35mm - This is the way!

[shinobi2012]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor 4 Stunden schrieb Dennis:

Many people think like you! One day... I will try it, as 35mm guy, I'm very curious. I just don't like the focus shift issue, cause I shoot a lot at f4. I hope the copy will try don't suffer from it.

All I can say, I have no Fokus shift. I checked it on all apertures and distances.

Also, if you want to use it at f4, I would not buy a Summilux 😉 Get the Summicron or Summaron instead.

[shinobi2012]

vor 4 Stunden schrieb Dennis:

Many people think like you! One day... I will try it, as 35mm guy, I'm very curious. I just don't like the focus shift issue, cause I shoot a lot at f4. I hope the copy will try don't suffer from it.

First is f4, second f5,6 (I rarely stop down, but here it was needed for DOF)

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!

[shinobi2012]

Two more, wide open...Summilux ASPH pre Fle...

the first one, I tilted the camera slightly after getting proper focus so the sharpness moved a bit (user error). This was a test for bokeh, which I really like on the pre Fle

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 April 22, 2022 by shinobi2012

[Dennis]

20 minutes ago, shinobi2012 said:

All I can say, I have no Fokus shift. I checked it on all apertures and distances.

Awesome. Not all copies has it, of course. Let's say (I heard) it's prone to

21 minutes ago, shinobi2012 said:

Also, if you want to use it at f4, I would not buy a Summilux 😉 Get the Summicron or Summaron instead.

I have a few 35s, and the Summicron asph v1 is my most used lens for work, assignments, and daily life. I use it mostly @f2 and f4. It just fits all my needs. Most people find it boring, de gustibus no est disputandum. But for example, the 35/2.8 ZM usually doesn't move from f4. Different lenses for different purposes. If I had the Summilux Pre Fle, I would probably use it wide open and @f4 🙂

 

[shinobi2012]

vor 1 Minute schrieb Dennis:

Awesome. Not all copies has it, of course. Let's say (I heard) it's prone to

I have a few 35s, and the Summicron asph v1 is my most used lens for work, assignments, and daily life. I use it mostly @f2 and f4. It just fits all my needs. Most people find it boring, de gustibus no est disputandum. But for example, the 35/2.8 ZM usually doesn't move from f4. Different lenses for different purposes. If I had the Summilux Pre Fle, I would probably use it wide open and @f4 🙂

 

If you would have a Summilux 35 ASPH pre Fle, you would use it mainly wide open 😉 ...First I thought the same 🙂 But of course, it depends on the subject and context...I usually use Summicron 28 ASPH for DOF , another spectacular lens drawing beautiful 

[geoffreyg]

Interesting thread. Have been using 'cron ASPH v.1, and thought "OK, its fine, but gee, doesn't look like the 'cron 50 that is so nice". Never could get a handle on why.

Tried the CV f1.4 II SC on an M10M, thought it neat for a while, but its a bit too murky open. A friend recommended CV Color Skopar f2.5, and I picked it up (not expensive) and did a grey day, back yard test. The Color Skopar had back focusing, needed live view to nail the focus, but then gave better results than either the CV 1.4 or the 'cron ASPH. It was quite surprising... At f 2.8 and f8, it had better side to side sharpness, better signature, more pop, and also subtlety. The lens is off to Grimes for shimming, and await its return. 

 

Edited April 24, 2022 by geoffreyg

[Dennis]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

4 hours ago, geoffreyg said:

Interesting thread. Have been using 'cron ASPH v.1, and thought "OK, its fine, but gee, doesn't look like the 'cron 50 that is so nice". Never could get a handle on why.

Tried the CV f1.4 II SC on an M10M, thought it neat for a while, but its a bit too murky open. A friend recommended CV Color Skopar f2.5, and I picked it up (not expensive) and did a grey day, back yard test. The Color Skopar had back focusing, needed live view to nail the focus, but then gave better results than either the CV 1.4 or the 'cron ASPH. It was quite surprising... At f 2.8 and f8, it had better side to side sharpness, better signature, more pop, and also subtlety. The lens is off to Grimes for shimming, and await its return. 

