farnz Posted December 29, 2008 Share #41 Posted December 29, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) Unless I missed it, not a single vote for the current 35 lux asph! ... Peter, In Mike's OP he stated "... my pocket also tells me that I should leave the Summilux alone ..." so I think most posters have left it out of the discussion. Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 29, 2008 Posted December 29, 2008 Hi farnz, Take a look here 35mm WHICH ONE? . I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
innerimager Posted December 29, 2008 Share #42 Posted December 29, 2008 Yep, you missed that.I voted for the 35lux ASPH:D :D Sorry I missed it Mauizio- but glad I'm not all alone! best....Peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
innerimager Posted December 29, 2008 Share #43 Posted December 29, 2008 Peter, In Mike's OP he stated "... my pocket also tells me that I should leave the Summilux alone ..." so I think most posters have left it out of the discussion. Pete. whoops! I did miss it right off the bat. I luckily only paid only $1700 for a mint used one before the M8 madness hit, I forget how crazy expensive it is now. best...Peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Printmaker Posted December 29, 2008 Share #44 Posted December 29, 2008 I have both the 35 Summicron IV and the CVM 35/2.5. The CV is a great little lens. It's small and super sharp. Other than being 2.5, it has no faults. Still, I use the Summicron 90% of the time because I like the way this classic lens draws. Tom Kauai's Printmaker Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted December 29, 2008 Share #45 Posted December 29, 2008 I also vote for the 35 Lux ASPH, with the second choice being the 35 Cron ASPH for sharpness, or the 35 Summarit for boke. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double Negative Posted December 30, 2008 Share #46 Posted December 30, 2008 I don't own a Leica system yet...but am very familiar with Zeiss lenses from my previous system and used to own all of the F-mounts. The 35 2.0 was my absolute favorite of the Zeiss F mounts. It's a sharp lens with nice bokeh and a more balanced contrast in relation to the rest of the lenses in the Zeiss lineup. But it is not a Leica. Leica is all about microcontrast. There is an entire world of subtle detail that opens up when shooting with a Leica lens over a Zeiss. For example, this gallery was shot by a fellow forumite with the 35 Cron: LFI Gallery - Galerie > Fotografen-Galerie > cam2000 There is absolutely no way my Zeiss 35 2.0 could have taken those pictures. Just not possible. My old Zeiss would have looked too muddy in comparison. The shadows would have blocked up just a bit too much. It must be the magic pixie dust on the Leica Glass, or you had a bad sample of the 2/35 Biogon. It's not the sharpest of the ZM lineup, at least wide open - but stopped down even a little it does just fine. I think the 2,8/25 Biogon is the one to beat. Zeiss lenses do tend to be contrasty however, and can block shadows if you're not careful and underexpose. But they are definitely sharp and can hold their own against any Leica glass. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
smullink Posted December 30, 2008 Share #47 Posted December 30, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) OK, based on a personell budget I can understand the lux ASPH is out of reach but budget in a Leica environment is always strange... Buying Nikon or Canon lenses fo much less money is quity ok but Leica has something and the lux ASPH is very good and in my opinion every stop is one to have if quality is still OK. Yes i do own a 35mm lux ASPH Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
michali Posted December 30, 2008 Author Share #48 Posted December 30, 2008 So I took the plunge. I called my Leica dealer in Johannesburg yesterday afternoon, he has (had) a 35mm f2.5 Summarit in stock and a Summicron arriving end- January. I bought the Summarit and the deal is if I'm not happy he will take it back and I can take the Summicron when it arrives. Here's my 2nd pic with the lens this morning. Thanks for all the feedback, much appreciated. 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/72453-35mm-which-one/?do=findComment&comment=761419'>More sharing options...
