the 3.5cm Elmar

[D&A]

Lars, You are I have always been steadfast in the belief that "all" Ver. I 35mm Lux asph lenses have focus shift, due to the optical design of the lens...but in my use and testing of over 9 samples (especially on M8/M9 bodies) I've noted that there appears to be two variants to how the these lenses are adjusted for focusing (described below). This may account as to why some say their lens doesn't exhibit focus shift.

 

One group appear to be adjusted for perfect focus at f1.4. In these lenses, the lens performs in exceptional fashion when used at f1.4. As you noted, upon stopping down, the lens focus shifts causing the depth of field to shift rearward and as the lens is stopped down, the subject "focused on" starts exiting the central portion of the depth of field and back-focus is apparent. This becomes noticeable at f2 thru approx. f4.5 . By f5.6, the ever larger depth of field then catches up with the subject, once again falling well within the depth of field and appears sharp and in focus.

 

The second group of lenses are adjusted where there is a small amount of front focus when used at f1.4 . On film this is barely noticeable and also of relatively small consequence if not pixel peeping (at 100%) or printing large. Of course it's subject dependent and how big subject is relative to entire frame and most of all camera to subject distance. This last attribute is important since at closest focsuing range, depth of ield is smallest. At greater distances, this slight front focus may or may not be of "great" consequence. If image examined closely, subject is definitely not as well defined or sharp at f1.4 as the first group of lenses (above). It also depends on camera to subject distance, since depth of field is smallest at close focusing range. Since there is a somewhat small degree of front focus at f1.4, as the lens is stopped down and the depth of field focus shifts and moves rearward, the subject always remains within the depth of field at all apertures and quickly improves in both sharpness and definition.

 

It's of course debatable but for most, the second type of adjustment is the more desirable of the two. I've seen both new out of the box and of course used lenses that were adjusted at Leica come both ways. How and when its hard to say.

 

Now the main question. How does the Ver I compare to Ver II. I quickly had an opportunity to perform some quick tests, where I wanted to know, if focus shift was adjusted (compensated for) with focus bracketing, just how different these two lenses are. This preliminary findings are just that and not an absolute. Again keep in mind, I am focus bracketing with Ver. I, so that at each f-stop I am achieving the sharpest possible image. The Ver I is somewhat cooler in temp. At f1.4, it appears the Ver II can out resolve in the central portion of the frame but then again how important it is, depends if your pixel peeping and how large you're going to print. For most, the differences are not significant enough to drop your Ver I lenses (taking focus shift out of the equation for the moment). The apparent increase in a bit of contrast and resolution can be noticed but mostly at extreme enlargement. There are also differences in the pattern of in-focus/out of focus areas surrounding central located subject. This may be due to field curvature of the respected lenses.

 

As the lenses are stopped down, they appear close in regards to performance but I don't have a handle yet on just what differences remain, except for color temp as noted and whether at different distances and apertures, resolution differences across the frame exist.

 

Depending on both ones use of their Ver. I lens and the type of focus shift adjustment to their lens (#1 or #2 as described above), its hard to say if one should upgrade. For some its paramount, for others, the Ver I is superb in its own right and focus shift as in #2 above, can generally be compensated at close range by leaning in a bit when shooting.

 

As Lars aptly pointed out, if one is using primarily film, then that makes an even stronger case fro sticking with Ver I (both focus types) or if one primarily uses the lens either at f1.4 and f5.6 and beyond, then even Type 2 focus adjustment Ver I lenses will be superb.

 

This then becomes dependent on ones particular use of the lens (film or digital), what type of focus adjustment their lens has and if they pixel peep or print large. These factors I believe will answer the question for most.

[D&A]

Correction!!

 

One of the last sentences in my post above incorrectly reads as follows:

 

"As Lars aptly pointed out, if one is using primarily film, then that makes an even stronger case fro sticking with Ver I (both focus types) or if one primarily uses the lens either at f1.4 and f5.6 and beyond, then even Type 2 focus adjustment Ver I lenses will be superb."

 

It should read with the following corrections and additions applied:

 

"As Lars aptly pointed out, if one is primarily using film or doesn't normally rely on pixel peeping when Ver. I lens is used with the M8/M9, then that makes an even stronger case for sticking with Ver I (both focus types) . Additionally, if one primarily uses the lens either at f1.4 and then f5.6 and beyond, then even Type 1 focus adjusted Ver I 35mm Lux asph lens will be superb."

