Zenit Zenitar 35mm f1 [Merged]

[Charadis]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm still fairly new to the Leica M, to Rangefinders in general. I was very excited about the Zenitar 35mm f/1.0 for the Zenit M when I first learned about it, but haven't found many reviews besides one by Leica Rumors. I'm especially interested to hear about others who have this lens, and have used with a Leica M instead of the Zenit. Without the built-in corrections from the Zenit M, how do you optimize the quality of the pictures? 

Just received mine today, bought the unit that was used by Leica Rumors for review. Haven't had much time to use it as it has been raining today, but I've taken a few indoor shots with my M9. 

The lens extends beyond the bottom edge of the body (shot on iPhone): 

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!

Some example photos shot with the lens on my M9 indoors: 

Vignetting wide open. 

Most of the photos are shot at 800 ISO. 

 

These samples have been converted from DNG to JPG and then downsized to 30 percent original size. 

 

As a side not, I guess it doesn't help my first impression of the quality hearing something rattling inside when I just received it. I'm thinking loose screw or bearing? So I might be without this lens for a little bit until this gets worked out if I have to send in for warranty. But I'm interested if anyone else has tried this lens out, and with which M? And digital or film? 

 

I uploaded a video on YouTube of the lens making the sound that I just mentioned: 

 

[Advertisement]

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

[Charadis]

Small update; Eric from Zenit US is arranging for having the lens sent to Colorado for a check up on the "rattling" part. He also forwarded my video above to the Zenit factory; hopefully it will help them out. 

While I still have it, however, I took it and my M9 with me after work nearby. Here are a few of the examples; I tried shooting only wide open, but it seems the aperture ring easily slips, probably while I'm focusing (it does not "click"). I'll put the stamped info from the DNG files, even though these have been converted and resized like above: 

 

f/1.4, 1/4000 s, ISO 200

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!

: 

 

f/1.7, 1/350 s, ISO 200

 

f/1.4, 1/4000 s, ISO 400

 

f/1.4, 1/4000 s, ISO 400

 

[Charadis]

Small update, received the lens back from servicing last week, and the previously noted issue appears to be resolved. All shipping covered as well as the servicing by Key Camera in Colorado. The service document notes "re-install loose screw in front filter barrel ass'y., tighten & lacquer screws. Check all for G.W.O.." 

Regarding the f-stop values in previous post, I've just tried shooting with the lens wide open when I got it back, making sure the aperture ring is as far open as could go, and the exif is still showing different values on multiple shots (ie, 1.4, 1.2...) instead of f/1.0. So just note, even if the values above are in the exif, I'm pretty sure I shot entirely wide-open at the f/1.0 mark the entire time. 

I took a few indoor shots with the M-P (Typ 240) to compare with the M9 shots (not this one, photo shot on iPhone 11 pro): 

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!

 

The pics shot with the lens start here. Same shot of my dining area, wide open, with the M-P (Typ 240) this time. A more "scientific" comparison would be swapping bodies/lenses on the spot, but I did not do that: 

 

Approximately same frame, but focus is further in, side chair. I'm embarrassed that my table probably could use a wipe-down, or more: 

 

My preference still goes for the image output of the M9, but these look alright. I may have to take the Typ 240 out more and get the feel for a more modern Leica.  however, now I want to get a lens that matches it better. I've put this Zenit up on the market. 

[Harpomatic]

Thanks for the report!

Can I ask you what was so interesting for you about this lens? First reports weren’t positive at all for the 50, I would have been thoroughly suspicious of the 35’s quality as well at that point.

What really surprises me is that such an enormously sized, supposedly modern design and M mount dedicated lens still shows such an amount of colour shading! Look at the last two pictures on the right for example. And that is on the M-P 240, of which the Zenith camera is a clone produced by Leica itself!

[farnz]

I think the lens would need to be coded as a 35 Summilux so that the camera apples the appropriate vignette and colour compensation for the offset pixels on the M9's sensor.  

 

@Charadis Have you put the lens up for sale on ebay?

What made you decide to sell?

Pete.

[Charadis]

1 hour ago, Harpomatic said:

Thanks for the report!

