I just ordered the E Mount version. I have a Leica M10 and a Sony A7RII. I feel like the focus shift might be a problem on Leica, similar to the the 50 1.5 Sonnar and I already have some of nice 35 and 50s in M mount.
twomblywhite wrote:
Sebboh you use the Contax G 28/2.8 a lot right? I've been thinking about buying one after reading all of the praise. Do you use it naked on your kolari mod or with 1.5m pcx filter on unmodded? How do these compare?
i use it on a kolari UT mod, usually with the 5m pcx, but sometimes naked. i did use it with the 1.5m pcx prior to converting my a7 and it was quite good. The bare lens has on the UT still has some field curvature, but is still quite good if you balance focus between the center and corner. it is probably better than the stock camera with 1.5 pcx at small apertures. the UT mod with the 5m pcx is just fantastic though.
here is the comparison on a stock a7 with the 1.5m pcx forward and reversed as well as with a +1 macro filter.
and here is the comparison on a kolari UT with the bare lens focused on the center or infinity compared to with 5m pcx filter.
F*ck me. I've tried this scene soooo many times (handheld) and it never comes out well, since the bokeh of all my other lenses is terrible at this distance (~5-7 meters focus distance!). Not this time.
Makten wrote:
I think the Loxias (35 & 50) will soon have to go. The Voigtländer is totally kicking butt at f/1.2 and it's good enough stopped down, even if it doesn't give the same "brilliance" as the Loxias (very few lenses do).
I was concerned about distortion, but the minor pincushion doesn't bother me at all compared to the same degree of barrel distortion.
I'm pretty sure people would have paid $3000 for this lens if the label said Leica.
Got mine this afternoon, and I'm really impressed. LoCA and LaCa are not as bad as I had expected from Fred's review, this was my biggest concern. Distortion is no problem. I usually focus with working aperture ever since, so focus shift is not a problem either. My copy is close to perfectly centered, top right is a tiny bit weaker than the rest @f/2, but no reason to complain.
Loxia 35 is sold already, and the 50 is for sale, too, waiting for an offer. My bag is getting lighter and lighter ....
My setup now is Loxia 21, Nokton 40, Loxia 85. When needed, I add the FE 100-400 (which is a brick compared to the rest) and I'm done.
PEKA62 wrote:
Got mine this afternoon, and I'm really impressed. LoCA and LaCa are not as bad as I had expected from Fred's review, this was my biggest concern. Distortion is no problem. I usually focus with working aperture ever since, so focus shift is not a problem either. My copy is close to perfectly centered, top right is a tiny bit weaker than the rest @f/2, but no reason to complain.
Loxia 35 is sold already, and the 50 is for sale, too, waiting for an offer. My bag is getting lighter and lighter ....
My setup now is Loxia 21, Nokton 40, Loxia 85. When needed, I add the FE 100-400 (which is a brick compared to the rest) and I'm done. ...Show more →
I think Freds samples reveal a lot of problems because of the very bright and harsh light. Things you won't ever notice when shooting in more mellow light, but of course it's good to know the limitations of the lens.
My copy is perfectly centered (I used Roger Cicalas method), but my lower right corner is slightly less sharp than the other corners at f/1.2-2.8. I guess it's close to impossible to make all corners perfect at this lens speed, and cost. It's not gonna affect my images, so I'm just gonna try to ignore (forget) it. At least there is no visible tilt of the focal plane, and stopped down I can't see any difference between the corners.
I'll probably sell my Loxia 35 and 50, but I'll wait a couple of weeks since I really like them, and I know that new lenses can "fool" me. But if I do sell them, my bag will be Batis 25, Nokton 40 and Elmar-C 90/4 (that I will probably replace with something a little bit faster and sharper).
