Jeff S Posted January 17, 2012 Share #21 Â Posted January 17, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) I think Puts' review, which I linked above, speaks to Lars' points about flare, etc. But, it also puts into perspective, I think, much of the debate we so love to have on the forum about the differences between some pretty fantastic lenses. Â Here's an excerpt from his concluding comments in part 2 of the review on the FLE lens: Â "Leica lenses are becoming a bit boring so to speak as the general quality (contrast, definition of fine detail and so on) at all apertures and distances is so good that you really have to search for meaningful differences. ... The consistent high quality of the modern Leica-M lenses may the cause of the fact that most discussions about Leica lenses are drifting to extreme and often mythical, if not mystical proportions. The facts on the ground however do not support these extremes. The new SX35FLE also shows that Leica now can claim that they are able to design and produce lenses with a very consistent image quality of a very high order. One of the points of critique of the older SX35 ASPH was the occurrence of flare and in this area the Zeiss competition was ahead. Now Leica has significantly improved the control of flare. As the examples above show you can force the lens to exhibit flare, but you must do this with some determination. In normal situations the flare is effectively reduced to small proportions." [bold emphasis added] Â Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 Hi Jeff S, 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!
ohnri Posted January 17, 2012 Share #22 Â Posted January 17, 2012 Are you bothered by the performance of your old lens? Â Is so, upgrade. Â My 35 'lux ASPH v.1 serves me well and I have zero issues with focus shift for my shooting and printing style. I shoot a lot of people at various, mostly close, distances and often wide open. Â Possibly because I shoot a great deal of action there is a bit more leeway for sharp photos but still ... the prints look awfully nice. Â Don't forget you will be getting a different rendition of out of focus areas by using the newer lens. It is a tradeoff. Newer is not always better. Â My 35 'lux is my third most used M lens after my Noct f/1 and my 21 'lux. Â Best, Â Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
oyswong Posted January 17, 2012 Author Share #23  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)  Thanks. I also notice the flare problem on my old lens. I have made up my mind. I understand it is difficult to find one these days. So better get it . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom0511 Posted January 17, 2012 Share #24 Â Posted January 17, 2012 For me it was worth it because the (slight) focus shift of the 1st 35/1.4asph made focusing more difficult/less accurate. Works fine with the FLE. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
oyswong Posted January 18, 2012 Author Share #25 Â Posted January 18, 2012 Thanks for your advice. I have already got the lens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamesk8752 Posted January 19, 2012 Share #26 Â Posted January 19, 2012 Thanks for your advice. I have already got the lens. Â In ONE DAY? Based on the date of your posts, this would appear to be the case. Lucky man! Â Regards, Jim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double Negative Posted January 19, 2012 Share #27 Â Posted January 19, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Thanks for your advice. I have already got the lens. Â Do they have any more? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
oyswong Posted January 19, 2012 Author Share #28  Posted January 19, 2012 In ONE DAY? Based on the date of your posts, this would appear to be the case. Lucky man! Regards, Jim  I asked for it In Nov and got it yesterday. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
artspraken Posted January 19, 2012 Share #29 Â Posted January 19, 2012 I heard that the *chrome* pre-FLE has no focus shift and is superior to the black. Is this true? Â Â Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
markforce Posted January 20, 2012 Share #30  Posted January 20, 2012 I heard that the *chrome* pre-FLE has no focus shift and is superior to the black. Is this true?  Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk  I have this version of the pre-FLE. No focus shift that I could determine, so no upgrade needed, and I like chrome on the gray M9. Flare control is a different story though in my opinion and only based on the experience I have with this lens, and this might eventually drive me to the FLE down the road. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
D&A Posted January 20, 2012 Share #31  Posted January 20, 2012 I heard that the *chrome* pre-FLE has no focus shift and is superior to the black. Is this true?  Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk  The two chrome versions of the 35mm f1.4 Lux asph (Ver I) I tested both had focus shift, but it was minimized by being optimized for f2 (not f1.4 or f2.8). This way a small amount of front focusing was seen at f1.4 (especially at close range where depth of field is smallest), was spot on at f2 and at f2.8-f5.6 as the focus shift moved rearward, the expanding depth of field covered up any residual focus shift. I personally found having the lens adjusted (optimized) for best focus at f2, was ideal for Ver I of this lens.  Dave (D&A) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double Negative Posted January 20, 2012 Share #32 Â Posted January 20, 2012 I heard that the *chrome* pre-FLE has no focus shift and is superior to the black. Is this true? Â The only difference is the chrome version utilizes chrome-plated brass parts whereas the black is anodized aluminum - so if weight is your criterion, yes - chrome is superior. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted January 20, 2012 Share #33  Posted January 20, 2012 ... so if weight is your criterion, yes—chrome is superior. Or inferior. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double Negative Posted January 20, 2012 Share #34 Â Posted January 20, 2012 Or inferior. Â True enough! Â I went with the definition being: Superior: something which is higher in a hierarchical structure of any kind Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted January 20, 2012 Share #35  Posted January 20, 2012 I went with the definition being:Superior: something which is higher in a hierarchical structure of any kind  I don't think the measurement of weight uses a "hierarchical structure". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 20, 2012 Share #36 Â Posted January 20, 2012 I think the largest Elk gets all the females.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double Negative Posted January 20, 2012 Share #37 Â Posted January 20, 2012 I don't think the measurement of weight uses a "hierarchical structure". Â Nevermind. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted January 21, 2012 Share #38 Â Posted January 21, 2012 I went with the definition being:Superior: something which is higher in a hierarchical structure of any kind So did I. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.