lars_bergquist Posted July 2, 2009 Share #21 Posted July 2, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) I've never used the Lux 35 but there was a bunch of posts about it having very bad focus shift when you stop it down. Mainly on the black versions and not so much on the chrome model. But other have stated they have no focus shift with there black version. It's kind of a hit or miss lens. You either get a real good one or you don't and if you don't and send it to Leica to be fixed they just send it back saying it is with-in specs. Personally I wouldn't touch a 35 Lux ASPH with a 10 foot poll. So you are ready to judge out of hand a lens which you have no actual experience of? And you expect us to take your opinions seriously? Do you know the difference between evidence and rumour? This thing about chrome lenses shifting focus but not black lenses, or maybe the other way around, is an example of the silliness of some debaters. Chrome or black is a matter of finishes, or at most of the material of some external parts of the mount (older chromed mounts had to use brass, newer seem to be aluminium). It is not a matter of optomechanical design. The parts -- retaining rings and so forth -- that hold the optical components are identical. So performance is identical, as measured across a statistically valid sample of both mount finishes (there is of course always sample variation). We might just as well claim that lenses with odd serial numbers 'backfocus', while those with even numbers don't ... The old man from the Age of the Dark and Wet Darkroom Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 2, 2009 Posted July 2, 2009 Hi lars_bergquist, Take a look here new 35 cron asph. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
pop Posted July 2, 2009 Share #22 Posted July 2, 2009 (...) This thing about chrome lenses shifting focus but not black lenses, or maybe the other way around, is an example of the silliness of some debaters. (...) It is not a matter of optomechanical design. The argument appeared to be about inconsistent performances of various instances of the same model, with an apparent bias towards instances of one casing color vs those of another one. If true, this would indicate a problem in manufacturing or possibly quality assurance rather than a shortcoming of the optical design. It could arguably understood to be a shortcoming of the optomechanical design in so far that the device must be inordinately difficult to produce to specifications. The perception that lenses of one color outperform those of another color - if true - could be attributed to the different variants being manufactured, assembled or inspected by different teams or workshops. If it's true, that is. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcuthbert Posted July 2, 2009 Share #23 Posted July 2, 2009 The lens, which I have owned since the previous century, does have a little bit of focus shift (practically all really fast lenses do, including the 'cron ASPH). It has never spoiled a picture for me. The outbreak of paranoia resulted from the introduction of the M8. Now it became possible to pixel-peep at 100 percent immediately after taking the picture. This is not very realistic. Do not test focus by pixel-peeping. Put the camera on a tripod and shoot a number of realistic subjects at realistic distances, both wide open and stopped down. Then view the images at a realistic magnification. View it at a realistic distance, i.e. about equal to the diagonal of the picture, whatever that may be in centimeters, meters or whatever. It is the viewing angle that matters because it determines the detail we see. Your computer screen is OK. The focus should be right at 1.4. If it is not, I would suspect 'pilot error'. Is the slight shift troublesome at mid-apertures? Remember that focusing -- by rangefinder, SLR screen or autofocus -- is always a compromise. You will shift the plane of best focus simply by re-composing the picture after focusing! The scope for error, personal, optical, mechanical, electronic, is always there. The proof of the picture is in the viewing. The old man from the Age of the Wet and Dark Darkroom Lars, this has to be some of the best advice I've heard on here. It's decision time to be honest for me, the 35 Lux or the 24 Lux... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhoersch Posted July 2, 2009 Share #24 Posted July 2, 2009 Lars, this has to be some of the best advice I've heard on here. It's decision time to be honest for me, the 35 Lux or the 24 Lux... I second that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhoersch Posted July 2, 2009 Share #25 Posted July 2, 2009 Originally Posted by jplomley It is such a PITA to change lenses... I cry every time I have to do it. It's so unfair. :D:D Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted July 2, 2009 Share #26 Posted July 2, 2009 . Put the camera on a tripod and shoot a number of realistic subjects at realistic distances, both wide open and stopped down. Then view the images at a realistic magnification. View it at a realistic distance, i.e. about equal to the diagonal of the picture, whatever that may be in centimeters, meters or whatever. It is the viewing angle that matters because it determines the detail we see. Your computer screen is OK. The focus should be right at 1.4. If it is not, I would suspect 'pilot error'. Is the slight shift troublesome at mid-apertures? I did exactly this a while back with each of my 4 lenses, at each aperture, after my system was returned from Leica NJ for a few issues. It was very revealing and helped me to understand performance characteristics of each lens, from wide to closed down, and compared to each other. I keep the test shots in my LR library for future reference if ever needed. Interestingly, when I tested my 35 cron asph, I noticed that it focused sharply at f2 and f2.8, but then got less sharp at f4, a little moreso at f5.6, then back to sharp rest of way down. (I thought this was maybe unusual until I went back and compared to Sean Reid's review of same lens...his results were identical.) I now know more clearly how this lens, and others, are likely to perform under similar real world situations. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
noah_addis Posted July 2, 2009 Share #27 Posted July 2, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Lars, this has to be some of the best advice I've heard on here. It's decision time to be honest for me, the 35 Lux or the 24 Lux... My 35 'Lux focuses very well at all apertures. When it's out of focus it's user error. Though I've only used one (mine) so it's possible that I was just lucky to get a good copy of the lens. I bought mine new in 2000. As for your decision...I'd choose based on focal length. The 24 'Lux is amazing and was an easy choice for me since it's my favorite focal length on the M8. I'm selling my 35 'Cron ASPH, some unused Nikon gear and my 24 Elmarit ASPH to pay for it, and it was totally worth it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLV Posted July 2, 2009 Author Share #28 Posted July 2, 2009 Thanks to all for your interesting comments. It is true that I chose the cron over the lux because of this so called focus problem with the M8 that I didn't want to even suspect with a lens of 3 300 euros! The 35 cron is going to be my lens cap for a while. Best regards to all of you. Jean-Luc Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.