---------
Two more wide open bokeh examples at non-closeup distance.... First ~2.5 meters:
Edit: Both the bokeh and the OOF transition is very similar to the Zeiss 50/1.5 Sonnar-C. In the very transition, there is a nice "glow" that's quite different from Distagons and Planars. You can actually see it in the curb above, to the right. In and out of focus at the same time (caused by spherical aberration).
sebboh wrote:
i use it on a kolari UT mod, usually with the 5m pcx, but sometimes naked. i did use it with the 1.5m pcx prior to converting my a7 and it was quite good. The bare lens has on the UT still has some field curvature, but is still quite good if you balance focus between the center and corner. it is probably better than the stock camera with 1.5 pcx at small apertures. the UT mod with the 5m pcx is just fantastic though.
here is the comparison on a stock a7 with the 1.5m pcx forward and reversed as well as with a +1 macro filter.
and here is the comparison on a kolari UT with the bare lens focused on the center or infinity compared to with 5m pcx filter....Show more →
Makten wrote:
F*ck me. I've tried this scene soooo many times (handheld) and it never comes out well, since the bokeh of all my other lenses is terrible at this distance (~5-7 meters focus distance!). Not this time.
hsiunghsiung wrote:
I think my favorite is 35mm, but im really curious about the rendering with the 40/1.2 and 50/1.5. I have a zony 35mm/2.8 which is my allrounder since its mad sharp and compact. Hard for me to find another lens thats much faster, but not that much bigger. The 35mm 1.7 looked a little bit too long with the pcx5000 and adapters even though it looks so sharp
I've been using the 35 without filter and it's been amazing. If I could get a deal on a second hand filter, even better, but I'm just waiting for someone to sell one, been too lazy to figure it all out.
Makten wrote:
I think Freds samples reveal a lot of problems because of the very bright and harsh light. Things you won't ever notice when shooting in more mellow light, but of course it's good to know the limitations of the lens.
My copy is perfectly centered (I used Roger Cicalas method), but my lower right corner is slightly less sharp than the other corners at f/1.2-2.8. I guess it's close to impossible to make all corners perfect at this lens speed, and cost. It's not gonna affect my images, so I'm just gonna try to ignore (forget) it. At least there is no visible tilt of the focal plane, and stopped down I can't see any difference between the corners.
I'll probably sell my Loxia 35 and 50, but I'll wait a couple of weeks since I really like them, and I know that new lenses can "fool" me. But if I do sell them, my bag will be Batis 25, Nokton 40 and Elmar-C 90/4 (that I will probably replace with something a little bit faster and sharper).
---------
Two more wide open bokeh examples at non-closeup distance.... First ~2.5 meters:
Edit: Both the bokeh and the OOF transition is very similar to the Zeiss 50/1.5 Sonnar-C. In the very transition, there is a nice "glow" that's quite different from Distagons and Planars. You can actually see it in the curb above, to the right. In and out of focus at the same time (caused by spherical aberration). ...Show more →
Great samples Makten!
Yes, LoCA will be more pronounced wide open under harsh lighting and contrasty subjects. The example I posted on the review had branches and leaves against bright light. There were some issues with my Carnaval series as well.
However, under low contrast lighting, axial CA although still noticeable, it's not as much of an issue.
I'm very impressed by the vibrancy of the photos in here. I had thought about getting an FE 35mm 1.4 ZA, but these colors from the CV 40mm look much better to my eyes than what I'm used to seeing from the FE 35mm.
Do you think my color impression is correct, or am I just imagining it?
BTW apologies if this has been discussed already - I'm looking through the thread for pictures, but haven't finished reading every post yet.
darbo wrote:
I'm very impressed by the vibrancy of the photos in here. I had thought about getting an FE 35mm 1.4 ZA, but these colors from the CV 40mm look much better to my eyes than what I'm used to seeing from the FE 35mm.
Do you think my color impression is correct, or am I just imagining it?
BTW apologies if this has been discussed already - I'm looking through the thread for pictures, but haven't finished reading every post yet.
I love lens comparisons this reason, it's like watching a video of a corrupt official in a court case. What was a speculative notion or inclination becomes visually apparent with great transparency.
Color is different to the things that can be settled by inspection. The really intriguing part of photography are these characteristics that are open to opinion. How color and contrast interact, how aberrations are balanced, what was in the designer's mind - who is his lens for, what is its main purpose. You want to know how strong a lens is, how free of coarse aberrations it is, but far more important is 'what type of images does it turn out, and can I use that look in my work'?