[pgk]

do you guys think it is worth it to get the new version?

Well I have the same version as you do and I don't have any real world issues with mine - and I do use it wide open and partially stopped down - and I'm fairly critical (I also use a 5D2 with both 35/1.4L and 50/1.2L lenses too and I'd say that the M lens produces results more to my liking - although on an M8). Perhaps my lens is in the appropriate adjustment for my sort of shooting? As to whether it is worth it, well, if its delivering the results you want now then I'd say its not. If it isn't then the choice is whether you get it readjusted or whether you upgrade. The upgrade cost is I assume likely to be in four figures (£) so the benefits will have to be worthwhile to you to pay this. Personally, I won't be changing.

[Doc Henry]

Hi,

I bought the old version of 35mm 1.4 lens mid last year. my dealer showed me the new version yesterday, siad to be with improvement on focus shift. do you guys think it is worth it to get the noew version?

Tks

Daniel

Daniel,

An interesting link here :

SX35FLE, part1

"Conclusion of Erwin Puts:

 

The new SX35FLE is a definite improvement over its predecessor. But the main advantages are to be found in the focusing range from 1 meter to 3 or even 4 meters. There the performance gain is visible and to be appreciated. If you already own an SX35 ASPH and work mainly at larger distances, you might not see much improvement. For closer range subjects it is a matter of critical distinction. If you did not find faults with the SX35ASPH image quality or do not need the ultimate in quality, the urge for an upgrade is less pronounced. If you own a non-asph 1.4/35 or even an 2/35ASPH and want more punch wide open and up to f/4, the new SX35FLE is a very tempting proposition ".

 

Your opinion ?

Best

Henry

[Daniel Leung]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi All,

 

Thanks for all your inputs, something for me to think about after work today - should I or shouldn't I make a move?

 

Thanks again

 

Danel

[Doc Henry]

Hi All,

Thanks for all your inputs, something for me to think about after work today - should I or shouldn't I make a move?

Thanks again

Danel

Daniel ,

I forget to send you this link :

Some portraits with the previous version taken by PhilVDD

summilux.net :: Voir le sujet - 24 vues, 24 portraits, 24 bonheurs.

Henry

[UliWer]

...

The v.1 lens is fast and lovely, but practically useless from 2.0 to 4.0 because of the focus shift. That is a debilitating drawback. ...

 

Well sometimes I may agree with this.

 

At other times I prefer this way of looking at it:

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/108213-new-35-lux.html#post1142310

 

Or sometimes even like this:

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/104733-m9-35-lux-cron-5.html#post1130340

 

The not so young man from the times of shifting minds.

[D&A]

With regards to the following statement

 

>>>"The v.1 lens is fast and lovely, but practically useless from 2.0 to 4.0 because of the focus shift. That is a debilitating drawback"<<<

 

That is mostly true if the particular lens has Type 1 focus adjustment

 

If it has Type 2 (as described in my lengthy post above), the lens will just be hitting it's stride of peak performance between f2 to f4.

 

So it greately depends on how one's particlar lens is adjusted relative to focus shift (again as described in legthy post above).

 

Dave (D&A)

[lars_bergquist]

Dear Uli,

"Consistency is the fetish of small minds" -- was it Wilde who said that?

 

Well, I will admit that some rigorous testing made me change my mind as to the magnitude of the problem. You will also remember that I owned that lens and used it on film for many years. It did take some time until I could make myself accept the fact that the changeover to digital did fundamentally alter the rules of the game. The film plane was supposed to be a plane, no? No. But even at over seventy, I am not old enough to learn. Vivitur ingenio, caetera mortis erunt.

---------------

The introduction of v.2 is however leading to an increased acceptance of the fact that it was really the optical design that caused the focus shift problem. (This has always been the view among optical scientists, because the phenomenon has been known since the 19th century.) Hopefully, we shall hear fewer claims that outside chromium plating, or more application of Holy Brass inside, caused some lenses to be exempt from focus shift, or that the laws of physics had been suspended by some special dispensation granted to certain persons.