 

I believe there is a notable difference between the SC and MC. Did you try the latter? I use it w/ my M10 for BW, and I like it a lot. I can't imagine on the M10M.

About the Cron asph v1, not sure what happens w/ you people. Many find it boring, but it always delivers in almost any condition with no lack. The only con I can see is that it is prone to lens flare. But it's fast for a PJ and documentary approach, and it checks all boxes for me. Maybe I don't need a wow or strong character lens, but just a 35mm can consistently deliver like a workhorse. If I need a different (more unique) character performance, I pick up the LLL 35/2, the Nokton II MC, or the 35/1.2 v3, depending on the needs... If I want IQ perfection, well, the Zeiss 35/2.8 Biogon.

[Jeff S]

2 hours ago, Dennis said:

About the Cron asph v1, not sure what happens w/ you people. Many find it boring, but it always delivers in almost any condition with no lack. 

If it was hard to get, and cost twice as much, people would describe it as transparent, without flaws, rather than lacking character.  There’s a reason it has remained in the Leica catalog for so long (second version has minor tweaks).
 

Jeff

[Dennis]

The one & only 35 Summicron Asph I at it’s best: f/4. In my opinion, of course…

 

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!

[Olaf_ZG]

On 4/24/2022 at 12:36 PM, geoffreyg said:y.

Tried the CV f1.4 II SC on an M10M, thought it neat for a while, but its a bit too murky open.

 

I have this one and love it on the m8/m9m and even on my SL.

Very curious how it will be on the m10….

[Dennis]

27 minutes ago, Olaf_ZG said:

I have this one and love it on the m8/m9m and even on my SL.

Very curious how it will be on the m10….

The MC version is wow on the M10. Especially on BW 

Edited May 6, 2022 by Dennis
Added 2nd sentence

[Dennis]

W/ the M10, two SOOC shots w/ two of my favorite fast 35mm lenses. No edits

both wide open (@ f1.4)

.

CV 35/1.4 II MC

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!

and the CV 35/1.2 III (w/ ND 3stops)

Edited June 7, 2022 by Dennis

[TomKB]

On 2/17/2022 at 4:15 AM, pippy said:

As far as the problem regarding the availability of flint-glass is concerned it does seem to be the case that LLL have managed to source a limited quantity of this material but stocks are finite.

This is true if using vintage flint glass.  But the term is flexible enough that this could simply be marketing fluff.  In fact, I'm not even sure what the manufacturer actually says because the information I see is from other parties.  If you know of manufacturer documentation, I'd love to read it.  Present day flint glass, made with silicon dioxide and potassium, is still in production.  

[Jeff S]

6 minutes ago, TomKB said:

This is true if using vintage flint glass.  But the term is flexible enough that this could simply be marketing fluff.  In fact, I'm not even sure what the manufacturer actually says because the information I see is from other parties.  If you know of manufacturer documentation, I'd love to read it.  Present day flint glass, made with silicon dioxide and potassium, is still in production.  

Not manufacturer documentation, but what I’ve read elsewhere speaks to a scarcity.

https://www.japancamerahunter.com/2020/11/camera-geekery-light-lens-lab-35mm-f2/
 

Jeff

[pippy]

36 minutes ago, TomKB said:

This is true if using vintage flint glass.  But the term is flexible enough that this could simply be marketing fluff.  In fact, I'm not even sure what the manufacturer actually says because the information I see is from other parties.  If you know of manufacturer documentation, I'd love to read it.  Present day flint glass, made with silicon dioxide and potassium, is still in production.  

The passage I read 'back in the day' was concerning the use of Lead Oxide and the difficulties - for obvious reasons - in obtaining such raw material. The optical benefits of using such glass, however, were considered to be so considerable (as described in various posts I - and a few others - made at the time) that LLL were sourcing such material as they could in order to adhere to the optical formula which they were using for these lenses.

Whether such is still the case is a matter about which I have no information whatsoever.

Philip.

Edited October 7, 2022 by pippy

[TomKB]

Thank you for the responses. 

[TomKB]

Can someone give a comparison between the Lens Light Lab 35mm and the Voigtlander Ultron 35mm 2.0?  They are similar products and I was wondering if someone has first-hand experience with both.  

