-ph- Posted June 30, 2012 Share #21 Posted June 30, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) I am surprised that you did not comment on the horizontal bar across the sun in your "test" picture. This bar appears because you overexposed the sun to the point where the electrons start to wildly move across the sensor. At these levels of overexposure, you are close to the point where physical damage to the camera or your eye is possible. So this shot would have been unusable in any case. It would be interesting to see a comparison shot between the Leica and the Nikon 35 under the same and especially more reasonable conditions. The effect you were observing is spherochromatism, which happens with many fast lenses. It probably becomes only so visible, as the Leica lens is contrasty enough to show the purple fringes. Without shooting directly into the sun, they are no issue at all. Yet, you might also try the Summarit, if you don't need the 1.4 aperture. Peter 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 30, 2012 Posted June 30, 2012 Hi -ph-, Take a look here disappointed by Summilux 35 FLE. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
frogfish Posted June 30, 2012 Author Share #22 Posted June 30, 2012 Yeh, would loved to use the original 35 Summilux, but I don´t like 1 meter minimum focus distance. And I need the 1.4 dreamy background/ subject isolation. Here another picture where the highlights in the background is not so strong but still blown out. Much better as you see. It is not sharp, I know Heiko 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! 1 Quote 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/182785-disappointed-by-summilux-35-fle/?do=findComment&comment=2052230'>More sharing options...
IWC Doppel Posted June 30, 2012 Share #23 Posted June 30, 2012 At 1.4 then I would say the 35 summilux ASPHERICAL (AA)is your best option closely followed by the ASPH. The Original AA is extremely nice in how it renders, but priced for the collectors unfortunately. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted June 30, 2012 Share #24 Posted June 30, 2012 (edited) 1.4/35 Summilux ASPH/FLE = razor sharp 1.4/35 Summilux ASPH FLE ≠ dreamy Methinks it is the wrong lens for your task, not an inferior lens (I love mine) Methinks the advice about pre-ASPH/FLE 35mm lenses is good advice. Methinks you should sell the lens to CalArts99 and buy an old 35mm Summilux or Summicron. Mark:) ps: purple fringing at strong contrast interfaces occurs with all high quality fast lenses on digital (backlit foliage shot wide open is particularly challenging for all fast lenses). You are up against the laws of physics, not an inferior lens. Edited June 30, 2012 by MarkP 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted June 30, 2012 Share #25 Posted June 30, 2012 (edited) I like shooting against the sun, makes the pictures dreamy and interesting. Playing with extreme light.When overexposing you get the peoples faces visible. I shoot Leica not because of the lenses but because I like rangefinders. Heiko Except nothing you're posting so far from your Nikon is anything like the first shot, sorry. And that last one you posted is anything but dreamy, really. Look, I totally understand the "dreamy" look you're after. If you want that look as the Japanese do it, and using a rangefinder, sell your 35 FLE and get a CV 35 1.2 and shoot it wide open. If you want that look as Leica does it, and using a rangefinder, sell your 35 FLE, save some more money and get a Noctilux 1.0 and shoot between f1 and f2. It's still sharp, but also unique and lower contrast. But your 35 FLE--high contrast and sharp though it is--is perfectly capable of impressionistic results--that are still sharp. And in good light will reward you in ways a Nikon can't. Like anything, the more you use it the more you'll "get' it... For example, there is no way on earth you could get this shot with a Nikon 35 f2--and this is straight out of the camera (the finished file is in monochrome, and was always meant to be, but I wanted to show the lack of colour aberrations): 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! Zero CA / Purple fringing / blooming, but enough contrast and flare rejection to see their faces Heck, I can't get those results with any Nikon or Canon L wides...let alone that 35 f2 If you want more background isolation, I'd suggest a 50mm or 75, btw... most 35s are *sharp*--I'm not sure how Nikon made that f2 Edited June 30, 2012 by Jamie Roberts 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Zero CA / Purple fringing / blooming, but enough contrast and flare rejection to see their faces Heck, I can't get those results with any Nikon or Canon L wides...let alone that 35 f2 If you want more background isolation, I'd suggest a 50mm or 75, btw... most 35s are *sharp*--I'm not sure how Nikon made that f2 ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/182785-disappointed-by-summilux-35-fle/?do=findComment&comment=2052288'>More sharing options...
lct Posted June 30, 2012 Share #26 Posted June 30, 2012 ...Methinks the advice about pre-ASPH/FLE 35mm lenses is good advice... Not to someone shooting against the light. Too much flare by far. 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeicaPassion Posted June 30, 2012 Share #27 Posted June 30, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) As Jamie has demonstrated, the 35 FLE can do wonderful things in the right hands. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted June 30, 2012 Share #28 Posted June 30, 2012 I am surprised that you did not comment on the horizontal bar across the sun in your "test" picture. This bar appears because you overexposed the sun to the point where the electrons start to wildly move across the sensor. We rarely see blooming with an M9 and the horizontal bar is indeed a severe case of blooming. As the anti-blooming gates of the sensor should be able to cope with about 10 f-stops of overexposure, the contrast must have been greater than the dynamic range plus 10 f-stops, i.e. it must have been well above 20 f-stops. Don’t try this at home, kids! 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
frogfish Posted June 30, 2012 Author Share #29 Posted June 30, 2012 Thank you all for the very useful input. Sorry for confusion, except the photo with the "bride", all are shot with the Summilux 35 FLE. Heiko Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
frogfish Posted June 30, 2012 Author Share #30 Posted June 30, 2012 I just have the FLE now for a week, so not so many "dreamy" pictures yet, just from my backyard. Here some more... 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! Quote 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/182785-disappointed-by-summilux-35-fle/?do=findComment&comment=2052354'>More sharing options...
