Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/01/12
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]nice, is that beatles rockband? (i think i saw the paul hofner base in the bokehfield.) -rei Peter Klein wrote: > 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 >>>> > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >