35mm Choices

[IWC Doppel]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am interested in 35mm Leica options and done quite a bit of reading and looking at pictures.

 

I have a 35 Cron Asph and a MkIV at home so I will conclude on which I prefer on My M8 before getting my M9 (Summer or before) But really interested in something faster.

 

Not a superhsarp nut and love the older Leica look but also not looking for supersoft. Anyone live with a 35 summilux pre (late) and a Mk1 35 Summilux in comparsion to the above.

 

I do a lot of people shots, especially in the evening. Plus 'life' shots outside and interesting things. I tend to shoot wide open most of the time. Occasionally stopping down when I want to get a greater DOF or room for error and shoot knowing I just want to fame and shoot.

 

Seems that £2.5k will get me a Mk1 and if I go wide or 5.6/8 + this should avoid too much focus shift. Or £1.5k for a late V2 Summilux

 

I cant justify/afford the 35 Summilux FLE

[pgk]

The pre-asph 'lux is ok but you will read plenty here about its 'signature' and 'poor' wide open performance - if you have 'crons already then its a perfectly reasonable lens to live with if you accept its limitations. The previous to current asph 'lux is my only 35mm lens and I am very satisfied with it. Focus shift on my copy is not at all bad (looks like mine may well be optimally adjusted to minimise the effect of this) and otherwise its a superb lens - but totally different from the pre-asph (I'd happily own a pre-asph as well if I could find a tatty but cheap enough one but they are rising in price from what I have seen). As an only 'lux I'd go for the asph personally.

[Sp12]

35/1.2 Nokton by Voigtlander. Many will claim it's sharper and faster than the modern 35 Lux. It's certainly much less expensive.

 

On the other hand, apertures faster than ~2 are not really as beneficial as you would think on digital sensors.

[haroldp]

I also have a 35 Cron Asph and a MkIV and they completely satisfy my needs for 35mm FL (on an m9).

 

Each of these in its own way is among the most perfect lenses ever made and I can't choose between them. They look different but 'better' is hard to pin down.

 

I have not seen nor run tests, but am not sure how much of the extra stop on the lux actually effectively reaches the sensor.

 

Has anyone in the forum tested this ?

 

Regards ... H.

[pico]

Not a superhsarp nut and love the older Leica look but also not looking for supersoft. Anyone live with a 35 summilux pre (late) and a Mk1 35 Summilux in comparsion to the above.

 

Version 2 is good, but you absolutely must pay attention to the subject's contrast to the background. It is not all about the lens, but the circumstances as well. While the two examples shot at F/1.4 below are not exemplary photos, they show the glow.

 

Friend: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/members/23965-albums4157-picture7995.jpg

 

Hot summer night on fire escape: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/members/23965-albums4157-picture7347.jpg

 

(I focused upon the eyes. Shoot me.)

[jaapv]

On the other hand, apertures faster than ~2 are not really as beneficial as you would think on digital sensors.

 

:confused:Could you please elaborate on that?

[Sp12]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

DxOMark - F-stop blues

 

Additionally, the wider angles of entry of wider aperture lenses also can react adversely with the CFA/AA filter, exacerbating color shifts at the image edge. Plus, most fast lenses (even Leica and Voigtlander) vignette at the edge, being F1.4ish in the center and 1.8ish by the edge, in contrast to most high-quality F2 and F2.8 lenses, which don't vignette much beyond the Cos^4 rule. This is in addition to the fact that digital imaging is more precise than film, making the apparent DoF shallower than one could expect with film at a given F-stop. Additionally, digital (even the M9) is technically superior than film at high-ISOs, making the 'need' part of faster apertures less need based than it used to be for getting the shot.

 

These all add up to make the sell for the Voigt 35/1.2 over the 35Lux harder. I do think that in addition to being faster the Voigt 35/1.2 is at least as sharp/sharper than any 35 save the current ASPH at equivalent apertures, and many would debate that last part with me.

 

On the other hand, I do feel that my 1.4 lenses are faster than my F2, and the Noctilux I once used was faster than my 1.4, just probably not really a full stop.

[lct]

...digital imaging is more precise than film, making the apparent DoF shallower than one could expect with film at a given F-stop...

