Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
sdai

Cv 35/1.4

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi Terry,

 

Glad to hear it. I am biased in that I *really* want to like this lens. I'm just a 35-1-4 kind of guy. But what Sean put up = useless. I don't understand why he was so circumspect about saying that the lenses he had were paper-weights.

 

I prefer the specific to the general with language. Given your professional work, I'm sure that you can appreciate that. I don't think they're paperweights. The two copies I tested are decent on center wide open and at F/2.0. They shift focus beyond that and the corners are fairly soft (at the intended focus distance) at wider apertures. Time will tell if the latter is due to field curvature or sample variation. But, given the samples I've tested so far, this is not a lens that I would buy for myself.

 

I still have people writing to me and asking me why I don't just declare the M8 a miserable failure, etc. It remains my favorite and most used camera. We all have perspectives.

 

My job is to describe the thing in front of me in fairly specific terms. Over-generalizations are a primary reason that people often can't get accurate information from web discussions. Generalizations are one reason that people think Tom and I have gotten different test results from this lens model. We haven't yet and we might not. There's been no testing replication yet, as Tom and I discussed by phone.

 

In an RFF thread that was deleted, Tom A. noted that he believes the CV 35/1.4 was designed to emulate the pre-ASPH Leica 35/1.4. That Leica lens, in his description, shows focus shift, field curvature and flare. So far, we're 2 for 3 in the CV 35/1.4 samples I've tested.

 

Tom and I had a great discussion going in that thread - too bad it was deleted. I'm eager to see the results of Tom A's focus shift and field curvature tests. He had not yet tested for either when we last spoke. Up to that point he had been doing field tests primarily wide open and stopped down to F/8 or so.

 

So, before we conclude that Tom's results differ from mine, we need to see what he comes up with. Otherwise, we're largely discussing apples and oranges.

 

Terry, I'd love to see your results. Collaboration is great.

 

Best,

 

Sean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Terry,

 

Have you tested for focus shift yet? I know that Tom told me he planned to.

 

With the two samples I've tested so far...Between about F/2.8 and F/5.6, the lens will give very sharp results *at some distance* but peak focus will not fall at the distance set by the rangefinder. The lens does focus at the intended distance between F/1.4 and F/2.0 and DOF largely sorts things out by F/8.0.

 

In order for us to compare results, of course, we're all going to have be quite methodical in our testing. I'm looking forward to trying the other two samples of the lens.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

 

Hi Sean,

 

I have observed some strange behavior relative to focus shift, but I need more time in various situations to really say one way or another. I am just shooting with it simple as that - I guess I would observe what I focus on for the most part is in focus. Is that a good test of the lens - not likely but I am not a lens tester sort of guy.

 

Best Regards. Terry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Sean,

 

What I have posted sofar... I have move but just more is all it is.

 

CV 35mm Nokton F1.4 - a set on Flickr

 

Regards. Terry.

 

Hi Terry,

 

Thanks for the link. I can see that the lens is working for you. If you want to see the focus shift in action, with non-test photography, try an afternoon with that lens at F/2.8 and F/4.0.

 

Lens testing can be really boring. I don't even like doing the controlled testing. But it can help us to isolate and understand what's really going on with a lens.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Terry,

 

Thanks for the link. I can see that the lens is working for you. If you want to see the focus shift in action, with non-test photography, try an afternoon with that lens at F/2.8 and F/4.0.

 

Lens testing can be really boring. I don't even like doing the controlled testing. But it can help us to isolate and understand what's really going on with a lens.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

 

Sean,

 

I will give it try for sure (although I think Tom A may want his back soon). I would love to try this lens on a Bessa R4 or some such - there is just thing that bothers me and I am not sure what it is.

 

That all said, I am stepping away from this topic I hope gracefully - yikes! Besides I have way to many 35mm lenses

 

I have enjoyed your DP1 review so far and am looking forward to part two. Now if we could only get the best of the GRD II the G9 and DP1 in one nice little body - wouldn't that be nice to have.

