PhilipThomas Posted September 1, 2015 Share #41 Posted September 1, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) There are two versions of this lens, the one you are using in the video is unofficially referred to as the "FLE" as in Floating Lens Element, the latest version that overcomes focus shift on digital M cameras and has improved corner and close focus and a metal lens hood. Corrected my version. You're correct. OK - let's move on:-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 Hi PhilipThomas, Take a look here 'Lux fever.... I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Jeff S Posted September 2, 2015 Share #42 Posted September 2, 2015 http://www.getdpi.com/forum/leica/42694-three-35-mm-f-1-4-summilux-asph-lenses-aa-fle-asph.html Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted September 2, 2015 Share #43 Posted September 2, 2015 http://www.getdpi.com/forum/leica/42694-three-35-mm-f-1-4-summilux-asph-lenses-aa-fle-asph.html This test clearly shows that with random nonsense subject, all three lenses produce nonsense crappy photos people won't be able to tell apart Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted September 2, 2015 Share #44 Posted September 2, 2015 That is not quite fair, Cat. That test was about the rendering, specifically of the OOF highlights, not about the subject. Having said that, I agree that the relevance to real photography is limited. Don't you find it strange btw, that nobody commented on the vertical band in shot #2? Although Jono hints at it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jto555 Posted September 2, 2015 Share #45 Posted September 2, 2015 That is not quite fair, Cat. That test was about the rendering, specifically of the OOF highlights, not about the subject. Having said that, I agree that the relevance to real photography is limited. Don't you find it strange btw, that nobody commented on the vertical band in shot #2? Although Jono hints at it. That vertical band is a shadow. You can see shadows on the subjects jacket in shots 1 to 3. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShivaYash Posted September 2, 2015 Author Share #46 Posted September 2, 2015 Great to see some images comparing the three lenses. It's crude and we all know that, but of the three I liked the second image the most. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted September 2, 2015 Share #47 Posted September 2, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) That is not quite fair, Cat. That test was about the rendering, specifically of the OOF highlights, not about the subject. Having said that, I agree that the relevance to real photography is limited. Don't you find it strange btw, that nobody commented on the vertical band in shot #2? Although Jono hints at it. The vertical band is probably the shadow of a pole, because the subject moved between shots. I am ok with test shots and comparisons, provided they are properly done. Otherwise, they can be quite misleading. In this case it is hard even to compare OOF, especially because the focus distance is shorter in the first one (focus distance can change the OOF look). Therefore, the only things this comparison tells me are: - Lens 1 and 3 show the classical onion ring fingerprint of ground asph. But this can change at any time even for the same lens model, as the asph manufacturing process is improved. - Lens 2 seems to have lower contrast. But it may be due to flare only on that shot, as the camera has been moved). Check the white highlight on the jacket, most probably a reflection of the big "star like" highlight bouncing back into the sensor. Now, would I go out and buy lens 2 because it seems to have an OOF rendering I like best ? Certainly not. What about the colors ? What about flare resistance ? What about performance at infinity ? What about the character of the lens in other conditions ? Can the lens resolve modern high density sensors ? ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted September 2, 2015 Share #48 Posted September 2, 2015 Well, the resolution question is not quite relevant. There is not really such a thing as a sensor outresolving a lens or vica-versa. It is more the case of a better sensor giving a better result on the same lens, and a better lens improving the result on the same sensor. In general, though, I agree wholeheartedly. It is not really a question of judging a lens on one single aspect, we need the whole picture. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted September 2, 2015 Share #49 Posted September 2, 2015 [...] In this case it is hard even to compare OOF, especially because the focus distance is shorter in the first one (focus distance can change the OOF look). [...] +1. Too many variables here. Sorry for the author, but this comparo does not mean anything to me. I have no experience with the "aspherical" version but i have yet to see any significant difference in OoF rendition between FLE and pre-FLE 35/1.4 asph so far. I don't own the pre-FLE though and my opinion is mainly based on pictures taken by others so i may be wrong. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted September 2, 2015 Share #50 Posted September 2, 2015 Well, the resolution question is not quite relevant. There is not really such a thing as a sensor outresolving a lens or vica-versa. It is more the case of a better sensor giving a better result on the same lens, and a better lens improving the result on the same sensor. What you say only happens when lens and sensor are about on par, but in general there is certainly such a thing as a sensor outresolving a lens, and vice-versa, as "this guy" explains (skip to 5:00): https://vimeo.com/6595625 And I don't think you want to argue with "this guy" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stealth3kpl Posted September 7, 2015 Share #51 Posted September 7, 2015 For what it's worth, I feel people see what they want to see when comparing lenses, often to justify their own buying decisions. I was worried by all the hype about fussy bokeh when I took my 35 Lux FLE to Bhutan, but was pleasantly surprised on getting the scans back from the lab. Buy a lens and use it is my advice. Get the best you can afford otherwise you'll always be wanting to "upgrade". Pete 0636AL by Pete, on Flickr 0812AL by Pete, on Flickr 1302AL by Pete, on Flickr Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGodParticle/Hari Posted September 7, 2015 Share #52 Posted September 7, 2015 ShivaYash - this link may be of some help to you: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/242260-carl-zeiss-zm-3514-on-m9-mm-m240-vs-35asph-vs-35asph-fle/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
derleicaman Posted September 10, 2015 Share #53 Posted September 10, 2015 I have the pre-FLE ASPH, which I purchased when it was introduced at Photokina way back in 1994. It is arguably one of the best lenses I have ever owned, and I see no reason to upgrade to the FLE. It has never let me down, but Tom Abrahamsson has always complained that it is flair prone. I have never had a problem with flare, but then I always use the hood, which I did upgrade to the later version with the locking ring. Lately I have been "cheating" on my favorite lens by using my old 35 Lux which I purchased way back in high school in the early 70's. The old Lux was my go-to lens for almost twenty years until the ASPH came along. This illustrates the wisdom of never selling your old Leica lenses if possible. The old Lux is tiny and is a Bokeh machine, and it brings back fond memories of Dr. Mandler, who I met on several occasions. Come to think of it, I met Lothar Kolsch, designer of the ASPH, too. Another nice gentleman from Leica. i say save the money on the FLE, and go for the non-FLE ASPH. You won't regret it! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted September 10, 2015 Share #54 Posted September 10, 2015 Buying a 35 and 28 too me never worked, I usually brought a 28 and a 50. Not the 35. If I brought the 35 I would not bring the 28 and 50 This is exactly my experience Jip. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShivaYash Posted September 10, 2015 Author Share #55 Posted September 10, 2015 Thanks to all. I opted for the FLE and need to now bond with 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! 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/249505-lux-fever/?do=findComment&comment=2885843'>More sharing options...
microview Posted September 10, 2015 Share #56 Posted September 10, 2015 Thanks to all. I opted for the FLE and need to now bond with it. ImageUploadedByTapatalk1441895442.698836.jpg Could this be outside Aperture in Rathbone Place, as here? 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! 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/249505-lux-fever/?do=findComment&comment=2886119'>More sharing options...
ShivaYash Posted September 11, 2015 Author Share #57 Posted September 11, 2015 Could this be outside Aperture in Rathbone Place, as here? Yep! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.