Hmm. This looks like a very nice lens. I'm debating getting one to replace my 35/1.4 FLE. It's bigger than that, but obviously I'd pocket some cash in that swap as well. And 40mm is a bit further from 28mm, as I'm finding that I really like my 28/2.8 ASPH and carrying the 35mm as well is just too close.
But then, I'm not shooting as much lately, so I figure I should just stop with GAS and keep what I've got. Or, maybe I should replace the 35/1.4 with a VM 35/1.7 and a Zeiss 50/1.5 C-Sonnar. Ah, whatever!
darbo wrote:
I'm very impressed by the vibrancy of the photos in here. I had thought about getting an FE 35mm 1.4 ZA, but these colors from the CV 40mm look much better to my eyes than what I'm used to seeing from the FE 35mm.
Do you think my color impression is correct, or am I just imagining it?
BTW apologies if this has been discussed already - I'm looking through the thread for pictures, but haven't finished reading every post yet.
I think you are imagining it, or else those of us posting the CV pictures are upping the vibrancy a bit...
Seriously, though, I have the ZA as well as the CV, and I haven't done A-B colour comparisons but I don't think that's one of the factors. It's possible the CV is warmer (I have a feeling my WB setting for it are cooler) which you might like, but that's not something that matters, as it's just something that washes out in post.
The ZA has AF, especially eye AF, it's got better behaved more predictable bokeh (thought the CV has gorgeous bokeh in a less predictable way, though you can eventually figure it out, and more max blur potential)ZA is a bit sharper peripherally, has about the same green fringing but way less violet LoCA, somewhat flatter field and less SA, is much much larger and pricier.
Other factors besides colour should decide your choice between these two..
I love lens comparisons this reason, it's like watching a video of a corrupt official in a court case. What was a speculative notion or inclination becomes visually apparent with great transparency.
Color is different to the things that can be settled by inspection. The really intriguing part of photography are these characteristics that are open to opinion. How color and contrast interact, how aberrations are balanced, what was in the designer's mind - who is his lens for, what is its main purpose. You want to know how strong a lens is, how free of coarse aberrations it is, but far more important is 'what type of images does it turn out, and can I use that look in my work'? ...Show more →
ask and ye shall receive. here is a comparison of the cv 35/1.7, zm 35/1.4, lux FLE, and lux pre-asph all color balanced off the same object in the scene. draw your own conclusions about color.
i don't have the FE 35/1.4 in a direct comparison to all those lenses, but i do have a direct comparison of it against the cv 35/1.7 and a bunch of other lenses on the same camera as above here.
in my experience the cv 50/1.5 is very similar in color to the cv 35/1.7 and presumably the new 40/1.2 should be similar.
DavidBM wrote:
I think you are imagining it, or else those of us posting the CV pictures are upping the vibrancy a bit...
Seriously, though, I have the ZA as well as the CV, and I haven't done A-B colour comparisons but I don't think that's one of the factors. It's possible the CV is warmer (I have a feeling my WB setting for it are cooler) which you might like, but that's not something that matters, as it's just something that washes out in post.
The ZA has AF, especially eye AF, it's got better behaved more predictable bokeh (thought the CV has gorgeous bokeh in a less predictable way, though you can eventually figure it out, and more max blur potential)ZA is a bit sharper peripherally, has about the same green fringing but way less violet LoCA, somewhat flatter field and less SA, is much much larger and pricier.
Other factors besides colour should decide your choice between these two.....Show more →
Thanks David.
I didn’t serve myself well in posting my question as your reply (and other) exposes me as being foolish in writing it. But I do thank you for taking the time to provide such a thoughtful reply; it is much appreciated.
Since you have both lenses it would be really helpful to see that a/b comparison if you have time.
I didn’t serve myself well in posting my question as your reply (and other) exposes me as being foolish in writing it. But I do thank you for taking the time to provide such a thoughtful reply; it is much appreciated.
Since you have both lenses it would be really helpful to see that a/b comparison if you have time.
Not in the slightest bit foolish! It’s very easy to see real differences in photographs from different lenses, which may or may not reflect on the lenses themselves but the lighting conditions or the processing style. But they easily *could* have reflected underkying lens differences. And one good way to get extra info is to ask!