Can I ask you what was so interesting for you about this lens? First reports weren’t positive at all for the 50, I would have been thoroughly suspicious of the 35’s quality as well at that point.

What really surprises me is that such an enormously sized, supposedly modern design and M mount dedicated lens still shows such an amount of colour shading! Look at the last two pictures on the right for example. And that is on the M-P 240, of which the Zenith camera is a clone produced by Leica itself!

 

Glad to hear! Yeah, the 50mm for the E mount? I had my doubts, especially after reading those reviews, but I was intrigued by all the hype around the Zenit M set and the collaboration with Leica. 

Interesting to note on the shading, with that side where the source of the lighting on those pics. Those left side corners having heavy vignetting, like here in this shot from the M9. Vignetting not so noticeable on the upper left corner viewing the sky. Perhaps, if there were a profile for this lens in the camera, this could be more balanced: 

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!

 

 

1 minute ago, farnz said:

I think the lens would need to be coded as a 35 Summilux so that the camera apples the appropriate vignette and colour compensation for the offset pixels on the M9's sensor.  

 

@Charadis Have you put the lens up for sale on ebay?

What made you decide to sell?

Pete.

 

Very interesting idea. I was thinking the Noctilux profile, but the Summilux makes better sense. If I still have the lens this weekend, I may try it with that setting; will be going up to the countryside for the holiday. According to the dealer, he does not recommend using another lens profile, so I haven't taken it seriously: 

• "The lens has been tested also on a Sony A7RIV with the Techart M to E adapter and what I understand is that there are really very little differences between the corrected images and uncorrected in terms of distortion, vignetting and sharpness, so my best guess is the profile is mostly about color.  I would not apply a correction for another lens honestly.  Instead I would look at using tools in most RAW conversion software like vignetting and so forth."

Yes sir, it is up there.  the main reason is because I'm not Mr. Moneybags haha. I wasn't expecting to keep the M-P (Typ 240) I used here, another expensive purchase - and I need to cut losses, plain and simple. It was an impulse buy, and I've been curious how it would perform on an M. While the lens is, in my opinion, not as elegantly crafted as a Leica lens, the construction still feels very solid. I can see what looks like brass on the other end.. the outer housing may be anodized aluminum, like the Summarit M.. focusing/aperture rings could be plastic, but I'm not entirely sure...  

 

At the end of the day, when I switch back to the Summarit M, there is so much that I appreciate from a small lens that also renders beautiful images. 

[farnz]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

When you use the term "profile" it sounds like you're talking about the profile in Lightroom or Adobe Camera Raw, which is not what I was meaning.  I was referring to coding the lens using marks on the lens flange that are read by the camera so it will apply appropriate vignetting and colour cast corrections.  (My apologies if you're already familiar with this.)

Pete.

[Charadis]

2 hours ago, farnz said:

When you use the term "profile" it sounds like you're talking about the profile in Lightroom or Adobe Camera Raw, which is not what I was meaning.  I was referring to coding the lens using marks on the lens flange that are read by the camera so it will apply appropriate vignetting and colour cast corrections.  (My apologies if you're already familiar with this.)

Pete.

Sorry for any confusion, I don’t really know what the lens selections are actually called in the camera settings 😅 but absolutely, I was referring to that regarding lens coding, or selecting the appropriate lens on the camera body manually as per your Summilux suggestion 

[Charadis]

Got to take the lens back out today on my day off, with the M9, to try after changing the lens setting in the body software: Menu -> Lens Detection -> Manual -> 35 f/1.4 ASPH. 11874/11883. 

Tried to get mostly close-ups of plant-life, but I skipped around looking for areas that weren't too bright out in the sun. I don't know if it was the Summilux lens setting, or just being a pretty bright day, but the vignetting seems minimized in most if not all the pics I took today. I've a few blown-out exposures, but after playing around with the ISO and moving to more shadowed areas, I think some of these examples turned out very well. 

 

f/1.0, 320 ISO

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!

