7artisans 35/2 on APS-C

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

7artisans 35/2 on the CL

 

Neat little lens indeed. Just used it on the digital CL so far. On rangefinders, beware that it has a sloping focus cam like lenses for the Leica (film) CL. Not a problem to focus my M240 at first glance but i did not try the lens on it or any other rangefider yet.

On the digital CL, the lens reminds me of the Summarit 35/2.5 as far as IQ is concerned. Somewhat in between the so-called "clinical" sharpness of Leica asph lenses (35/2 asph, 35/1.4 FLE) and Mandler lenses like Summicron 35/2 v4. 

I have no experience enough to draw conclusions about this lens but its only flaws so far are flare when strong light sources are just ouside the frame (a good hood is advised then) and 35/2 asph 6-bit coding. I'd prefer unpainted coding pits so that i can choose the code i prefer (35/2 v4 probably).

Couple of test pics on the CL below.

 

f/2:

 

f/2 crop 1:

 

f/2 crop 2:

 

f/2.8:

 

f/2.8 crop 1:

 

f/2.8 crop 2:

 

f/5.6:

 

f/5.6 crop 1:

 

f/5.6 crop 2:

[wda]

A promising performer.

[Advertisement]

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

[johntobias]

I have one and am swithering wether to keep it compared to my 40 summicron-C   . the summicron is sharper and flares less but the 'chinacron' as I call it has a very pleasing Bokeh and that extra bit of wideness, Agree a decent hood is essential     ....still undecided ....and most improtantly , will either save me from buying the 35 1.4 TL??? 

[lct]

I don't find my Summicron 40/2 any sharper, on the CL at least, and it flares more when light sources are inside the frame. As for the TL 35/1.4 it has an excellent reputation indeed but i have no experience with it sorry. I prefer small lenses on small bodies personally. YMMV.

[Marac]

I have the 35 Summilux TL and to be honest with you, I think it's the best in the series (not tried the 60 macro yet but supposed to be brilliant also) I have used a lot of lenses on various Leica cameras and consider the summilux 35 to be among the very best of them all. Not ideal for a small package due to size weight.

[lct]

Well my "best" 35/1.4 lenses are Summilux-M v2 and FLE on the CL but even the FLE is somewhat too bulky for me so this certainly superb TL lens it's not my cup of tea sorry.

[Marac]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

My bad, my comment was more aimed towards John Tobias

[johntobias]

I cannot seem to stop this hand moving ever closer to pulling the 35 f1.4 TL trigger !  :D

[ramarren]

LOL! 

 

I hear a lot of complaints that the 'Lux-T 35mm is large. Looking at the photo, it's about the same size as my Elmarit-R 28mm f/2.8 ... my current "wide-normal"... and it's probably about the same weight. I like that size/weight lens on the CL! 

 

(Having a full automatic capable fast normal like that is an appealing thing to me, so I have that lens on my very short list of "maybe some day in the future I'll be interested" dedicated lenses, along with the 11-23mm and the 60mm Macro. But I have absolutely no plan or desire to buy any of them for the moment: I really like how the CL works with my R lenses!)

[lct]

Summilux-M 35/1.4: 38mm x 53mm, 245g

Summilux-M 35/1.4 asph: 46mm x 53mm, 320g

Summilux-M 35/1.4 FLE: 46mm x 56mm, 330g

Summilux-TL 35/1.4: 77mm x 70mm, 428g

 

...IINW. No experience with the TL lens though.

[Le Chef]

I may be completely wrong but if the TL 35mm f1.4 on an APSC camera is the equivalent of a 50mm lens on a full frame camera, should you not be comparing the various 50mm lenses - Summicron, Summilux etc.in terms of size and weight?

[lct]

I may be completely wrong but if the TL 35mm f1.4 on an APSC camera is the equivalent of a 50mm lens on a full frame camera, should you not be comparing the various 50mm lenses - Summicron, Summilux etc.in terms of size and weight?

 

On the CL forum, 35mm FL = 52mm FoV for all lenses

[lct]

While we are at that:

Summicron-M 35/2 v4: 26mm x 52mm, 160g

Summicron-M 35/2 asph: 35mm x 53mm, 255g

7artisans 35/2: 34mm x 53mm, 220g

... or something like that...

[Le Chef]

On the CL forum, 35mm FL = 52mm FoV for all lenses

 

That makes no sense. If Leica use equivalency when describing lenses then equivalency should be symmetrical surely? So a 90mm M lens on a full frame camera is equivalent to the 60mm TL lens on the CL/TL/TL2, and Leica describe that lens as being the equivalent of a 90mm lens on a full frame camera. By the same token a 50mm M lens on a CL/TL/TL2 must surely be the equivalent of the 35mm TL lens on the CL/TL/TL2?