 

But it is true that while all optics inside the v.1 shifted focus, focusing helicals could be adjusted differently. Best focus could be set for 2.0, or even 2.8, accepting a certain front focusing wide open. There was a rumour that Zeiss did routinely adjust their fast lenses in this fashion. The rationale was of course (not only in the Zeiss case) that because high speed lenses were so bad wide open, people would use them at 1.5 or whatever only in a dire emergency. You could actually find such statements in the literature. Owners of the collapsible 50mm Summicron were told to use the lens at 5.6 if at all possible! So accepting some extra fuzz at f:2 in order to get better results at mid-apertures was perfectly sensible.

 

You can of course still do that with the v.1, and it may well make sense to do so if you are using film. A good Leica technician can do the job. But I do often use my Summilux at 1.4, so the current Leica adjustment policy works best for me. Hence my investment in the new version.

 

The old man still groping his way forward

[UliWer]

Dear Uli,

"Consistency is the fetish of small minds" -- was it Wilde who said that?

..,.

The old man still groping his way forward

 

Dear Lars,

 

I am not sure whether Oscar Wilde said this, though the quotation sounds so convincing to me, that I'll trust it was him.

 

I had many changes in my attitude towards the first version. When I read first about the focus shift, I said, it's just theory, not to be noticed in practice. Then I tried and found out that the differences between maximum aperture and the next smaller stops are obvious, so I wrote here: the lens is spoiled, we need a new one. Slowly I learned to compensate just the little bit more at f/:2.8 than at f/:2. It doesn't always work, but sometimes it does. So I learned something about apertures and optics and their importance in certain situations than I knew before. I like the lens more for this than I did at times when I had no idea that focus shift existed at all.

 

On the other hand it might be interesting if the cure of focus shift for the second version had to pay a price: some examples of photos shown here give the impression that the "bokeh" of the new version is harsher and swirlier than before. This was often said about the 50lux asph compared to it's non- aspherical precedessor. I know this is not true for the 50lux if you look at the results in direct comparison.

 

I havn't seen examples with both versions of the 35lux asph yet to get an idea if my first impressions are right. I hope someone who buys the new keeps his old one and shows some examples side by side here.

[Nicoleica]

Dear Uli,

"Consistency is the fetish of small minds" -- was it Wilde who said that?

 

Lars, I believe that this is a variation of a quote by Ralph Waldo Emerson. "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." (6279. Ralph Waldo Emerson. 1803-1882. John Bartlett, comp. 1919. Familiar Quotations, 10th ed.)

[lars_bergquist]

Nicole, I stand corrected!

 

The old man

[UliWer]

Lars, I believe that this is a variation of a quote by Ralph Waldo Emerson. "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." (6279. Ralph Waldo Emerson. 1803-1882. John Bartlett, comp. 1919. Familiar Quotations, 10th ed.)

 

Good to learn again and thank you, Nicole.

 

(I am glad I am no little statesman...)

[Xmas]

Hi,

 

I bought the old version of 35mm 1.4 lens mid last year. my dealer showed me the new version yesterday, siad to be with improvement on focus shift. do you guys think it is worth it to get the noew version?

 

Tks

Daniel

Hi Daniel

 

Only if you are losing a number of shots cause the wrong set of eyelashes is sharp, otherwise you wont detect any difference.

 

Noel

[ho_co]

Daniel--

1) Since you're asking, I think you'll end up with the new lens because "it's better." Nonetheless, keep in mind the following:

 

2) The original 35/1.4 aspherical was praised when it appeared (pre-digital) as the best lens Leica had ever made. Now they've improved it.

 

3) Tim Ashley, the person who discovered the mis-assembly of many of the 35/1.4's of your version, posted his pictures of Venice Carnival on the Web, and without telling him, Leica linked to his site as an example of how good the lens was. The shots he posted were made with the very lens he was trying to convince Leica was mis-adjusted.

 

 

Summary:

 

4) If you're not seeing a problem with the one you've got, why change?

 

5) The new lens has better contrast and is improved in the close range (that's what the floating element does), so get it.

 

 

 

BTW--Dave's explanation of the batch assembly changes is new to me. It's quite interesting, but I'm not sure it's accurate.