 

Kind Regards. Terry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sean,

 

I will give it try for sure (although I think Tom A may want his back soon). I would love to try this lens on a Bessa R4 or some such - there is just thing that bothers me and I am not sure what it is.

 

That all said, I am stepping away from this topic I hope gracefully - yikes! Besides I have way to many 35mm lenses

 

I have enjoyed your DP1 review so far and am looking forward to part two. Now if we only get the best the GRD II the G9 and DP1 in one nice little body - wouldn't that be nice to have.

 

Kind Regards. Terry.

 

Hi Terry,

 

I think you may discover that its the focus shift that's bothering you, even though that may not seem obvious right now. Are you bothered by what happens on center or in the corners?

 

Thanks for the comments on the DP1 review. All three of those companies could learn from each other.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi Terry,

 

I think you may discover that its the focus shift that's bothering you, even though that may not seem obvious right now. Are you bothered by what happens on center or in the corners?

 

Thanks for the comments on the DP1 review. All three of those companies could learn from each other.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

 

Just looking very closely now, very interesting, very very interesting, x3 interesting. I think I like my 40mm Nokton. Best if leave it at that for now

 

Best Regards. Terry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
…Tom A. noted that he believes the CV 35/1.4 was designed to emulate the pre-ASPH Leica 35/1.4. That Leica lens, in his description, shows focus shift, field curvature and flare...

I haven't noticed focus shift and field curvature with my late copy of the pre-asph Summilux, at least on the R-D1. This and Terry's pictures with the CV make me wonder if such flaws if any are really troublesome in day-to-day photography.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I haven't noticed focus shift and field curvature with my late copy of the pre-asph Summilux, at least on the R-D1. This and Terry's pictures with the CV make me wonder if such flaws if any are really troublesome in day-to-day photography.

 

Hi LCT,

 

Those were Tom's comments on the pre-asph Summilux. These are two different lenses, of course. With the two copies I've tested so far, focus shift is a notable problem, in normal picture making, at about F/2.8 and F/4.0.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...With the two copies I've tested so far, focus shift is a notable problem, in normal picture making, at about F/2.8 and F/4.0...

Hi Sean thanks. Were your two copies MC and/or LC versions? Best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Sean, could be on your way a comparison between the pre-asph Summilux 35 and this new CV35?

Many of us have had (or still have) the pre-asph 35lux, so it could be somehow interesting to read your comparison with a well known subject;)

I really can't wait to see your review of the CV35 completed to take a decision about this lens!

 

BTW, thanks a lot for your work, I really appreciate your care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This type of discussion is fascinating because it lays bare so many things. Ok, so there is a bad copy of a CV lens. Bad in what way?

 

- Bad because it didn't work well with the reviewer's camera as it is calibrated?

 

- Bad because it didn't conform to it's own manufacturer's specs?

 

- Bad because we expected tack sharp corner-to-corner performance and didn't get it?

 

- Bad because a fast lens has spherical aberration and focus shift?

If you don't know which of these reasons it is "bad," then there is nothing to say that successive copies of the same lens will be "good" in any objective sense. Or whether there are any "good" copies of this lens at all.

 

To say that Tom has a good copy and Sean has a bad copy is a guess - and however well intentioned, it is giving the manufacturer the benefit of a doubt it might not deserve.

 

The test for those of us who walk into a store (or get online) and buy a lens is whether a single example (ours) will plug into an M8 and work the first time. In that sense, Sean's test is conclusive: a single random sample. Does it work? Draw your own conclusion. I haven't looked at the results too closely, but if you don't like them, you have to brace yourself for the possibility that you will get that type of result. Sorry.

 

Tom's "good" copy, assuming the bulleted factors above, is another potential outcome. But it only brings the odds up to 1:1. And if it is a deviant production variation that coincidentally favors what people want in performance, it would not definitive evidence of anything.

 

I would say that the only way to test lenses on an M8 is a have a body that is calibrated and hand-delivered (not air-shipped) from the factory, coupled with a single, randomly selected new sample of each lens from a distributor's stock.

