[Leica] C/V 50/1.1 comment. NOW 35/1.2 also.

[pklein at threshinc.com (Peter Klein)]

And Peter, too.

If you'd like to compare the CV 35/1.2 with the 35/1.4 Summilux ASPH,
check out these galleries.  Same friends' house, same lighting, some of
the same people, different evening. Apples to apples, as much as the real
world will allow.  M8 with IR filters on both lenses at all times.

CV 35/1.2 mostly at f/1.4
http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/pklein/friends/NewYear2010/

Leica 35/1.4 ASPH mostly at f/1.4
http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/pklein/friends/ErevXmas09/

The Leica lens is visibly a little "better" from a technical point of
view.  But the CV lens is no slouch, is certainly sharp enough, and is a
little kinder to the elderly. The Leica has more contrast and harsher
bokeh. The CV has a bit of what Erwin would call veiling flare, which
actually can lift shadows a bit, but may make shaded faces look a little
muddy.

What I really like about the 35/1.2 is that it combines and balances the
excellent performance of modern aspheric lenses with some of the smoother,
"rounder" drawing and smoother bokeh associated with classic lenses. I
really like it. The only things I don't like about it are the size and
weight, and the fact that it will color fringe in extreme contrast
situations (backlit tree branches against the sky).

With the Leica lens, I notice the notorious focus shift on my M8 when
stopping down. It is real, but isn't as bad as many people make it out to
be.  The CV lens has a slight "oscillating" focus shift which goes back
and forth *very* slightly across the place the RF is focused on as you
stop down. It is so small that for all practical purposes, you can ignore
it and say that the CV doesn't shift at all.

When I saw the the 35/1.2's oscillating focus shift, I couldn't believe my
eyes, and I emailed Erwin about it. Erwin confirmed my observations in a
private email. He told me the 50/1.1 has similar behavior, which is due to
some deliberately uncorrected spherical abberration. He says it's a less
expensive, less perfect solution to focus shift than floating elements,
and you pay a price in image contrast, which one can more easily
compensate for in digital rather than film.
-------------------

> And Michiel too

2010/1/12 Nathan Wajsman <photo at frozenlight.eu>

> And so is Nathan...
>
> Nathan Wajsman
> Alicante, Spain
> http://www.frozenlight.eu
> http://www.greatpix.eu
> http://www.nathanfoto.com
>
> Books: http://www.blurb.com/bookstore/search?search=wajsman&x=0&y=0
> PICTURE OF THE WEEK: http://www.fotocycle.dk/paws
> Blog: http://www.fotocycle.dk/blog
>
>
>
> On Jan 12, 2010, at 5:52 PM, Ric Carter wrote:
>
> > Ric Carter is pretty positive about the 35/1.2
> >
> > ric
> >
> >
> > On Jan 12, 2010, at 11:21 AM, Stan Yoder wrote:
> >
> >> Erwin Puts is pretty negative about the 35/1.2
> >