[Dennis]

20 minutes ago, TomKB said:

Can someone give a comparison between the Lens Light Lab 35mm and the Voigtlander Ultron 35mm 2.0?  They are similar products and I was wondering if someone has first-hand experience with both.  

I can't compare cause I never use an Ultron ( roughly the v2), but I can comment. I disagree with being similar products. They are two different rendering worlds. The LLL is a replica of 20th-century design, while the Ultrons (both) are modern lenses. If you say Ultron against the Summircon Asph, it makes sense. But the LLL against Ultron, it's not easy to compare.
Horses for courses...
.
I can only say that I recently printed a 12x18" in rag paper, a picture taken with the LLL with my M10, and it looks terrific and delightful to my eyes. 
For me, the LLL is definitely a storytelling lens...

[TomKB]

On 10/7/2022 at 4:06 PM, TomKB said:

Can someone give a comparison between the Lens Light Lab 35mm and the Voigtlander Ultron 35mm 2.0?  They are similar products and I was wondering if someone has first-hand experience with both.  

I'll try to answer my own question.  I was curious so I ordered the Ultron 2.0.  I have the LLL and for fun I also compared it to the Ultron 1.7.  In brief, this is how I summarize the three lenses:

Ultron 1.7 

+ The best all around performer of the three lenses 

+ Easiest to get critical focus with excellent focusing ergonomics 

+ Closest minimum focus distance 

+ Fastest 

+ Smooth bokeh, albeit perhaps bland, but suitable for a 35mm 

+ Sharpest corners at F8 among the three lenses 

+ Accurate colors 

+ Amazing construction 

+ 1.7 aperture can create a film feel to some shots. 

- The worst size and weight. This lens poses an issue for all day shooting. Note, that I have the brass version. 

 

Ultron 2.0 

+ To my surprise, it's sharper than the 1.7. 

+ More of a vintage bokeh, compared to the 1.7, which I personally like. 

+ I have seen some photos (not mine) that give a vintage quality but this could be editing. 

+ Good corner performance at f8, if that is your thing. 

- Huge negative: the build quality is not up to Voigtlander standards. See below. 

- The color seems to skew to green.  I'd need to have the lens longer to form a certain opinion. 

- Vignetting at 2.0 reaches into the midframe. 

 

Light Lens Lab

+ Among the three lenses, it more often has the best black and white images.  I'd want to compare it to my other single coated lenses before I proclaim it very good. 

+ Good construction and mostly good ergonomics.  

+ I like the bokeh

- I expected better warm colors. The colors are good, better than the Ultron 2.0, but I was hoping for something akin to my vintage Leica Summicron 50mm. 

- Softness and spherical qualities are sometimes a good thing, and not always a bad thing, but be prepared. 

- A lot of distortion 

- The aperture ring has poor ergonomics.  

- Vignetting at 2.0 reaches into the midframe. 

 

Conclusion 

I got the Ultron 2.0 hoping that it would replace my 1.7 Ultron.  I love the 1.7, and it's my go-to lens.  But when I travel, I get tired of its weight and how it makes  my camera tip and feel imbalanced.  It's just too massive for a rangefinder.  I received the Ultron 2.0 yesterday and out of the box it was defective.  The focus ring is so bad that there is no way that this could have passed QC.  The optics seem seaworthy, so I made some test shots to learn about it.  Could it replace the 1.7 Ultron? Will I replace the defective product?  I don't know.  It's very sharp, surprisingly so, but I don't yearn for more sharpness.  I guess I wanted a smaller substitute for the 1.7.   I like having an accurate reporting lens with little distortion.  With the 1.7, I know that I can take it anywhere and shoot everything well.  Still, I'd give up lens speed for size and weight, so I hoped the 2.0 was the iteration that fit my needs.  I suppose in some ways it is.  The quality issue aside, it is might be a competent lens for general use.  I'm concerned about the color skewing.  I might try another one to see if maybe mine was a dud inside and out.  

