Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • 1 month later...
  • 1 month later...

Crops of the Lumix S35 f1.8 vs Leica 35 Summilux f1.4 FLE at f2.8 on the SL-S.  Unprocessed except raising exposure on the Leica by 1/3 stop to equalize brightness in LR.

 

 

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 by Ba Erv
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Lumix S35 at f1.8 vs Leica 35 Summilux FLE at 1.7 original full frame..pray told.  Feel free to pick out the Lux. 

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!

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ba Erv said:

Lumix S35 at f1.8 vs Leica 35 Summilux FLE at 1.7 original full frame..pray told.  Feel free to pick out the Lux. 

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!

Where is this, Albuquerque?

Anyway, the second image has a narrower field-of-view, more vignetting and more separation between foreground and background. I find the bokeh a little nervous compared with the first one. Both of them look soft in the focal plane toward the edge of the frame, but I think the second one lets the focal plane drift backward a little at the edges. I also think the second is slightly sharper on the subject (not sure if you focused on her eyelashes), but they're not very big jpgs so I'm not sure. 

Visual impact I guess I like the second one because of the subject separation and more blur to the background, plus the nice vignetting. I'll go out on a limb and peg that as the lux, given the nervous bokeh, a wavy focal plane and plenty of vignetting. 

Would be interesting in dngs, and also to see if I'm wrong. Nothing like comparing lenses with a 10x price differential to put me in my place. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not ABQ.

The bottom one of the two is indeed the Lux.  The caveat in viewing these jpgs here is the resizing and compression.  There's also a very slight shift in camera position (I sat on a tiny cactus anal probe). The dngs on my 27' IMac are much more defining.  The Lumix 35 is sharper across all the apertures and shows a little different bokeh.  The Lux also has a slightly warmer color.  Irrespective, when a $700 lens with autofocus that weight 295 grams fairs this well against a $6000 reference standard I have to tip my hat to Panasonic.

In the 200% crops the Lux is on top.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well at least I can recognize the 35 lux. Having said that, I sold my copy after a few years because I found the 35 distagon more to my liking (flat focal plane, smoother bokeh and no focus shift). Agree that the most striking difference is the $$$$. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, gotium said:

Well at least I can recognize the 35 lux. Having said that, I sold my copy after a few years because I found the 35 distagon more to my liking (flat focal plane, smoother bokeh and no focus shift). Agree that the most striking difference is the $$$$. 

If I decide against the M11 I’ll probably sell my 35 FLE too.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
  • 1 year later...
On 2/1/2024 at 7:29 AM, OR120 said:

Curious - which lens (35) did you keep? Still in love with the Lumix - did you keep the 35 distagon and Lumix?

I'm not @gotium, but I have the Distagon 35 and Leica 35 SL non-APO. Both have their pros and cons.

Distagon 35:

+ sharpest lens I've ever used

+ beautiful soft bokeh at f1.4

+ f1.4 aperture

+ fantastic build quality

+ crisp and clean rendering, lots of 3D pop in the subject

+ video footage looks like cinema

+ very good T stop rating, high light transmission

- no autofocus

- expensive

- no weather sealing

- performs best on M mount cameras, slightly less so on L mount even the SL2S

Leica Summicron 35 SL:

+ autofocus

+ weather sealing

+ decent build quality

+ optimized for L mount

- lacks the 3D pop and rendering of the Distagon, but it still very clear and crisp

- manual focus ring is smooth and well damped, but focus by wire still sucks

- f2 vs f1.4

- wider and longer than the Distagon but slightly lighter in weight

I use the Distagon for careful, considered photography, and the 35 SL for when I need rapid, dependable autofocus. Distagon for deliberate video projects, and 35 SL for video work where autofocus is helpful. I would not give up either lens.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...