rsh Posted October 11, 2011 Share #21 Posted October 11, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Ultimately, all that is important is whether or not you like the lens. Other people have opinions, but they are based on what they feel and see. It is the final image that matters. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 11, 2011 Posted October 11, 2011 Hi rsh, Take a look here The Fantastic Pre 35mm Summilux. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Hank Taylor Posted October 11, 2011 Author Share #22 Posted October 11, 2011 Ultimately, all that is important is whether or not you like the lens. Other people have opinions, but they are based on what they feel and see. It is the final image that matters. Excellent! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hank Taylor Posted October 11, 2011 Author Share #23 Posted October 11, 2011 I thought I would try this. Your Right Ben, the Pre 35 Summilux dose a superb job in handling shadow in black and white Hank 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 Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/163724-the-fantastic-pre-35mm-summilux/?do=findComment&comment=1814813'>More sharing options...
Lord Fluff Posted October 11, 2011 Share #24 Posted October 11, 2011 ... the Pre 35 Summilux Hank, just to please the pedantic minds of myself, and I don't doubt a few others.... "pre 35...." suggests something before 35 - like, say, 34 "35mm Summilux Pre-Asph" would be better, at least for those of us who get upset by this kind of thing. In the meantime, this lens certainly has its fans. I'm subscribed to an image thread over on RFF, and in the right hands the 'flaws' of this lens can be exploited beautifully. I always thought it would be a fun lens to play with, but lack of supply for aspherical 35s seems to be having a 'Noctilux effect' on used prices right now - I've seen a new high of £1895 at one UK dealer right now, compared to around £1100 a little while back. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hank Taylor Posted October 11, 2011 Author Share #25 Posted October 11, 2011 Hank, just to please the pedantic minds of myself, and I don't doubt a few others.... "pre 35...." suggests something before 35 - like, say, 34 "35mm Summilux Pre-Asph" would be better, at least for those of us who get upset by this kind of thing. In the meantime, this lens certainly has its fans. I'm subscribed to an image thread over on RFF, and in the right hands the 'flaws' of this lens can be exploited beautifully. I always thought it would be a fun lens to play with, but lack of supply for aspherical 35s seems to be having a 'Noctilux effect' on used prices right now - I've seen a new high of £1895 at one UK dealer right now, compared to around £1100 a little while back. Thank you for your comments. but I was under the impression that the correct call for this lens is "35mm Summilux" and leave out the Pre-Asph. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aesop Posted October 11, 2011 Share #26 Posted October 11, 2011 ...a great, low-contrast lens that needs to be understood. I am with Ben on this one - if you haven't got the time for this lens, then move on, as it is not for everyone. Yes, it has its foibles, but I can confirm that signature-wise, my 20X30 inch prints from this lens definitely get a lot more attention than the arguably prosaic offerings from its more modern siblings. Perhaps there is a limit to how much sharpness and über-saturation people will gorge on. Or maybe it is simply a matter of application. Unremarkable, Pico? Yeah, in exactly the same way your trusty M4s are unremarkable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted October 11, 2011 Share #27 Posted October 11, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) I thought I would try this. Your Right Ben, the Pre 35 Summilux dose a superb job in handling shadow in black and white Hank Hank, your picture reminds me somewhat of this one. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted October 11, 2011 Share #28 Posted October 11, 2011 Unremarkable, Pico? Yeah, in exactly the same way your trusty M4s are unremarkable. Good burn. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguewave Posted October 11, 2011 Share #29 Posted October 11, 2011 Here's my take and my case for my favorite M lenses. Well after midnight in Harlem. It was DARK outside with maybe 1 or 2 light sources in front of this brownstone. 35 Summilux pre asph wide open. BTW - Kodak Tri X 400 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 Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/163724-the-fantastic-pre-35mm-summilux/?do=findComment&comment=1815567'>More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted October 11, 2011 Share #30 Posted October 11, 2011 Here's my take and my case for my favorite M lenses. Well after midnight in Harlem. It was DARK outside with maybe 1 or 2 light sources in front of this brownstone. 35 Summilux pre asph wide open. BTW - Kodak Tri X 400 [ATTACH]282701[/ATTACH] Hi Ben, I recall that you like this image a lot, and I agree that you have captured a very moving image. But you also post this image, I guess, to support this comment: This is one beautiful lens. It could be TriX 400 at it's rated speed or pushed to 800 or 1600 for beautiful B&W night noir images, or nightime work with my m8, always wide open. This lens is not the false beauty of hyper sharp & overly contrast laden images from the 50 & 35 ASPH lenses that are all the rage. These images bear no emotional connection to reality. I find them absurdly false with no emotional underpinnings. Hell, why don't you just shoot an MFT chart. That might just be the epiphany for you. Strong words. If we're talking about the strengths of the lens, though, your image does suffer from being out of focus and the out of focus lights are distorted (I'm not really sufficiently into the technical terms - is it coma?). So, while I like your image a lot, it would not persuade me of the strengths of this lens. Your skill as a photographer, yes; but in spite of the flaws in this lens. Had her face been in focus (not razor sharp, but in focus) and the out of focus areas smoother, I would prefer it. I appreciate that you opinion differs, but if you post an opinion in such a clear way, there is sure to be some one who takes a different view. Cheers John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Fluff Posted October 11, 2011 Share #31 Posted October 11, 2011 Thank you for your comments. but I was under the impression that the correct call for this lens is "35mm Summilux" and leave out the Pre-Asph. While technically correct, most people tend to opt for either "Asph" or "Pre-Asph" accordingly, for clarity. You left out the 'asph', kept the 'pre' and invented a new order too Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted October 11, 2011 Share #32 Posted October 11, 2011 Was pretty clear for me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguewave Posted October 11, 2011 