 

Or, optionally, you could collect a statistically valid sample (which will be a lot more than two) and measure the collimation variances and RF coupling variances to determine what is a "normal" copy of the lens, what the tolerance is, and then test accordingly. But that cuts out the part that is useful to the person who is going to buy one lens.

 

But realistically, out of the box consistency between examples and build quality is what makes good lenses very expensive. That's why you virtually never see these kinds of discussions with Leica lenses that cost six times as much. You are paying an insane price for microscopic tolerances, indestructible materials, and insanely good quality control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Sean,

 

I didn't mean to be critical of you, btw, which I realized my second post has overtones of. As the one doing the dirty work (or at least dull work) of methodical testing, we all owe you a great deal of gratitude.

 

I do, however, stand by the assertion that this lens is likely of no use....in the context of the other available lenses in the field. It offers two potential advantages: speed and size. This is why I (and most others) would want it. I would venture to say that for most RF photographers, f2.8-5.6 are the every day working aperatures. For the lens to be really mediocre at its focus point throughout this range is deeply problematic.

 

There are better, though slightly slower, lenses like the CV 1.7 and 2.5 . I'm just not seeing the 1.4's niche here.

 

Moreover, given that CV has pursued a pretty single-minded design brief of high sharpness, I find it baffling and improbable that they would suddenly design a lens with such serious focus issues on purpose.......at least with out saying so and attaching some sort of marketing spin to it. CV is a sophisticated company. They must have tested these lenses repeatedly on M8s, so what's going on?

 

I do totally understand your desire to be neutral, empirical and restrained in your approach. Those are, afterall, the hallmarks of your approach, and the reason for your well-deserved credibility in the photo community!

 

Me, I choose to be a little less restrained, 'cause I can :-)

 

I'd love to join in on the fun of testing, but I'm not keen on dropping $600 on a lens that I will end up disliking.

 

Cheers and keep up the good work.

 

- N.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ditto Terry!

 

I also agree on the 40 Nokton. Gorgeous lens -- which is what made me have such high hopes for the 35.

 

How are things on the left coast?

 

- N.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi LCT,

 

Those were Tom's comments on the pre-asph Summilux. These are two different lenses, of course. With the two copies I've tested so far, focus shift is a notable problem, in normal picture making, at about F/2.8 and F/4.0.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

 

Sean, I also havent noticed any focus shift on my pre-asph 35mm Summilux. Flare is another story....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ditto Terry!

 

I also agree on the 40 Nokton. Gorgeous lens -- which is what made me have such high hopes for the 35.

 

How are things on the left coast?

 

- N.

 

Hi Nick,

 

The 40mm VC is truly a stellar lens and I enjoy using it. The 35mm VC I am currently using is the Classic or single coat and that should be considered in this discussion. I haven't written it off - I just need some more time with it. My total favorite 35mm is the F2 Zeiss Biogon. If possible (if the one I have were mine I would send it to you to try out) you should try to shoot with one. There must be someone in TO who handles VC lenses.

 

All is well on the 'left' coast. A protest every weekend, street demonstrations on just about any and every topic. Rain we can't for get rain and something new this year plenty of snow. Safe illegal drug injections sites, the famous Main and Hastings, Chinatown - all wonders of Canada. I totally love it.

 

Next time you are out this way - please contact me we can do some shooting downtown.

 

Best Regards. Terry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Sean thanks. Were your two copies MC and/or LC versions? Best.

 

One of each. Two m ore examples are on their way to me.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Sean, could be on your way a comparison between the pre-asph Summilux 35 and this new CV35?

Many of us have had (or still have) the pre-asph 35lux, so it could be somehow interesting to read your comparison with a well known subject;)

I really can't wait to see your review of the CV35 completed to take a decision about this lens!

 

BTW, thanks a lot for your work, I really appreciate your care.

 

Sure, I'd be happy to include it if someone wants to send me a copy to test. I've used one but don't own one.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue., Read more about our Privacy Policy