Sure but f/1.2 or f/1.4 will always be better than f/2 to isolate subject matters with wides, let alone that OoF is sharper and sharper with modern lenses.

[gjames9142]

The nature of digital photography is such that, given a well-exposed and seen photograph in the first place, the actual speed of a lens is not that important. The M9 may not be the best at high ISO, but LR4 deals effectively with noise. Cheaper to up the IS0 than spend a ton of money on a half stop extra. I have a V4 Cron that is beautiful. I have just bought a Zeiss Biogon 35 2.8 that is technically dazzling -- I suspect, as Sean Reid reports -- that it really is a better technical performer than the Asph Cron. I see very few bodies of work where you can see speed is necessary == someone posted about a link to terrific book about the Tokyo Yakusa, or mob, that was shot entirely with a 35 Summilux, and it looked like Kurosawa and was wonderful. I have shot the V4 on streetcars at night and it is fine. Save yourself some money and work with what you have.

[IWC Doppel]

More recent comparions of the MkIV vs apsh do not really show significantly better bokeh.

 

The bokeh is a little smoother and the colours seem cooler and potentially closer to reality with the MkIV but it does have less punch and contrast straight out of the camera. I am about to play with two images in LR3 to bring them closer with tonality, I should have taken a white card out

[gjames9142]

More recent comparions of the MkIV vs apsh do not really show significantly better bokeh.

 

The bokeh is a little smoother and the colours seem cooler and potentially closer to reality with the MkIV but it does have less punch and contrast straight out of the camera. I am about to play with two images in LR3 to bring them closer with tonality, I should have taken a white card out

 

Contrast can be added with a slider. Punch, too, although I find it hard to distinguish between punch and contrast. The Zeiss 2.8 35 Biogon has fairly pronounced local contrast and extraordinary resolution.I suppose the only you can't really change is resolution, which isn't quite the same as using the sharpening slider. I never worry about Bokeh, a concept that really wasn't discussed in photography until Michael Johnson invented the term from the Japanese Boke. I am more concerned about the areas that are actually in focus. Again, the inherent warmth or coolness of a lens's rendering is not really that important, since you can change it in a second. Everything is fungible. The only hard thing is to make a good photograph. You can probably make the two images you have identical, or only distinguishable in close side by side comparisons. At f 5.6 anyone would be hard pressed to tell the difference between a V7 Cron and the asph. Both are plenty good enough. Thinking about this kind of thing is a way of not thinking about photographs.

[jaapv]

Well, that DxO thing is a load of BS for the. M9.

 

1. The aperture on Leica lenses is a real value, not a marketing wish.

2. Leica does not raise ISO for the widest aperture on the lens; the aperture is not even communicated to the camera.

3. An M 9 does not have an AA filter.

4. The only positive thing I can say about this DxO article is that they wisely limit it to Canon and Nikon, but even then I would be interested in the reaction of those camera makers. I strongly suspect they would make mincemeat of it.

 

The vignette argument is moot too as the widest aperture is not the only aperture at which a lens vignettes. It will decrease the vignetting gradually as you stop down. F2.0 lenses vignette as well. For instance the Summicron 35 asph at two stops, slightly more than the Summilus 35 asph at 1.5

 

The shallow DOF argument is correct, but unfortunately correct at all f stops, so the relative values are unchanged, f 1.4 will still give a more shallow DOF than f 2.0 on a sensor, I fear.

DxOMark - F-stop blues

 

Additionally, the wider angles of entry of wider aperture lenses also can react adversely with the CFA/AA filter, exacerbating color shifts at the image edge. Plus, most fast lenses (even Leica and Voigtlander) vignette at the edge, being F1.4ish in the center and 1.8ish by the edge, in contrast to most high-quality F2 and F2.8 lenses, which don't vignette much beyond the Cos^4 rule. This is in addition to the fact that digital imaging is more precise than film, making the apparent DoF shallower than one could expect with film at a given F-stop. Additionally, digital (even the M9) is technically superior than film at high-ISOs, making the 'need' part of faster apertures less need based than it used to be for getting the shot.

 

These all add up to make the sell for the Voigt 35/1.2 over the 35Lux harder. I do think that in addition to being faster the Voigt 35/1.2 is at least as sharp/sharper than any 35 save the current ASPH at equivalent apertures, and many would debate that last part with me.