 

(crooked composition, I know. Can I blame it on a couple cuties walking by?) f/1.0, 160 ISO

 

(these leaves kept subtly swinging in the wind) f/1.0, 400 ISO

 

f/1.0, 80 ISO

[Charadis]

Continued! More plant life, I guess. I didn't plan to go "street shooting," however, I'm starting to get used to the tightness of the focus ring, and I'm focusing better, quicker. Maybe I can give it a try.. haha

f/1.0, 80 ISO

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!

 

f/1.0, 80 ISO

 

(so there is this pretty little Dark Candy Apple Red 'Stang that has been stalking me everywhere I go for the past 11 years...) (image seems slightly blown-out, but it's such a good composition...in my opinion)

f/1.0, 160 ISO 

 

(some lens flaring I see?) f/1.0, 80 ISO

 

(lens flarrrrrrrre arghhhhhh) f/1.0, 160 ISO

Edited July 3, 2020 by Charadis
Clarified some statements, or removed some words ((:

[farnz]

Thanks for the additional pictures.  Yes, I'm glad to see that the coding seems to have taken care of the colour cast and vignetting.

From the out of focus discs ('bokeh balls') in the picture with all the leaves it looks like the lens suffers from some spherical aberration owing to the bright edges on the discs and darker centres.  Also some of the discs show green fringes, which suggests transverse chromatic aberration, and there's some axial chromatic aberration shown by the spectral highlight discs looking indistinct and blurry.

This is not to suggest it's a poor lens by any means but it helps to show why Leica lenses carry a heavier price tag as a result of correcting for as many aberrations as possible. 

Pete.

 

[Charadis]

On 7/3/2020 at 6:58 PM, farnz said:

Thanks for the additional pictures.  Yes, I'm glad to see that the coding seems to have taken care of the colour cast and vignetting.

From the out of focus discs ('bokeh balls') in the picture with all the leaves it looks like the lens suffers from some spherical aberration owing to the bright edges on the discs and darker centres.  Also some of the discs show green fringes, which suggests transverse chromatic aberration, and there's some axial chromatic aberration shown by the spectral highlight discs looking indistinct and blurry.

This is not to suggest it's a poor lens by any means but it helps to show why Leica lenses carry a heavier price tag as a result of correcting for as many aberrations as possible. 

Pete.

 

 

I think there is certainly a noticeable difference in the vignetting aspect of things, but it also probably helps that I am outdoors taking the pics. I see what you mean, regarding aberrations, and I've been studying the photographs up close between the bokeh balls. I'm glad you've pointed these out as it certainly helps understand the shortcomings of the lens, and it helps me better understand what to look for in the quality of such photographic rendering. 

I've taken the lens out once again, this time on a family outing, to study these aberrations better under another setting. It just so happened to be overcast sky this afternoon, so the pictures are quite dark.

 All shots taken at ISO 800, and wide open. 

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!

 

No question on what you pointed on spherical aberrations. Especially the lighter "bokeh balls" exhibiting this quality.

 

However, I am in absolute agreement that the lens is by no means poor quality. 

As another person had discussed with me in private, he recognized the rendering being "really soft similar to Noctilux V3 V4 type of feel, not to mention their signature Russian Helios swirl bokeh," and that he loves the color , being "heavy toward cold tone feel type, it's also great for subject separations with F1." 

I'm not familiar of other lenses for the M in 35mm focal length at f/1.0, but I love the effect that the lens renders at a razor thin depth of field. 

 

This actually gets very addicting once the focusing is mastered. 

 

[Charadis]

There also seem to be some 3D properties that turn out well when the object is within a close distance

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!

 

 

 

 

 

[hteasley]

I’d be interested in seeing how it looks at ~f1,2. My experience with some of these lenses is that wide open you get things like nervous bokeh, but slightly closing it down can change the character fairly completely.

[farnz]

5 hours ago, Charadis said:

As another person had discussed with me in private, he recognized the rendering being "really soft similar to Noctilux V3 V4 type of feel,

I've had and extensively used a 50/1 Noctilux v4 for 10 years and I have to politely disagree with your friend.  I see very little similarity, other than subject separation, which is a matter of physics.  The Noctilux produces pastel-y tones, which are naturally warmer than the colder, bluer ones in the pictures you've kindly shared with us.

