citrus Posted October 7, 2007 Share #1 Posted October 7, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) I have just received my new 35/2,0 Asph - on the quick run I went out to take a few pictures and was blown away - such a nice camera - so much detail - absolutely lovely - here is a few shots I have taken with it. For me this is a great lens - though indoors I lack a bit the speed - well cant have all - but how do you compare it to a 35/1,4? Let me know what you think of the lens on the M8. McDonalds - relaxing at lunch 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! Neighbors house-front..... Spider web with light shining through from behind.... Looking through the gate of the garden fence...... Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Neighbors house-front..... Spider web with light shining through from behind.... Looking through the gate of the garden fence...... ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/35238-trial-3520-asph-on-m8-impressions/?do=findComment&comment=371712'>More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 7, 2007 Posted October 7, 2007 Hi citrus, Take a look here Trial: 35/2,0 Asph on M8 - impressions. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
fotografr Posted October 7, 2007 Share #2 Posted October 7, 2007 The 35/2 asph is a fantastic lens. I wouldn't try to compare it to the 35/1.4 asph because they have different characteristics and each has its own strengths. When I go out with the M8 and just one lens, it is nearly always the 35/2 asph. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
citrus Posted October 7, 2007 Author Share #3 Posted October 7, 2007 Thanks for the heads up - where do you see the differences in strength and weaknesses between the 1,4 and the 2,0? Other than that I currently own a 50/2,0 (older model). So far I prefer the 35/2.0 Asph but my range of comaprisons is limited. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
el_greco Posted October 7, 2007 Share #4 Posted October 7, 2007 where do you see the differences in strength and weaknesses between the 1,4 and the 2,0? I own both 35mm ASPHs at 1.4 (old version with metal lens screen) and 2.0 (quite recent version). I definitely will have to sell one. But I really do not know, which of them. I find the character of these lenses too different to decide which to keep. The summilux, of course, has a 1.4 aperture, making it the ideal companion if you have to do indoor shooting. I used it at a wedding and had really outstanding results. At 1.4 the lux is really great for creative DOF shots. Its weakness (even though I am complaining on a very high level, here) are some distortion (mostly in the right part of a picture). This can be obvious when shooting architecture. The summicron "only" has 2.0 as a maximum aperture. While this is still sufficient in most situations it is obviously less than the summilux has to offer. But the cron has the most beautiful rendering and bokeh I have seen in Leica lenses (or any other manufacturer's for that matter). It has virtually no distortion and it is a little smaller than the lux. This is why I cannot really decide what to keep. The lux for its maximum aperture of 1.4 and very nice overall performance? Or the summicron for its really marvellous rendition, bokeh, size and the absence of distortion of any kind? Unfortunately, both lenses are really very different. El. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Ortego Posted October 7, 2007 Share #5 Posted October 7, 2007 Looks great to me although I'm still wet behind the ears. In any event, I’ll likely be in the market for the same lens. Thanks to the advice of others’ on this forum, I recently ordered my new M8 and I wanted my first lens to be the cron-28. Unfortunately, there isn’t enough change under the sofa cushions just yet. Hopefully, I can hold off and save up or perhaps sell a kidney. So many lenses, so little time. Regards, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted October 7, 2007 Share #6 Posted October 7, 2007 You actually have a kidney. heck mine and a few other parts are long gone after buying a couple lenses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robsteve Posted October 8, 2007 Share #7 Posted October 8, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) The 35mm Summicron ASPH is one of my favorite lenses. A few years back in the days of film M's, I had both the 35mm Summilux ASPH and the 35mm Summicron ASPH. I sold the 35mm Summilux, because in the low light situations I though my Noctilux gave more pleasing images. Here is a M8 image at 1250iso using the 35mm Summicron ASPH. It is a perfectly capable lens in low light as long as your subject and camera are still enough. This was shot at f2 and 1/6th of a second. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Ortego Posted October 8, 2007 Share #8 Posted October 8, 2007 You actually have a kidney. heck mine and a few other parts are long gone after buying a couple lenses. Yeah but only one works, and I have sell both for cron-28. Regards, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
citrus Posted October 8, 2007 Author Share #9 Posted October 8, 2007 Yeah but only one works, and I have sell both for cron-28.Regards, Well the cron-28 seems to be everybodies dream or better wish. What is so special about this lens compared to the 35? I also realized that they are awefully hard to find. Seems that this lens is a real keeper for everyone. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted October 8, 2007 Share #10 Posted October 8, 2007 Well the cron-28 seems to be everybodies dream or better wish. What is so special about this lens compared to the 35? It approximates to a 35mm in a film body. At least that's my reasoning, I'm currently using a Voigtlander Ultron f1.9 28mm, but the lure of the Leica is strong <grin> Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
