35mm aspherical summicron V 35mm 1.4 summilux

[geoffreyg]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

One thing about putting these lenses on an M8:

 

these digital back cameras are real sensitive to focus plane. Its different than film, don't ask me why, but they seem not to be as forgiving, especially wide open. The plane of focus is just very critical, and so I'd probably back off the 'lux, and go a stop slower to get a bit more DOF.

 

Geoff

[Advertisement]

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

[wlaidlaw]

One thing about putting these lenses on an M8:

 

these digital back cameras are real sensitive to focus plane. Its different than film, don't ask me why, but they seem not to be as forgiving, especially wide open. The plane of focus is just very critical, and so I'd probably back off the 'lux, and go a stop slower to get a bit more DOF.

 

Geoff

 

This particular aspect is one area where I think the Biogon wins out. It has such a gentle transition from in focus to out of focus, that it has a greater apparent DOF than the Summicron. The Summicron is similar in character to the Zeiss Planar 35mm G I had on my G2, in that it snaps fairly abruptly from in focus to out of focus, which is what gives it that 3D character of image. This can be a desirable feature but it can make the lens fussier to use. I assume this a characteristic conferred upon it by the very sophisticated asymmetric lens profiles and exotic glass necessary to get that quality of image with only 5 elements, against the Zeiss' more conventional approach with 9. The downside of the 9 elements is of course, less brilliant colour reproduction and lower contrast when wide open.

 

Wilson

[sean_reid]

One thing about putting these lenses on an M8:

 

these digital back cameras are real sensitive to focus plane. Its different than film, don't ask me why, but they seem not to be as forgiving, especially wide open. The plane of focus is just very critical, and so I'd probably back off the 'lux, and go a stop slower to get a bit more DOF.

 

Geoff

 

Hi Geoff,

 

My own feeling is that the M8 is, with respect to correct focus, relentless. Its level of resolution is such that it easily reveals focus errors, many kinds of lens weaknesses, etc. The nature of precise focus, per se, hasn't changed, its just that higher-end digital cameras are making us aware of things that we often don't notice with film cameras. For examples, these digital cameras put the lie to the old idea that broad depth of field can substitute for precise focus. One can get "close enough" (as I do when I zone focus) but an object located seven feet from the camera when the lens is focused at eight feet will never show as much resolution as it would if it were moved to eight feet from the camera, no matter what the aperture.

 

In looking at 100% files from the M8 (and DMR, 1Ds, etc.) we're seeing things that mostly go unnoticed with a film-contact print-workprint-final print workflow. Even with many film scans, the differences are often partly obscured by grain and partly by the slight diffusion effect of the scan process.

 

So, IMHO, the difference is not so much in the pixel arrays vs. grain clumps but rather that the former (and the way we work with, and look at, the former) tends to be more revealing, thus (as you said) less forgiving.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[geoffreyg]

Sean -

 

Great reply, and thanks: It makes sense that a an object 7' but focused for 8' may fall within DOF, won't be quite as sharp as if it were in focus.

 

But doesn't it also make some sense that a razor thin plane of focus witha 1.4 aperture might be a bit tough to get right, particularly when compared with a (supposedly "thicker" plane of focus with an f 2 lens or even f 2.8?

 

These seem to be the same issue, but operationally, might one say the f2 lens just a bit less "critical" in nailing the exact plane of focus?

 

Thanks for your patience!

 

Geoff

[jonoslack]

 

But doesn't it also make some sense that a razor thin plane of focus witha 1.4 aperture might be a bit tough to get right, particularly when compared with a (supposedly "thicker" plane of focus with an f 2 lens or even f 2.8?

 

These seem to be the same issue, but operationally, might one say the f2 lens just a bit less "critical" in nailing the exact plane of focus?

 

Thanks for your patience!

 

Geoff

 

HI Geoff

Well, that's only the case if you shoot the 'lux at 1.4 and the 'cron at f2 - shoot them both at f2, and you have the same playing field.

 

You could say that with the f2 lens you don't get any depth of field at all at f1.4!

[ddp]

I've owned 2 variations of the 35 'Cron apsh, and now own the 35 'Lux aspherical - for me, it's a speed issue. I also prefer the OOF areas with the 'Lux - for me, that's what makes the deal.

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I don't know the M8 enough but my general feeling from the use of APS-C digicams (R-D1's, Nikon's) is that the transition between OOF and in focus zones is more abrupt than with film. Don't know if it comes from the absence of grain but little focusing errors are more visible, so that digital is less 'forgiving' as someone said above.

[carstenw]

I have not tried the 35 Lux Asph, but own the 35 Cron Asph, and I love the little thing. It is very compact, I don't find myself running out of light with it (yet?), and it is wonderfully sharp and smooth to focus. It fits in my jacket pocket on the M8 (!) which the Lux would not.

 

Another angle: the 35 Cron Asph can be found regularly second-hand for about €1200 for a nice copy, so if you want to try one, that is the route to go. The 35 Lux Asph is much harder to find, and significantly more expensive.

[tom0511]

I don't know the M8 enough but my general feeling from the use of APS-C digicams (R-D1's, Nikon's) is that the transition between OOF and in focus zones is more abrupt than with film. Don't know if it comes from the absence of grain but little focusing errors are more visible, so that digital is less 'forgiving' as someone said above.

 

I agree, I have the same feeling.

 

But also in film times I decided to go from a 90/2.0 back to a 90/2.8 because I found myself having problems with the shallow DOF of f.2.0 at 90 mm.

IMO shallow DOF is nice but really not that easy to handle.

[Peter Branch]

....My own feeling is that the M8 is, with respect to correct focus, relentless.....Sean

 

Sean, I think you are absolutely correct and I also think that this "explains" some of the comments about the current lenses. If you get them in focus they are very very sharp and the slightest de-focus is easily detected by the eye looking at a digital image. With some of the older lenses, and I would add the Noctilux at f/2.8 and above, they are never that sharp, certainly as seen my the M8, and so slight out of focus is not apparent. Some prefer one, some the other - my money is always on the sharpest possible image and then manage the out of focus etc.