[D&A]

Howard posted the following quote

 

>>>"BTW--Dave's explanation of the batch assembly changes is new to me. It's quite interesting, but I'm not sure it's accurate"<<<

 

Hi Howard & All,

 

I certainly want to clarify my comments regarding the two types (with slight variations) of adjusted types of focus I've come across with Ver I lenses, in all samples I tested (including ones straight out of ther box when new). My anecdotal evidence was simply based on these observations, but I have no proof or am implying that Leica made an official running production change in how they adjusted these lens for focus off the assembly line. What I did hear (and take this as a grain of salt) is that when it was realized that for use on digital M bodies, focus adjustment was much more critical, especially as small errors in misfocusing could more easily be detected, they (Leica) attempted to get get proper focus by slightly adjusting the lens for front focusing at f1.4. As a consequence, the subject would essentially remain within the depth of field at the majority of f-stops when closed down beyond f1.4 (even with focus shift) and even at f1.4 at mid-disatnces to infinity, the larger depth of field (as compared to close focusing), would also help. At min. disatnce and f1.4, the photographer can just lean in a bit in order to compensate fro the front focusing and all other f-stops were fine. My shooting with this type of sample confirmed this.

 

This is compared to those lenses that were optimized for best (sharpest) focus at f1.4, but would readily show the subject exiting (falling) outside the depth of field (due to focus shift) when lens was stopped down to f2 thru approx f4.5. It was suggested these lenses generally preceeded the M8 and just slightly beyond that cameras introduction, when those that owned the lens previously began to compain about their subject "out of focus" at f2 thru f4.5 on their M8's. What compounds the story is many who's lenses were adjusted or optomized for f1.4, sent their lenses in to Leica or Dag at the time or thereafter to have them adjusted for slight front focus at f1.4, hearing that this compensates for most of the focus shift and therefore seems to be the prefered adjustment for many. This is especially so when the lens is used on an M8/M9. Relatively few complain about lenses adjusted as such.

 

So developing a timeline (serial #'s etc.) for any possible "official" changes by Leica is difficult, since lenses did go to various sources for re-adjustment. What I attempted to do is simply outline my observations in shooting these lenses.

 

On a seperate note, this time in a casual observation made with shooting both Ver I and Ver II lenses...I'm inclined to agree that the bokeh when shooting a wide variey of subjects, especially complex backgrouhds such as branches and point light sources...that Ver I lenses have a more diffuse and somewhat smoother background. This possibly may be due to those slightly front focusing Ver I lenses putting the subject at the very rear of the depth of field and the OOF area beginnning directly behind it, making the OOF area diffusion begin much earlier, relative to the subject....whereas with Ver II lenses, the subject is placed more squarely in the center of the small depth of field and the OOF area doesn't begin to further back (relative to some Ver I lenses, espcially those with a small amount of front focus at f1.4).

 

Conversely, Ver II lenses seem to have a bit more resolution at f1.4 and at close range. This is even noticable even when focus bracketing was used with Ver I lenses to remove" focus shift" out of the equation. It's a trade-off!

 

*** One last important observation. I noticed the phenominon that Tim Asley decribed in the Leica forums some months ago with his Ver II lens. Namely if the subject is placed in the central part of the image and a series of shots are taken at f1.4, f2, f2.8 f4 etc. and examined....by f2.8 and f4, the subject looses sharpness (definition) whereas the outer zones of the image do retain or increase in sharpness when compared to f1.4 shot. This is especially noticable at mid and infinity distances. I've tried two Ver II lenses and they were the same in this phenominon (curvature of the optics of the lens?) Tim has posted examples of this and a quick search will show his findings. It's most definitely there if you look for it with 100% crops. As Tim suggested, if one pulls in fous at f2.8 and f4, then the subject in the center of the frame is sharper but at the expense of the outer zones. It's as though there (sort of) that the focus of the lens shifts back at f2.8 and f4..but only for the central zone of the image....a bit strange indeed. Of course if you don't exmine at 100%, then its hard to notice this percular phenominon. Again as Tim suggested, its more readily apparent at shooting subjects at greater distances that this particualr observation takes place and seems to be part of the optical design of Ver II lenses.

 

Bottom line, even more tradoffs of Ver I vs. II lenses. Each has its positive attributes and negatives and depending on whats important, and in my opinion, will determine what version is best suited. Just some thoughts.

 

Dave (D&A)

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Daniel Leung]

Howard,

 

you were right. I picked up the new version 35mm 1.4 this evening. wll do some shooting over the weekend. thanks for all your comments

 

Best

Daniel

[budrichard]

Basically you solved a problem that you had you had no evidence existed for your lens and your usage.

I will wait until I perceive an actual problem for myself.-Dick