disappointed by Summilux 35 FLE

[farnz]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Do you look directly into the sun?

 

Pete.

[Advertisement]

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

[lct]

So you never shoot contrajours?

[TomB_tx]

So Leicas are limited tools which are not made to shoot against the light whilst Lomos can do it? Hard to believe, folks.

All tools I've ever used have been limited in some way. You do have to select the tool that fits the job you want to do.

[lct]

So the OP should not choose Leicas for his weddings? Hard to believe (again).

[pico]

Back-light, soft focus is a lost art. Anyone who pursues it with modern lenses is already lost.

 

Lars! Where TF are ya when we need you!

[frogfish]

Back-light, soft focus is a lost art. Anyone who pursues it with modern lenses is already lost.

 

So, my friend, you don´t know much about modern wedding photography, as exactly that is the trent now.

 

jose villa, jonas peterson (two top guys of the business) and thousends more...

 

 

But hey, you are all right, they use Nikons and Canons and yes, film Contax with Zeiss lenses,

 

but not Leicas, because they are not built to shoot into the sun. (:

 

 

 

I wrote to Leica, with the pics attached, let´s see what they say, ah wait, we know all ready:

 

don´t do that.

 

 

Heiko

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Such ugly results won't be considered normal by Leica hopefully but i think i will postpone my order for this lens until i check how it performs on the M10 actually.

[lct]

For those interested there is one new sample available here: Summilux M f:1.4/35mm Asph.

[farnz]

So you never shoot contrajours?

Very often but never with the sun in the shot if I can avoid it. And never with a fast lens wide open so that the picture is so overexposed that purple lines appear. In the same way I would look in the direction of sunlight but would normally hold my hand up to shade my eyes but I wouldn't stare directly into the sun.

 

Pete.

[lct]

OK Pete but i've never got ugly results like that at f/2 with my Summicrons, even with massive overexposition (35/2 asph, f/2, no CA correction, 9 MB files).

http://tinyurl.com/ct95pan

http://tinyurl.com/d6r3cg4

[farnz]

LCT,

 

Thank you for supplying the links to your two example and I have too much respect for you to want to get into an argument over them so I shall only say what I see.

 

The first is well-exposed for the greenery and shows the sun with purple haze peeping through the branches. The second is overexposed and, on my screen, the branches have purple edges similar to frogfish's pictures, which is what I'd expect from pretty much any lens in a similar situation.

 

Pete.

[lct]

If you don't see any difference so much the better my friend but i'm out of this lens for now.

[jaapv]

Back-light, soft focus is a lost art. Anyone who pursues it with modern lenses is already lost.

 

Lars! Where TF are ya when we need you!

Too true. For this style I would use something like a Summaron or Color-Skopar,

never a precision lens. Look at paintings by Rembrandt. He used a soft, broad brush for that incredible light.

 

You are using some of the harshest light imaginable to create a soft and romantic image. That means you want a lens that paints over the contrast edges with loads of veiling glare and distributes lightrays all over the image through its aberrations.

If you try to use a high-frequency lens that will render a 1:1000 contrast edge with block-wave fidelity you will have your pixels jumping in square backward loops to attempt to keep up. Which won't work.

Edited August 7, 2012 by jaapv

[Paul J]

If you want high performance, high res and fast lenses you need to live with it and learn to correct in post which takes a matter seconds to do.

 

I use the 35FLE in demanding conditions all week long for a living. It's never been a problem. I would take IQ over fringing anyday. Deal with or go back to Canon/Nikon muddiness.

 

Here is about 30 seconds of photoshop.

 

Edit to add - Aperture doesn't handle colour noise as well as lightroom 4. IMO. THikn you'll find you get a cleaner image still.

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!

Edited August 7, 2012 by Paul J

[jaapv]

Yes - I agree, PS is a great leveller - would you post the uncorrected image please?

[Paul J]

It's page 8 I think. The image is one that the OP posted as a fringe sample.

Edited August 7, 2012 by Paul J

[jaapv]

Thanks. repeated for convenience:

 

 

 

 

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!

[Paul J]

Here are both side by side.

 

edit - that was quick Jaap, beat me to it!

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!

Edited August 7, 2012 by Paul J

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[mwilliamsphotography]

Oh for crying out loud, there is nothing wrong with his lens, nor need he buy a different one, nor any lens filter or special post processing softening filter ... the OP simply needs to learn how to use the post processing tools the Gods of Adobe or Apple have already provided to us (I'm sure they exist in Aperture also).

 

Really sharp, highly corrected lenses produce purple fringing in certain lighting conditions and with certain sensors, especially CCDs with no AA filter like most CMOS cameras like Nikon and Canon have. Purple fringing is nothing new, and there are easy to use, very powerful tools to correct it whenever it rears its ugly head.

 

We also have tools like "Clarity" to either introduce a "more dreamy" or more acute look and feel to the image then mitigating Clarity with the other tools like contrast and highlight/shadow sliders.

 

Instead of everyone posting their images as proof of who knows what, why not just correct his test image? Heck, it was a no brainer to even fix the tiny jpeg he initially posted, let alone a full RAW DNG.

 

-Marc

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!

[MarkP]

Oh for crying out loud, there is nothing wrong with his lens, nor need he buy a different one, nor any lens filter or special post processing softening filter ... the OP simply needs to learn how to use the post processing tools the Gods of Adobe or Apple have already provided to us (I'm sure they exist in Aperture also).

 

Really sharp, highly corrected lenses produce purple fringing in certain lighting conditions and with certain sensors, especially CCDs with no AA filter like most CMOS cameras like Nikon and Canon have. Purple fringing is nothing new, and there are easy to use, very powerful tools to correct it whenever it rears its ugly head.

 

We also have tools like "Clarity" to either introduce a "more dreamy" or more acute look and feel to the image then mitigating Clarity with the other tools like contrast and highlight/shadow sliders.

 

Instead of everyone posting their images as proof of who knows what, why not just correct his test image? Heck, it was a no brainer to even fix the tiny jpeg he initially posted, let alone a full RAW DNG.

 

-Marc

 

Thank god for a bit of sanity in this thread!