oyswong Posted January 16, 2012 Share #1 Posted January 16, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Can someone help me to decide whether it is worth upgrading from 35mm f1.4 asph which I bought 15 years ago to the new 35mm f1.4 asph FLE? Is the new lens sharper wide open? I use the 35mm f1.4 in nearly 80% of my shots. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 16, 2012 Posted January 16, 2012 Hi oyswong, Take a look here 35mm f1.4 asph vs 35mm f1.4 asph FLE. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
pedaes Posted January 16, 2012 Share #2 Posted January 16, 2012 In Erwin Putts review of latest lens he discuss's this at the end, and concludes it's only worth it if you do a lot of close focus work, where he suggests the latest lens has a distinct advantage. I expect there are Forum members who have owned both. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted January 16, 2012 Share #3 Posted January 16, 2012 No, it's not worth upgrading. If it was then you wouldn't ask. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 16, 2012 Share #4 Posted January 16, 2012 Welcome to the forum It is a question only you can decide yourself - yes, the FLE has some advantages, notably reduced focus shift, but if you have been using the lens for 15 years I doubt you have problems in that respect. It is an expensive lens and very difficult to find at the moment. Wouldn't it be worth your while to spend the money on another focal length? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double Negative Posted January 16, 2012 Share #5 Posted January 16, 2012 In a nutshell, the new FLE version resolves a lot of the previous version's focus shift at closer (1-3m) range. Though it can be "tuned" to minimize it and of course, depends on your own shooting habits. However, and this is subjective - the bokeh of the FLE isn't as "nice" as the older one. Is it worth upgrading? Maybe. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
oyswong Posted January 16, 2012 Author Share #6 Posted January 16, 2012 Welcome to the forum It is a question only you can decide yourself - yes, the FLE has some advantages, notably reduced focus shift, but if you have been using the lens for 15 years I doubt you have problems in that respect. It is an expensive lens and very difficult to find at the moment. Wouldn't it be worth your while to spend the money on another focal length? Thanks. I know this is a lens very hard to get hold of. But my dealer has one reserved for me and I have to make a quick decision. If the new model is superior to the old one, maybe I should invest. It is a lens I am using most of the time. Besides, the lens will appreciate with time. My old lens is a titinum version to go with my M6 and I can just keep it as a collecter's item. But, you are right, it is expensive. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted January 16, 2012 Share #7 Posted January 16, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) The titanium version is said to have less focus shift problems than the others. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
macusque Posted January 16, 2012 Share #8 Posted January 16, 2012 In a nutshell, the new FLE version resolves a lot of the previous version's focus shift at closer (1-3m) range. Though it can be "tuned" to minimize it and of course, depends on your own shooting habits. However, and this is subjective - the bokeh of the FLE isn't as "nice" as the older one. Is it worth upgrading? Maybe. Agreed. Be sure to test the new FLE before getting rid of the older asph. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted January 16, 2012 Share #9 Posted January 16, 2012 But my dealer has one reserved for me and I have to make a quick decision. If the new model is superior to the old one, maybe I should invest. You might as well buy it and see what you think. if you don't like it as much as your existing Summilux you can always sell the FLE lens for more than you paid (assuming you are buying at list price). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted January 16, 2012 Share #10 Posted January 16, 2012 Puts' review, part one and Part two. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
smkoush Posted January 17, 2012 Share #11 Posted January 17, 2012 The titanium version is said to have less focus shift problems than the others. How can that be? Focus shift is intrinsic to the optical design and has nothing to do with the materials the barrel is plated with. Savvas Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted January 17, 2012 Share #12 Posted January 17, 2012 I think he might be pulling your leg ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted January 17, 2012 Share #13 Posted January 17, 2012 Haha no no, persistant rumor (Let me google that for you) confirmed by DxO charts here (Jean-Marie Sepulchre, page 173). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 17, 2012 Share #14 Posted January 17, 2012 DxO already was in my "unreliable" list for sensors, I can add them to the lenses list too The optical cell is identical, the barrel ( not that that has to do with focus shift) is identical, except for the platinum plating, the lens performs identically. Placebo effect? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted January 17, 2012 Share #15 Posted January 17, 2012 Depends how the lens is calibrated i guess. If it's set to be sharp at f/1.4 (case of my CV 35/1.4 for inst.), we see the focus shift effect at f/2.8 and on, but if it is set it to be sharp at f/2.8 instead (case of my pre-asph 'Lux), the lens is softer at full aperture but the focus shift effect is shifted towards medium apertures where it is easier to compensate with DoF. Just a guess about the Summilux asph that i have no experience with. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted January 17, 2012 Share #16 Posted January 17, 2012 The problem with the previous version of the 35 Summilux ASPH is that the focus shift was often compounded by the lenses being set-up at the factory such that you would get backfocus when used on the M8*. I went through a number (using multiple M8 bodies) at various dealers in late 2008 and they were all like it. My dealer eventually convinced Leica UK (then at Milton Keynes) to liaise with Leica Solms to order one that had been calibrated to "digital standards" (or whatever they called it). This example was indeed free of backfocus and was absolutely bang on at F1.4. Sadly, it did still suffer from significant focus shift (visible from F2 to about F8). *I read (here I think) a theory that Leica lenses were traditionally calibrated to take account of the thickness of film and that they forgot about this when it came to the M8 (the sensor is positioned where the film pressure plate would be not where the surface of the film would be). I'm not sure I believe the theory but it does at least make some sense. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tuanvo1982 Posted January 17, 2012 Share #17 Posted January 17, 2012 I have a 35mm 1.4 asph (not FLE). I have not suffered focus shift problem at all(even at F=1.4). I am using mainly with M7 film. I also tried on M9 but haven't notice the focus shift. I hear that 4 corners of pictures with new 35mm will be not dark like in the old one and pictures will have abit more contrast. That is all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted January 17, 2012 Share #18 Posted January 17, 2012 ... the lenses being set-up at the factory such that you would get backfocus when used on the M8 [...] I read [...] a theory that Leica lenses were traditionally calibrated to take account of the thickness of film and that they forgot about this when it came to the M8 (the sensor is positioned where the film pressure plate would be not where the surface of the film would be). I'm not sure I believe the theory but it does at least make some sense. This silly "theory" does not make the slightest sense whatsoever. First—no-one can really believe that the engineers at Leica Camera AG weren't aware of the thickness of film. Second—even if they were, on the digital sensor it would lead to front-focus rather than back-focus. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 17, 2012 Share #19 Posted January 17, 2012 I think the focussing tolerances were camouflaged by the film curvature rather than by film (carrier) thickness. Although the emulsion thickness does play a part. Where should the plane of focus be? Top, middle or bottom of the sensitive layer? Film is a three-dimensional medium. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted January 17, 2012 Share #20 Posted January 17, 2012 Oh my. I have owned the 'pre-FLE' and I own the 'FLE' lens. The former I used on my film M4-P, and then on the M8 and finally on the M9; the FLE I am now using on my M9. The fact was that with film, I did not notice any focus shift at all. This issue came to the fore with the shift to digital. I think that the reason why the 'pre-FLE' worked so well with film (which it was of course designed for) was, I think, (1) that the depth of the film emulsion hid much of the focus wandering, especially with multi-layer colour films, and (2) that 'peak sharpness' is much less with such a film than in a digtal sensor, especially one without a AA filter. The v.1 Summilux-M 1:1.4/35mm ASPH (which I prefer to call it) was such a wonderful lens that I did long try to reason away the focus shift, attributing it to pilot error. But conscientious testing did prove me wrong: it was there. So when I got wind of the impending arrival of the v.2 or 'FLE' I ordered one already before it was officially announced, and I had it within three months! The current lens is in some respects an even more wonderful lens that the predecessor. Not only is the focus shift reduced to practically negligible proportions, the resistance to flare has also improved significantly. And that was actually significant for the old lens could flare pretty badly in backlit situations. Now the current 35mm Summilux is my favourite lens, period. I use it for more than half of all my pictures. The rest are divided pretty evenly between the Summilux-M 1:1.4/50mm ASPH on the one hand, and a number of considerably longer or shorter optics on the other. The old man from the Age B.C. (Before Coating) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.