carstenw Posted July 5, 2007 Share #81 Posted July 5, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Since this is the nearest innocent 35mm lens thread I could find, here are two photos, from 35/2 IV and 35/2 ASPH respectively. Now I do not want to generalise based on these two test shots, but my conclusion is that the IV does not have better bokeh in all cases: 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/27834-sean-reid-on-35mm-lenses-for-m8/?do=findComment&comment=299143'>More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 Hi carstenw, Take a look here Sean Reid on 35mm lenses for M8. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
sean_reid Posted July 6, 2007 Share #82 Posted July 6, 2007 Hi Carsten, I think that out of focus rendering preferences are subjective so I can certainly see why one might prefer the rendering of one lens over another. Cheers, Sean Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted July 6, 2007 Share #83 Posted July 6, 2007 That is certain! However, the 35/2 IV is sometimes called the "Bokeh king", but in the only comparative shot I managed to take, the ASPH was clearly nicer. Mike Johnston also has a comment on the "bokeh king" in his Bokeh essay. I would like to test it more one day. Such a reputation doesn't come from nothing, but I didn't find the strengths of the lens in the 5 minutes I played with it (shock and surprise). Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted July 6, 2007 Share #84 Posted July 6, 2007 By definition, there can be no such thing as a "Bokeh King". It's like naming the world's most beautiful woman. Cheers, Sean Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gareth_c Posted July 6, 2007 Share #85 Posted July 6, 2007 By definition, there can be no such thing as a "Bokeh King". It's like naming the world's most beautiful woman. Cheers, Sean That's easy, any woman with an M8 around her neck! Apologies, I just received my M8 an hour ago and am fixated. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
huwge Posted July 6, 2007 Share #86 Posted July 6, 2007 Carsten, somewhat OT but is that just opposite the Leica shop in Berlin? If so, they do a nice pasta with summer truffles Huw Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted July 6, 2007 Share #87 Posted July 6, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Yes, that is the Wintergarten, where I met with Holger and we toyed with each other's lenses Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom0511 Posted July 6, 2007 Share #88 Posted July 6, 2007 That is certain! However, the 35/2 IV is sometimes called the "Bokeh king", but in the only comparative shot I managed to take, the ASPH was clearly nicer. Mike Johnston also has a comment on the "bokeh king" in his Bokeh essay. I would like to test it more one day. Such a reputation doesn't come from nothing, but I didn't find the strengths of the lens in the 5 minutes I played with it (shock and surprise). Some months ago LFI showed images from those 2 lenses and allready stated that the35/2.0 asph does have a pretty "good" bokeh. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
patashnik Posted July 8, 2007 Share #89 Posted July 8, 2007 Thank you for a very helpful article, Sean! It answered many questions, especially why I never liked the Ultron - lower contrast. Also, the Summilux ASPH is clearly a stunning piece of glass... I was wondering: Would it be possible to put up some full resoultion images from these lenses? The crops are certainly helpful, but it would be interesting to see more... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted July 8, 2007 Share #90 Posted July 8, 2007 Hi Svein, Yes, the Ultron gives one a wide dynamic range and then one would usually change overall and local contrast from there. Straight from the camera, the files will be too flat for some (although I like them flat to start with). I'll think about getting some full-res samples up. Cheers, Sean Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted July 13, 2007 Share #91 Posted July 13, 2007 I just finished a new section of the article that deals with lens contrast. It might be interesting to anyone who's curious about the relationship between lens contrast and effective dynamic range. The 35s are discussed, of course, but there's also a broader discussion of the topic as it relates to lenses on digital cameras generally. Cheers, Sean Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted July 13, 2007 Share #92 Posted July 13, 2007 Okay guilty I did not read your article yet, you know me. But i decided to switch from the Lux to the Cron. I played with the cron in Germany and here the other day and decided to try the cron for awhile. I really liked the cron at F2 which maybe because i love the 28 cron for the same reason. One reason I did this was more sharpness towards the corners than the lux wide open, sometimes doing events which is were the 35mm becomes really handy at F2 .8 or f4 i don't always get the depth in the corners, so i am going to try it and see how it goes. I actually traded for a brand new one which is a rare day and in stock. Sean your supposed to help me before i buy this stuff. LOL Maybe i better go read the article. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted July 13, 2007 Share #93 Posted July 13, 2007 Sean your supposed to help me before i buy this stuff. LOL Maybe i better go read the article. Hi Guy, Actually, a good copy of the Summilux has very good resolution in the corners even at wide apertures. The differences you are seeing might be coming from a good copy of the 35 Summicron and a so-so copy of the 35 Lux. The strongest performer in the corners (among the 35s) is the Zeiss Biogon, and that's the case even at F/2.0. But the two current Leica 35s do quite well across the frame, overall. In any case, the Summicron is a great lens and a bit more compact than the Lux. That's usually helpful. Cheers, Sean Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted July 13, 2007 Share #94 Posted July 13, 2007 My lux was great at 1.4 and 5.6 but in between it's good but not great. The cron seemed good going all the way down to F8. Some lenses i want sharp as a tack this focal length is one of them. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted July 13, 2007 Share #95 Posted July 13, 2007 My lux was great at 1.4 and 5.6 but in between it's good but not great. The cron seemed good going all the way down to F8. Some lenses i want sharp as a tack this focal length is one of them. That's focus shift from the Lux, most likely. F/5.6 is nearly enough DOF to overcome the shift. F/8 should have been good as well, save for some diffraction. I'm glad this copy of the Summicron is working out for you. Cheers, Sean Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
j. borger Posted July 13, 2007 Share #96 Posted July 13, 2007 I would like to test it more one day. Such a reputation doesn't come from nothing, but I didn't find the strengths of the lens in the 5 minutes I played with it (shock and surprise). Did you take a look at the B&W files from both lenses Carsten.....that's what i call a shocking difference and strength of the IV cron........ the IV files are very different and much more to my preference .. more in line with B&W files from the 50 pre-asph lux or 75 lux! The bokeh of the IV can get a bit swirly and wild depending on the back-ground, a bit like the Noctilux, like Sean pointed out ...very subjective ... some may like it some may not. I am not sure if i can justify to keep the asph cron after seeing the (B&W) files from the IV cron...... never liked the 35 asph cron beyond f 4.0! But if i dump the cron asph it will not be because of bad bokeh. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted July 13, 2007 Share #97 Posted July 13, 2007 I only played with it a few minutes, and only took a couple of pictures, and in those pictures I managed to get somewhat unruly bokeh from both, but more from the IV, so all I was able to conclude is that the IV doesn't always have better bokeh, nothing more. As I said, I can hardly believe that it has such a good reputation without any substance, so maybe I will have another chance to compare one day. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
holgerf Posted July 13, 2007 Share #98 Posted July 13, 2007 …so maybe I will have another chance to compare one day. Sure you will have the chance - go ahead! Best Holger Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamriman Posted July 13, 2007 Share #99 Posted July 13, 2007 Is it too early to ask about the new 21mm zeiss f/4 compact? Thanks. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted July 13, 2007 Share #100 Posted July 13, 2007 Is it too early to ask about the new 21mm zeiss f/4 compact? Thanks. I tested it several months ago, actually. It's reviewed on the site. Cheers, Sean 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.