jamesmd Posted December 30, 2008 Share #49 Posted December 30, 2008 Are you happy then ? Have fun and great time with it and a HAPPY NEW YEAR !!! James Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
michali Posted December 30, 2008 Author Share #50 Posted December 30, 2008 Are you happy then ? Have fun and great time with it and a HAPPY NEW YEAR !!! James James- Tahnk you. So far so good, I'm quite pleased with the initial shots. Need to play around a little more. All the best for the NEW YEAR to you as well!!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carlmuck Posted December 30, 2008 Share #51 Posted December 30, 2008 I'm partial to my 50 year old Canon f/1.5 not as contrasty as current glass, but nice and sharp where it needs to be and smooth where not. carl. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double Negative Posted December 31, 2008 Share #52 Posted December 31, 2008 ^ Nice shot, Mike - the lens looks good too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_w Posted December 31, 2008 Share #53 Posted December 31, 2008 Here's my 2nd pic with the lens this morning. Great shot, Mike, and a great example of what the lens can do. I would be so pleased if I had taken this picture, for many reasons -- composition, subject, exposure range -- very satisfying. Robert Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
michali Posted December 31, 2008 Author Share #54 Posted December 31, 2008 Thank you very much gentlemen. I can't wait to go out and play some more! All the best for the New Year. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
garygsandhu Posted January 2, 2009 Share #55 Posted January 2, 2009 (I don't think there's any benefit to getting a 35mm coded for the M8: I've tried it with and without and couldn't tell any difference in vignetting or color fringing in the periphery with the IR filter on). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted January 2, 2009 Share #56 Posted January 2, 2009 In my big 35mm test I found that the Crons didn't have significant cyan shift, but I could detect it in some Lux pictures. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJP Posted January 2, 2009 Share #57 Posted January 2, 2009 Carsten, interesting point. I have been wondering recently about the M8 specific vignetting phenomena and I think two types of vignetting occur & have to be dealt with: 1 The UV/IR filter induced color vignetting - this is 'the same' for all lenses of the same focal length. It corrects the corner cyan/green color shift due to the angle dependent transmission of the IR/UV dichroic filter. This correction is identical for all e.g. 35 mm lenses and could be done in postprocessing of the DNG just as a function of focal length. 2 The intensity vignetting due to the angle dependent response of the detector. This is partially resolved using the shifted microlens technology of the sensor, but the effectivity will depend on how far the rear lens element is removed from the sensor. This is not neccesarily the same for lenses of the same focal length. Some wide angles are not retrofocus designs and then the real element is very close to the sensor plane. Others like the WATE are retrofocus lenses and they hardly pentrate into the camera. Correcton for this effect (2) is not a function of focal length but of the rear lens element to sensor distance. Correction 2 in fact depends on the focussing distance, but for wide angles not much movement is involved, whereas for tele-lenses the vignetting (1 and 2) not an issue anyway. I think that correction 1 and 2 can be done in postprocessing but then you would need to make a table for focal length vignetting (1) and rear element penetration (2) for all lenses. Correction 2 is the 'lens detection on' setting in the M8, correction 1 and 2 is 'UV+IR'. Correction 1 in principle is UV/IR filter brand dependent (Leica filters are not neccesarily the same as B&W or Hoya). An even more ambitious scheme would allow interpolation to correct for any lens & filter in postprocessing even if it does not exist (yet). Does this make sense or am I missing something? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted January 2, 2009 Share #58 Posted January 2, 2009 I have been wondering recently about the M8 specific vignetting phenomena and I think two types of vignetting occur & have to be dealt with: Right, and I think your analysis makes sense. Superficially, I agree that it makes little sense that the Lux should show cyan corners and the Crons not, since they catch the same angle of the scene. However, I did observe the cyan corners with the Lux a few times, but never with the Crons, and I was shooting the same scenes, so there must be a reason. I would like to re-test, but I only have the Lux now. I think there might be a proper reason, however. Even though we probably all know better, there is a tendency to think of the scene being distributed over the front element of the lens, ie. the left part of the scene enters through the left part of the lens. This is not the case, however. Every part of the scene enters every part of the lens, and converge at the image plane. Otherwise, the whole concept behind stopping down the aperture wouldn't work. Therefore, and since the Lux has a much larger front element, even the extreme left corners of the scene have to travel to the extreme right corners of the front element of the lens, and this travel is more extreme with the Lux, given the larger front element. This could be what induces the cyan cast. It would disappear when stopped down, since the outer reaches of the lens would no longer contribute to the image, and this is also what I observed. Only wide open would I see the cyan cast. So I repeat my recommendation: there is no need for cyan corner correction with the Cron 35 lenses, but with the Lux wide open, it should be done. This is the thread, by the way, and I think the relevant images must still be there: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/29964-35-lux-asph-vs-35-cron.html Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.