larry Posted October 8, 2007 Share #11 Posted October 8, 2007 The 35 Cron is my favorite lens because it's compact, versatile and delivers amazing IQ. Larry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eoin Posted October 8, 2007 Share #12 Posted October 8, 2007 Well the cron-28 seems to be everybodies dream or better wish. What is so special about this lens compared to the 35? I also realized that they are awefully hard to find. Seems that this lens is a real keeper for everyone. I think it's a combination if a few factors, effective 35mm with the crop a sweet spot in traditional M shooting. Max aperture of f:/2 a full stop faster than the Elmarits. The fingerprint is also decidedly non Asph, nice (less than elmarit) contrast, nice saturation, good tones. Difficult to put a finger in it exactly but it just seems to perform in any given situation. I agree with Steve that the focal length is an attraction but it's slightly more complicated, otherwise we'd all be using elmarits. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Photoskeptic Posted October 8, 2007 Share #13 Posted October 8, 2007 I tried a 28 on my M8 and found it too wide for everyday shooting. Went with the 35 Cron ASPH which is closer to my favoritie 50 on a film body and haven't looked back. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philinflash Posted October 8, 2007 Share #14 Posted October 8, 2007 I tried a 28 on my M8 and found it too wide for everyday shooting. Went with the 35 Cron ASPH which is closer to my favoritie 50 on a film body and haven't looked back. I went through the same logic gates and came out where you did and agree with you on satisfaction with the 35/2.0. It is a nicely compact lens although not as compact as the 28 but more compact than the 35/1.4 which was a consideration. As for speed, I find the 35/2.0 a "faster" lens than I would expect. I normally shoot with the EV @ -2/3 /160. The camera is real good down to 640 or even more (particularly if I take out the above EV adjustment). Finally, so much can be done in post that I do not really consider the extra f-stop of the 35/1.4 "worth it." It also depends on whatever other lenses you will be using and what you will be shooting. That is up to you. Philip Kozloff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
citrus Posted October 9, 2007 Author Share #15 Posted October 9, 2007 Agree - so far the 2,0 has not shrugged me off and I am quite okay with it - I love rendering the b+w pictures - they have so much detqil and atmosphere - its great to look at - mch better than my previous Canon shots. Which other lenses have you been pleased with for shooting - eg in the 50mm field? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hdrmd Posted October 10, 2007 Share #16 Posted October 10, 2007 I agree with Larry. For size and handling, the 35mm F2 is very hard to beat unless you have to have the 1,4. I find that I rarely need the speed and I really like the 35 lens. DR Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riccis Posted October 10, 2007 Share #17 Posted October 10, 2007 This is indeed an excellent lens... Back when I couldn't get any lenses for my M8s, I was shooting complete weddings just with this baby (this is one of them... http://www.riccisvalladares.com/wordpress/?p=366) I eventually sold it after getting the 35 lux, but only because I like to work with the fastest glass available. Later, Riccis Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philinflash Posted October 10, 2007 Share #18 Posted October 10, 2007 ... Which other lenses have you been pleased with for shooting ....? Laupi, I only use one other lens with the M8, the 75 cron ASPH. This is about as long as I want to go with a rangefinder camera; anything longer works better with a DSLR IMHO. Shorter is a matter of personal taste but when I really want wide angle, I tend to take multiple images and stitch them together in post. In this way, I have managed to keep my investment under $10 grand and my camera burden under 10 pounds. It all fits neatly into one of the smaller Pelican cases which is a big plus when compared to my Hasselblad gear. But the 35 and the 75 work well together. They seem to have similar optical qualities and handle similarly. For instance and obviously, they have the same f-stop range - 2 to 22 - so it is pretty intuitive to swap them back and forth. the 35:75 relationship is pretty close to 2 to 1 and I don't feel I need anything in between such as a 50 or 55. The 75 captures about one quarter of the frame area of the 35 so I find it easy to mentally "see" what the 75 sees when shooting with the 35. And, of course, you can always toggle to the 75 brightlines or vice versa. I actually prefer the way the 75 cron handles over the 35 because its longer length means more room to deal with focus and aperture and I like the built in lens hood better. I have added some home-made detents on the focus ring for easy physical touch reference which I would have rather Leica had done for me, but what the hey. Philip Kozloff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TDR Posted October 10, 2007 Share #19 Posted October 10, 2007 Philip, do you find that the built-in lens hood on the 75 f/2 is long enough? I have that lens and find it to be excellent, but I worry about the short hood. I'm afraid that I'll get some stray sidelight that will cause trouble. I also have the 35 f/2, but I haven't seen it since July 14, when I sent it off to NJ for 6-bitting. I miss it terribly. -Tim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
citrus Posted October 10, 2007 Author Share #20 Posted October 10, 2007 Philip, do you find that the built-in lens hood on the 75 f/2 is long enough? I have that lens and find it to be excellent, but I worry about the short hood. I'm afraid that I'll get some stray sidelight that will cause trouble. I also have the 35 f/2, but I haven't seen it since July 14, when I sent it off to NJ for 6-bitting. I miss it terribly. -Tim Wow - that sounds long for 6-bitting - are you sure it arrived there? Has anybody tried to take a picture with a 35 Asph in direct comparison to a Canon or Nikon lens - I would be cusious to see the differencen in rendering detail and shadows. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.