And the LLL? I bought the LLL to supplement my 1.7.  I wanted a lens with character to supplement my main lens.  Honestly, I had hoped for more character than what I got. At least for color shots, using the 1.7 at F1.7 delivers more character than the LLL.  Still, I've not had the LLL for that long, and like a lot of things, maybe I need to grow into it.  The good news is that I admire the B&W shots that I get from it. Part of me wonders if I would have been better served getting the single coated 35mm 1.4 Voigtlander for much less money.  Still, it's definitely a good lens and I'm happy to have it.  

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 11, 2022 by TomKB

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Jeff S]

46 minutes ago, TomKB said:

I'll try to answer my own question.  I was curious so I ordered the Ultron 2.0.  I have the LLL and for fun I also compared it to the Ultron 1.7.  In brief, this is how I summarize the three lenses:

Ultron 1.7 

+ The best all around performer of the three lenses 

+ Easiest to get critical focus with excellent focusing ergonomics 

+ Closest minimum focus distance 

+ Fastest 

+ Smooth bokeh, albeit perhaps bland, but suitable for a 35mm 

+ Sharpest corners at F8 among the three lenses 

+ Accurate colors 

+ Amazing construction 

+ 1.7 aperture can create a film feel to some shots. 

- The worst size and weight. This lens poses an issue for all day shooting. Note, that I have the brass version. 

 

Ultron 2.0 

+ To my surprise, it's sharper than the 1.7. 

+ More of a vintage bokeh, compared to the 1.7, which I personally like. 

+ I have seen some photos (not mine) that give a vintage quality but this could be editing. 

+ Good corner performance at f8, if that is your thing. 

- Huge negative: the build quality is not up to Voigtlander standards. See below. 

- The color seems to skew to green.  I'd need to have the lens longer to form a certain opinion. 

- Vignetting at 2.0 reaches into the midframe. 

 

Light Lens Lab

+ Among the three lenses, it more often has the best black and white images.  I'd want to compare it to my other single coated lenses before I proclaim it very good. 

+ Good construction and mostly good ergonomics.  

+ I like the bokeh

- I expected better warm colors. The colors are good, better than the Ultron 2.0, but I was hoping for something akin to my vintage Leica Summicron 50mm. 

- Softness and spherical qualities are sometimes a good thing, and not always a bad thing, but be prepared. 

- A lot of distortion 

- The aperture ring has poor ergonomics.  

- Vignetting at 2.0 reaches into the midframe. 

 

Conclusion 

I got the Ultron 2.0 hoping that it would replace my 1.7 Ultron.  I love the 1.7, and it's my go-to lens.  But when I travel, I get tired of it's weight and how it makes  my camera tip and feel imbalanced.  It's just too massive for a rangefinder.  I received the Ultron 2.0 yesterday and out of the box it was defective.  The focus ring is so bad that there is no way that this could have passed QC.  The optics seem seaworthy, so I made some test shots to learn about it.  Could it replace the 1.7 Ultron? Will I replace the defective product?  I don't know.  It's very sharp, surprisingly so, but I don't yearn for more sharpness.  I guess I wanted a smaller substitute for the 1.7.   I like having an accurate reporting lens with little distortion.  With the 1.7, I know that I can take it anywhere and shoot everything well.  Still, I'd give up lens speed for size and weight, so I hoped the 2.0 was the iteration that fit my needs.  I suppose in some ways it is.  The quality issue aside, it is might be a competent lens for general use.  I'm concerned about the color skewing.  I might try another one to see if maybe mine was a dud inside and out.  

And the LLL? I bought the LLL to supplement my 1.7.  I wanted a lens with character to supplement my main lens.  Honestly, I had hoped for more character than what I got. At least for color shots, using the 1.7 at F1.7 delivers more character than the LLL.  Still, I've not had the LLL for that long, and like a lot of things, maybe I need to grow into it.  The good news is that I admire the B&W shots that I get from it. Part of me wonders if I would have been better served getting the single coated 35mm 1.4 Voigtlander for much less money.  Still, it's definitely a good lens and I'm happy to have it.  

 

 

 

 

 

Various discussions by some regarding binding focus issues with the 35 CV Ultron ii f/2…

 

Haven’t read about similar issues with the prior version of the same lens.

Jeff