As you point out, the Zenitar shows precise subject separation.  I've always felt that the mark of good, fast lens is how gradual (gentle?) its zone of focus moves from in-focus to out of focus.  Too abrupt and it makes your eyeballs jangle, too gradual and it starts to resemble a less fast lens.

Pete.

[Charadis]

17 hours ago, farnz said:

I've had and extensively used a 50/1 Noctilux v4 for 10 years and I have to politely disagree with your friend.  I see very little similarity, other than subject separation, which is a matter of physics.  The Noctilux produces pastel-y tones, which are naturally warmer than the colder, bluer ones in the pictures you've kindly shared with us.

As you point out, the Zenitar shows precise subject separation.  I've always felt that the mark of good, fast lens is how gradual (gentle?) its zone of focus moves from in-focus to out of focus.  Too abrupt and it makes your eyeballs jangle, too gradual and it starts to resemble a less fast lens.

Pete.

 

Interesting point you make about the colder tones that the other person had mentioned, in contrast to the warmth of Noctilux. I wish I had one of the latter to take back-to-back comparison photos and study between the results to truly appreciate the differences. 

Your feedback and input has been invaluable in giving this lens a fair critique, to myself and I hope to others who have been sifting the internet in search of more critical feedback from an expert eye. 

[Charadis]

23 hours ago, hteasley said:

I’d be interested in seeing how it looks at ~f1,2. My experience with some of these lenses is that wide open you get things like nervous bokeh, but slightly closing it down can change the character fairly completely.

Hello! I was wondering about trying another aperture settings earlier on, but decided that if you're getting a glass this fast, why wouldn't you shoot wide-open "all the time?" haha... but I am curious now if there could be any improvement; I'm wondering if this might also help resolve problems with the spherical aberrations that member farnz above (Mr. Pete) had mentioned earlier on. 

The aperture ring also doesn't click, and there is no marking for f/1.2, so I am only making a "guess" where the actual f/1.2 could be.

My "best" guess on where f/1.2, approximately where I would set for the ~f/1.2 photographs (photo taken on iPhone 11 Pro, "2x"): 

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 this would be "wide-open" f/1.0 (photo taken on iPhone 11 Pro, "2x"): 

 

I've taken a few sets of photographs today in the garden, hopefully these could help (photographs taken on M9 with the Zenitar 35mm) 

f/1.0

~f/1.2

~f/1.4

 

The major difference that comes to my eye is more contrast to the subject in focus. Perhaps, there are more subtle differences that could be found in the background.. ?

 

[Charadis]

"Butterfly" 

f/1.0

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!

~f/1.2

~f/1.4

 

"Bee"

f/1.0

~f/1.2

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Charadis]

Last set: I wasn't sure about posting this set because of the lens flare apparently obvious in the first two images; I notice some subtle differences in the "bokeh balls," especially between ~f/1.2 and ~f/1.4 on the "wire fence" and the leaves directly above the silver Mustang (they seem less like "halos" and more filled in, and slightly tighter/smaller)

f/1.0 

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!

~f/1.2

~f/1.4 

[farnz]

4 hours ago, Charadis said:

but I am curious now if there could be any improvement; I'm wondering if this might also help resolve problems with the spherical aberrations that member farnz above (Mr. Pete) had mentioned earlier on.

The effects of many lens aberrations are at their strongest (worst) at the outer edges of a lens because of the bends in the paths that the rays at the edges take (compared to the 'straight' path through the centre of a lens).  Stopping down closes the aperture in the diaphragm and by doing so some of the rays at the edge will be obscured by the lens's diaphragm and won't reach the image, which is why stopping down normally produces improved image quality and why high-performing fast lenses are so difficult to design and produce.

The difference between f/1, f/1.2 and f/1.4 will be small in terms of the amount of movement of the lens diaphragm so I wouldn't expect to see a large reduction in a lens's aberrations because most of the rays at the lens's outer edges are still reaching the image since the aperture through the diaphragm is not much smaller and therefore most rays will pass through.  

I would expect to see a marked reduction in aberrations by, say f/4 or f/5.6.  This is the trade-off with fast lenses: use them wide open for their subject separation or light-collecting properties but accept the inevitable aberrations.  

Pete.