Jump to content

Suggestions for a 35 mm lens


Giorgio Festa

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi

 

I'd a said the Cv f/2.5 was high contrast or rather it is compared with the f/2 and f/1.8 Canons I use (on LTM) and the Summaron f/2.8 that I borrow...

 

On a M8 or M9 you may want a lower contrast lens to tame the high lights a little.

 

Noel

 

I double-checked Sean's review. You and he differ on this; the CV 2.5 would be his lower contrast, sunny day lens on the M9.

 

Jeff

Link to post
Share on other sites

I vote for the 35mm Summicron v4 preasph. It's lighter and smaller than the ASPH and the images are great from this lens. Also less contrast than the ASPH if that's a concern for you. That said, the ASPH is also a fine lens, so you can't go wrong buying either one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I double-checked Sean's review. You and he differ on this; the CV 2.5 would be his lower contrast, sunny day lens on the M9.

 

Jeff

 

Hi

 

Sorry everything is relative, the CV f/2.5 is a lot contrastier then my other 35mm lenses, including a Leica f/1.4 lux pre asph. It is multi coated the other lenses are single coated.

 

Looks like Sean is only catering to the buy it new brigade, the Canon 35mm f/2 and f/1.8 are members of the pastel water color artist school...

 

I use the CV 2.5 on dull days for C41 and mono film ... that may be the difference.

 

Noel

Canon f/2 @/5.6

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The illustrated samples in his review were black and white. And, since it was a review for the M9, he wasn't about to include Canon lenses. Indeed things are relative; he remarked on the difference between the CV and his Summilux asph. I have no dog in this fight...just reporting his findings and preferences.

 

Jeff

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Jeff

 

No problems, and I was not trolling, my point was merely the multi coated CV f/2.5 is a high contrast lens even for film, if Sean things compared with the Asph it is low, then the Asph must sparkle, but the CV will stress the M9 sensor dynamic range. as it does stress film.

 

The Canon lens is LTM and usable on a M9 with an adapter which is easy to code, dremel, paint and template, it is comparable with an early 35mm cron for MTF. it is a four group lens, single coated.

 

So I don't think much of his advice, I only use the CV on dull days with film.

 

Noel

Link to post
Share on other sites

The pictures, as you may notice, were made on fast film (Tri-X) and scanned. I would not draw any conclusions from that test that would be pertinent to the modern world.

 

Tests on digital cameras are far more critical. Remember that the great to-do about the focus shifting of the 35mm Summilux ASPH (v.1) did not break out until the introduction of the M8. By then, I had used the lens for several years without noticing anything untoward. In that I was pretty typical.

 

The difference in d.o.f. may well be due to a difference in focus adjustments between the individual samples of each lens. Such a difference, if small enough, would in other respects be safely buried in the depths of the emulsion. Sean Reid seems to be one of the few journalistic 'lens testers' to understand and recognise that there can be an appreciable variation between individual lenses, even of a top quality brand.

 

The obstinate old man from the Age of Evidence

Link to post
Share on other sites

The pictures, as you may notice, were made on fast film (Tri-X) and scanned. I would not draw any conclusions from that test that would be pertinent to the modern world.

I would argue that you can draw some conclusions. The out of focus areas on the pre-asph seem more in-focus than they do on the asph. Call it apparent depth of field or whatever you want. This effect is on high speed film as well as digital. This and the corner sharpness are the two main differences I've seen as well.

 

I personally go for the more apparent depth of field.

 

Yes, I've owned a v1, v4, asph, and a pre-asph lux so while not an expert that's my opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

...without noticing anything untoward. In that I was pretty typical.

Hi Lars

 

Excellent post but...

 

Round about 30 years ago few years after the introduction and distribution of the 5cm Noct f/1, Leitz published advice that if the lens seemed soft wide open or showed focus problems to return the body(ies)...

 

Among the 'weasel words' was e.g. that the lens to film plane registration could have been altered by wear on the plating of the lens mount.

 

This was before the days of general use of web brousers, and digital M cameras.

 

So even if you have a film M - the fast wides Noct and shorter may have focus problems which would jusify a ruler and newspaper test... slow film for high MTF...

 

I apologise if you had done this with your film cameras...

 

Noel

P.S. seems like yesterday to me

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would argue that you can draw some conclusions.

No, you can't.

 

 

The out-of-focus areas on the pre-asph seem more in-focus than they do on the asph.

Yes, they do—but you don't know the actual reason for this difference.

.

 

Call it apparent depth of field or whatever you want.

I'd call it a slightly back-focusing Summicron 35 v4.

 

But then—I could be wrong. Or I might be right. Or there's still another reason which doesn't occur to both of us. There is no way to tell from the images shown in that comparison. So better don't try to derive any conclusions from them.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference in d.o.f. may well be due to a difference in focus adjustments between the individual samples of each lens.

 

I am quite certain that my present v.4 is better at F2.0 and F2.5 than my former copy, age or year of construction do not differ dramatically

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am quite certain that my present v.4 is better at F2.0 and F2.5 than my former copy, age or year of construction do not differ dramatically

 

Well, that is perfectly possible. Only God (and some of his self-appointed minions on earth) can run a no-tolerance shop.

 

About the early Noctiluxes: The talk about exact register was largely (God forgive me) higher corporate nonsense, or at best, an urban legend. Both the f:1.2 and the 1:1 shifted focus like mad. This was the origin of the notion that at least the 1.2 was sharp only wide open. MTF curves show that the definition of both versions improves with stopping down – but during MTF testing, the lens is re-focused for best focus after each incremental stopping down! So the fact that the plane of best focus wanders is not taken onto account.

 

Even when MTF values are computed, not empirically tested, they are computed for the plane of best focus – wherever it may be found! This is part of the explanation why the focus shift problem was for long not held responsible for the behaviour of these lenses.

 

The old man

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...