MarkP Posted July 1, 2012 Share #31 Posted July 1, 2012 I think Jamie's suggestion about the 1.0/50 Noctilux is also excellent advice. It will give you that look you want without that razor sharpness of the FLE lenses, is also very usable at smaller apertures as a standard 50, albeit a bit heavy, and has glorious bokeh. Your photos contain a lot of backlit foliage which in my experience is a problem with the 1.4/35 ASPH FLE as the bokeh is quite harsh. Again, this is probably not the lens for you...I sense Calarts99 salivating already at the thought of buying your lens:D). 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
frogfish Posted July 1, 2012 Author Share #32 Posted July 1, 2012 The 1.0 Noctilux sure would be a nice lens. I tried it once in a shop but found it awful slow to focus. A lot of my pictures are candits, the 35 is in my opinion much easier in these situations. I combine it with a Nikon 85/1.4, so a 50 wouldn´t be wide enough either. Heiko Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted July 1, 2012 Share #33 Posted July 1, 2012 Then as Jamie also suggested perhaps you might consider a Voigtlander 35/1.2 Nokton aspherical that will satisfy most of your needs and has a nice dreamy look all of its own wide open. 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! Pete. 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Pete. ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/182785-disappointed-by-summilux-35-fle/?do=findComment&comment=2052609'>More sharing options...
MarkP Posted July 1, 2012 Share #34 Posted July 1, 2012 Well then, if 35mm it is then I really think you should sell the 1.4/35 Summilux FLE and buy an older 35 Summilux (or perhaps a 2.0 Summicron,) or as suggested above the 1.2/35 Nocton. The 35FLE is not the lens for you. Perhaps you should try before buying again. At least you should have no problems getting most if not all of your money back selling the hard-to-come-by 1.4/35 Summilux FLE. I assume you are aware of the problems of focus shift with the older fast lenses shot wide open on a digital sensor. One of the main advantages of the FLE was to correct for focus shift which occurred when shooting wide open at closer distances with these fast lenses on digital. If you are moving and shooting fast for candids, maintaining sharp focus at 1.0-1.4 is very hard, nigh-if impossible. If you are mainly shooting wide open you will need to watch for focus shift at these closer distances and learn to compensate for it. Mind you, a bit of defocus enhances that dreamy look. So perhaps an f2 may do the job - cheaper and more compact, and gives that look you're after. Every lens is a compromise! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted July 1, 2012 Share #35 Posted July 1, 2012 Interesting discussion on how the "best lens" is not necessarily the best for all conditions and people. For example, I have always preferred the Summilux-50 pre-ASPH to the latest, ASPH version of the lens, particularly for shooting at f/1.4. —Mitch/Bangkok Scratching the Surface Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted July 1, 2012 Share #36 Posted July 1, 2012 (edited) We're discussing about 35mm lenses here. No asph (or aspherical) Summilux has a smoother bokeh than the FLE here IMHO so the best option for the OP could well be the CV 35/1.2 as suggested above. Big lens though. Edited July 1, 2012 by lct 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IWC Doppel Posted July 1, 2012 Share #37 Posted July 1, 2012 Does the OP shoot mostly wide open ? In which case he can have the lens adjusted to 1.4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CalArts 99 Posted July 1, 2012 Share #38 Posted July 1, 2012 .Methinks you should sell the lens to CalArts99 and buy an old 35mm Summilux or Summicron. Yes! This is by far the best solution. Again, this is probably not the lens for you...I sense Calarts99 salivating already at the thought of buying your lens:D). I'm drooling to the point of needing a bib. I'm here for you, Mr. FrogFish and can resolve your conundrum immediately. 3 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
frogfish Posted July 1, 2012 Author Share #39 Posted July 1, 2012 I though long about it (at least 6 month) and researched quite a bit before purchasing the FLE. I had the CV 35/1.4, nice lens, but absolutely unusable with any form of sun from behind. Heavy ghosts. I considered the CV 35/1.2. I have the 50/1.1, and I don´t like it because of the size. The M with a small lens ( I consider the FLE small) is for me an ergonomically perfect tool. That changes in my opinion with a big lens. Of course, every lens is a compromise. The shot of the tree with the sun in the picture was only for test purposes, knowing that this would be the absolute toughest thing my lens would ever have to do. Other than that I think the lens is a very well performer, I like to have no focus shift (I sometimes shoot at 2.8 or so) and I think the bokeh is not that bad. The treat title is a bit provocative, sorry for that. About the other suggestions for 35 lenses (beside the 35/1.2 maybe) aren´t there more problems with blooming than with the FLE? I would like to have a more dreamy look (little bit of glowing and so) but if the blooming gets worse, or you have heavy ghosts against the sun then it would be a less wise trade. Heiko 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! 1 Quote 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/182785-disappointed-by-summilux-35-fle/?do=findComment&comment=2052673'>More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 1, 2012 Share #40 Posted July 1, 2012 Basically I am all for getting it right in the camera, but a plugin like this one gives control: Soft Focus - Photo-Plugins Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.