 

On the other hand, I do feel that my 1.4 lenses are faster than my F2, and the Noctilux I once used was faster than my 1.4, just probably not really a full stop.

[IWC Doppel]

Contrast can be added with a slider. Punch, too, although I find it hard to distinguish between punch and contrast. The Zeiss 2.8 35 Biogon has fairly pronounced local contrast and extraordinary resolution.I suppose the only you can't really change is resolution, which isn't quite the same as using the sharpening slider. I never worry about Bokeh, a concept that really wasn't discussed in photography until Michael Johnson invented the term from the Japanese Boke. I am more concerned about the areas that are actually in focus. Again, the inherent warmth or coolness of a lens's rendering is not really that important, since you can change it in a second. Everything is fungible. The only hard thing is to make a good photograph. You can probably make the two images you have identical, or only distinguishable in close side by side comparisons. At f 5.6 anyone would be hard pressed to tell the difference between a V7 Cron and the asph. Both are plenty good enough. Thinking about this kind of thing is a way of not thinking about photographs.

 

Interestingly they are quite different side by side and I could certainly spot the MkIV vs Aspheric on the same subject. I do wonder if there is something not quite right with the mkIV (My brothers lens)

 

I have decided to sell my silver chrome asph (weight and colour- all my other lenses are black and I may buy my M9-P in black to be less conspicuous) I am very interested in Bokeh as I shoot mostly wide open with subjects at 5-10 foot, some lenses look quite harsh here. I have had many conversations with my brother regarding the out of focus rendering before the japanese word for 'blur' I think was used. For me Bokeh frames the subject and is important.

 

The colour density is also less on the MkIV. It's an opportunity for me to decide which os these I might include on my replacement when I get my 9. I have taken 2.500 photos this year, so I am managing okay

[LotharZhou]

+100

 

Well, that DxO thing is a load of BS for the. M9.

 

1. The aperture on Leica lenses is a real value, not a marketing wish.

2. Leica does not raise ISO for the widest aperture on the lens; the aperture is not even communicated to the camera.

3. An M 9 does not have an AA filter.

4. The only positive thing I can say about this DxO article is that they wisely limit it to Canon and Nikon, but even then I would be interested in the reaction of those camera makers. I strongly suspect they would make mincemeat of it.

 

The vignette argument is moot too as the widest aperture is not the only aperture at which a lens vignettes. It will decrease the vignetting gradually as you stop down. F2.0 lenses vignette as well. For instance the Summicron 35 asph at two stops, slightly more than the Summilus 35 asph at 1.5

 

The shallow DOF argument is correct, but unfortunately correct at all f stops, so the relative values are unchanged, f 1.4 will still give a more shallow DOF than f 2.0 on a sensor, I fear.

[mustafasoleiman]

Probably a silly question, but what is a MkIV?

 

I have been using the new CV 35/1.2 v2 and it is an excellent lens... If I find some samples I will post... It is a great performer both wide open, when it gives a fantastic narrow depth of field, and closed down, when it shows excellent qualities.

The only reason I put it up for sale in the buy and sell section of this forum is because I stumbled upon a new 50 lux at the Mayfair leica shop which I could not resist, and now have to finance... And also because I already have a cron 35 v4 which I love.

[bpalme]

35/1.2 Nokton by Voigtlander. Many will claim it's sharper and faster than the modern 35 Lux. It's certainly much less expensive.

 

On the other hand, apertures faster than ~2 are not really as beneficial as you would think on digital sensors.

Any others have personal experience that can comment on this?

[Sp12]

Well, that DxO thing is a load of BS for the. M9.

 

1. The aperture on Leica lenses is a real value, not a marketing wish.

In the US at least I think all camera manufacturers are within 5% of the stated FL and aperture. It's not a marketing wish for anyone, it's an effect of the physics of incident angles and digital sensors.

 

2. Leica does not raise ISO for the widest aperture on the lens; the aperture is not even communicated to the camera.

I don't think they do either, but realize that the "lens corrections" include vignetting compensation which basically does exactly that at the edges, and varies in intensity based on the aperture on the lens. Clearly the camera has a guestimate of the aperture used.

 

3. An M 9 does not have an AA filter.

Unfortunately not. It does have an IR/UV filter as well as a pretty good CFA, plus some well-designed offset microlenses.