Edited August 10, 2018 by Le Chef

[ramarren]

I may be completely wrong but if the TL 35mm f1.4 on an APSC camera is the equivalent of a 50mm lens on a full frame camera, should you not be comparing the various 50mm lenses - Summicron, Summilux etc.in terms of size and weight?

 

 

That makes no sense. If Leica use equivalency when describing lenses then equivalency should be symmetrical surely? So a 90mm M lens on a full frame camera is equivalent to the 60mm TL lens on the CL/TL/TL2, and Leica describe that lens as being the equivalent of a 90mm lens on a full frame camera. By the same token a 50mm M lens on a CL/TL/TL2 must surely be the equivalent of the 35mm TL lens on the CL/TL/TL2?

 

Chef: 

 

The APS-C format in the CL measures 16x24mm in size. If you are used to thinking of a 50mm lens as being the "normal" on your 35mm film camera with a 24x36mm format size, the resulting field of view when you fit that same lens to the smaller format is smaller. The difference is what is meant by the term "crop factor" ... The diagonal of 35mm film format is 1.5 times the diagonal of the digital APS-C format for the sensor that Leica is using.  For example, this means that a 50mm lens fitted to the CL nets a field of view that's indistinguishable from what you get when you fit a 75mm lens to an M10, and the field of view that you get with a 35mm lens fitted to the CL is identical to what you get when you fit a 50mm lens to the M10. 

 

Yes, a 60mm lens on the CL (or its other APS-C format siblings) images the same field of view that a 90mm lens does on the M. But in your last sentence, bolded above, you've inverted the direction of the crop factor calculation. Said correctly, "By the same token, a 35mm TL lens on a CL/TL/TL2 must surely be the equivalent of a 50mm M lens on the M10."

[lct]

That makes no sense. If Leica use equivalency when describing lenses then equivalency should be symmetrical surely? So a 90mm M lens on a full frame camera is equivalent to the 60mm TL lens on the CL/TL/TL2, and Leica describe that lens as being the equivalent of a 90mm lens on a full frame camera. By the same token a 50mm M lens on a CL/TL/TL2 must surely be the equivalent of the 35mm TL lens on the CL/TL/TL2?

 

Focal lengths are a given. What changes is the field of view (FoV) depending on the presence or absence of a crop or mag. factor. This way 35mm is an UWA lens on MF, a WA lens on FF and a standard lens on APS-C or APS-H. But it any case, it remains a 35mm lens. What changes also is the fact that lenses can cover a given format or not. M lenses for instance can cover FF, APS-H and APS-C while TL lenses cover only APS-C if i'm not mistaken. To revert to the topic in hand, i can use my 7a 35/2 on my CL (APS-C), M8.2 (APS-H) and M240 (FF) whereas i could use a TL 35/1.4 on my CL only. 

Edited August 10, 2018 by lct

[Le Chef]

Focal lengths are a given. What changes is the field of view (FoV) depending on the presence or absence of a crop or mag. factor. This way 35mm is an UWA lens on MF, a WA lens on FF and a standard lens on APS-C or APS-H. But it any case, it remains a 35mm lens. What changes also is the fact that lenses can cover a given format or not. M lenses for instance can cover FF, APS-H and APS-C while TL lenses cover only APS-C if i'm not mistaken. To revert to the topic in hand, i can use my 7a 35/2 on my CL (APS-C), M8.2 (APS-H) and M240 (FF) whereas i could use a TL 35/1.4 on my CL only. 

 

And that was my point! Should you not be comparing lenses for weight and size that give you the same FoV?

[lct]

And that was my point! Should you not be comparing lenses for weight and size that give you the same FoV?

 

This is what i was doing i believe. All 35mm lenses quoted above have a 52mm FoV on the CL.

[Le Chef]

That’s back to front. A 50mm M lens mounted to a CL will have the same approximate FoV as the 35mm TL lens mounted on the CL. So the real comparison should surely be between lenses with the same FoV, no?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[ramarren]

I may be completely wrong but if the TL 35mm f1.4 on an APSC camera is the equivalent of a 50mm lens on a full frame camera, should you not be comparing the various 50mm lenses - Summicron, Summilux etc.in terms of size and weight?

 

I don't know what you're objecting to here. 

 

 

That’s back to front. A 50mm M lens mounted to a CL will have the same approximate FoV as the 35mm TL lens mounted on the CL. So the real comparison should surely be between lenses with the same FoV, no?

 

 

Wrong. A 50mm "M" (or any other) lens mounted on a CL will have the same FoV as a 75mm lens mounted on the M. Read prior post.