Share #33 Posted October 11, 2011 Hi Ben, I recall that you like this image a lot, and I agree that you have captured a very moving image. But you also post this image, I guess, to support this comment: Strong words. If we're talking about the strengths of the lens, though, your image does suffer from being out of focus and the out of focus lights are distorted (I'm not really sufficiently into the technical terms - is it coma?). So, while I like your image a lot, it would not persuade me of the strengths of this lens. Your skill as a photographer, yes; but in spite of the flaws in this lens. Had her face been in focus (not razor sharp, but in focus) and the out of focus areas smoother, I would prefer it. I appreciate that you opinion differs, but if you post an opinion in such a clear way, there is sure to be some one who takes a different view. Cheers John Actually, it's not out of focus. The focus is clearly on her lips & eyes. I'm at the extreme edge of the 1meter close focus with a 1.4. aperture. The dof is razor thin, but it's there. The "coma" is beautiful. I wouldn't like the image without it. As far as the "draw" of the transitions to the off areas, they are as smooth as butter. It's such a shame that people think that deep focal focus is to adored. The entire purpose of the summilux is to shoot wide open & let the viewer fill in their emotions & senses, not to hammer them over the head with huge dof & overwrought details, that frankly ruin any of the magic & the beauty. This woman is not really "beautiful" in the Madison Ave style of beauty, but she has an allure that resonates with the setting. It's way after midnight & she's alone on a dark street with her head tilted in just such a way to suggest.... That's what I want to suggest in my images. Not every dull detail. When you look at things, you don' have a very deep dof. Your mind fills that in. Here, hopefully emotion does that. Frankly, all the clinical BS about the lenses just don't have any significance for me. I try out various lenses all the time. I always try to synch up with the strengths the lens offer with my own visual sense of what I want to portray. No lens is perfect. In fact, with a lens like the Nocti. it's the SURPRISE that makes it so amazing. It's not a lens to replicate something, but to interpret. That's the real strength of the 35 pre asph. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted October 12, 2011 Share #34 Posted October 12, 2011 Actually, it's not out of focus. The focus is clearly on her lips & eyes. I'm at the extreme edge of the 1meter close focus with a 1.4. aperture. The dof is razor thin, but it's there. The "coma" is beautiful. I wouldn't like the image without it. As far as the "draw" of the transitions to the off areas, they are as smooth as butter. It's such a shame that people think that deep focal focus is to adored. The entire purpose of the summilux is to shoot wide open & let the viewer fill in their emotions & senses, not to hammer them over the head with huge dof & overwrought details, that frankly ruin any of the magic & the beauty. This woman is not really "beautiful" in the Madison Ave style of beauty, but she has an allure that resonates with the setting. It's way after midnight & she's alone on a dark street with her head tilted in just such a way to suggest.... That's what I want to suggest in my images. Not every dull detail. When you look at things, you don' have a very deep dof. Your mind fills that in. Here, hopefully emotion does that. Frankly, all the clinical BS about the lenses just don't have any significance for me. I try out various lenses all the time. I always try to synch up with the strengths the lens offer with my own visual sense of what I want to portray. No lens is perfect. In fact, with a lens like the Nocti. it's the SURPRISE that makes it so amazing. It's not a lens to replicate something, but to interpret. That's the real strength of the 35 pre asph. We will never agree on this, I suspect, but I will refrain from describing your views as "BS". To me the point of any lens is not to "shoot wide open", but to have the subject in focus. That does not mean that everything has to be crisp. Perhaps I am a minority, but I hate the sort of flaws in early lenses that provide distracting out of focus areas like coma and the previous Noct's "swirly bokeh". IT's either a distraction, or it makes me feel seasick. I do like the image, as I said. Here is a picture taken with a Summilux (a 50 Asph) where I went to some effort to make sure the bits I wanted were in focus. 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 Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/163724-the-fantastic-pre-35mm-summilux/?do=findComment&comment=1815719'>More sharing options...
roguewave Posted October 12, 2011 Share #35 Posted October 12, 2011 John, I appreciate the time you took to explain your ideas. In your image of this young lady, her teeth are in focus, but not her beautiful eyes. That sums up the difference between us. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmldds Posted October 12, 2011 Share #36 Posted October 12, 2011 My titanium version is on my M9 most of the time. I love it. This is a shot of my son enjoying his alcohol-free pina-colada at Barrachina, the restaurant in San Juan, Puerto Rico where the drink was invented. Tri:) 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 Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/163724-the-fantastic-pre-35mm-summilux/?do=findComment&comment=1816233'>More sharing options...
wizard Posted October 12, 2011 Share #37 Posted October 12, 2011 ...I love its small size and the fact it doesn't attract attention allows me to work close to my subject without being detected Best regards, Hank Now, Hank, judging by your shot, your copy of this lovely lens shows a considerable amount of front focus :). Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aesop Posted October 12, 2011 Share #38 Posted October 12, 2011 Good burn. ...couldn't resist, my good man. Just couldn't resist. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted October 12, 2011 Share #39 Posted October 12, 2011 John, I appreciate the time you took to explain your ideas. In your image of this young lady, her teeth are in focus, but not her beautiful eyes. That sums up the difference between us. Touché! Actually, on the full size image, that is not correct. But you'll have to take my word for it! Cheers John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colorflow Posted October 12, 2011 Share #40 Posted October 12, 2011 These are with my Pre-ASPH Lux 35 from our recent trip to Scotland. Second one is cropped from the first. Although I wished I had my 24mm with me for the 3rd photo. Couldn't back up without falling into the bog:) 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 Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/163724-the-fantastic-pre-35mm-summilux/?do=findComment&comment=1816388'>More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.