 

4. The only positive thing I can say about this DxO article is that they wisely limit it to Canon and Nikon, but even then I would be interested in the reaction of those camera makers. I strongly suspect they would make mincemeat of it.

Eh? I have friends in sensor design. It's very well established that incident angles do funky things on digital, especially those from especially reward nodal points. Why do you think we have color shifts on uncoded lenses? And what do you think coding a lens does?

 

The vignette argument is moot too as the widest aperture is not the only aperture at which a lens vignettes. It will decrease the vignetting gradually as you stop down. F2.0 lenses vignette as well. For instance the Summicron 35 asph at two stops, slightly more than the Summilus 35 asph at 1.5

Yes and no. The Summilux vignettes less at F2 than the Noctilux, and maybe at F1.8. Point being that wider apertures are typically only as wide as stated at the center, and are often less than 1/3rd stop better than stop behind wide open.

 

The shallow DOF argument is correct, but unfortunately correct at all f stops, so the relative values are unchanged, f 1.4 will still give a more shallow DOF than f 2.0 on a sensor, I fear.

Sure, but it means that for a given thinness you liked on film you can get it at a higher aperture on digital.

[akiralx]

The 35s I have on M8 and M9, and other various cameras are:

 

35 Summilux-ASPH FLE

35 Summarit

35 Summicron v4

CV f/2.5

CV Nokton f/1.2 v1

 

I have also until recently owned the previous Summilux-ASPH and Summilux pre-ASPH.

 

The FLE seems v similar to its predecessor, with which I never really noticed focus shift, though usually shot it wideopen. The FLE is nicer to handle owing to its better hood.

 

The pre-ASPH had nice character but massive 'glow' when light source in the frame. V small though.

 

The Summarit is a great lens, I often prefer the colour rendition over the FLE. I have the Summarit range and all have the typical modern high contrast look. Not sure what this would give you over the Summicron-ASPH though. The Summicron v4 is a nice sharp lens, clearly lower contrast but a nice classic look.

 

The CV f/2.5 is a v good lens, almost pancake sized. Shoot it on film and like the results, nice and sharp, good contrast. Sean Reid like this one I believe.

 

The Nokton is a largish lens, not too heavy but very well made. Very pleasant to use, great results, sharp, modern look but slightly less contrast than the modern Leica lenses.

 

If you can afford it, consider the pre-FLE ASPH (c.$4k), or the Nokton.

[IWC Doppel]

Probably a silly question, but what is a MkIV?

 

I have been using the new CV 35/1.2 v2 and it is an excellent lens... If I find some samples I will post... It is a great performer both wide open, when it gives a fantastic narrow depth of field, and closed down, when it shows excellent qualities.

The only reason I put it up for sale in the buy and sell section of this forum is because I stumbled upon a new 50 lux at the Mayfair leica shop which I could not resist, and now have to finance... And also because I already have a cron 35 v4 which I love.

 

Version 4 or mark 4 are the same sorry for any confusion

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[IWC Doppel]

Having spent some time with LR matching the colours and hues ( I prefer the mkIV straight out if the camera ) and upping contrast on the MKIV the overall results at f2.0

are remarkably close

 

The differences I can see are :

 

The asph is tighter and a little crisper, it looks a little sharper but not sure it's better for it. Close up the centre shows similar definition but a little more micro contrast

 

The contrast on the MKIV can obviously be upped but it still shows a little less clarity than the asph in the centre

 

Not sure on the perspective and distortion but somehow the painting from the MKIV is a tiny bit more pleasing !

 

the edges are soft and show a abberations with the MKIV, sometimes this can be distracting

 

The colours are way different the MKIV much cooler and more accurate to my eyes

 

The Bokeh at f2 is remarkably similar, not super dreamy but not harsh. Nothing magical about the MKIV wide open. My 28 summicron has a much nicer Bokeh wide open to my eyes

 

I am thinking leaving a purchase of a 35 until I have bought my M9. My brother wants his MKIV back so I may move from two 35's to none !

 

All in all if I was to pick I would choose the asph, but I wouldn't sell the MKIV to ge one and it is smaller. One thing that would niggle me is there is something about the MKIV images that I like and I can't put my finger on it !!!