Steve Spencer wrote:
See Fred's review. The mid zone weakness is there but I don't think it is that bad, which is of course a subjective viewpoint with which other might not agree.
I don't remember seeing a mid-zone test at closer distances, I'll run back through the thread.
Thanks, also seeing that in some of Fred's samples now that I'm going back through. Looks like that trying to get sharp eyes at the midframe while wide open at portrait distances would be frustrating with this lens.
Too bad he doesn't test again the ZM and FLE. And, doesn't the SL sensor stack negatively affect IQ compared to the M-line?
Edit: I just did a quick google, and according to the dpreview thread which gathered info from Kolari, the sensor stack is 1.45, thinner than Sonys but thicker than the Z cameras, and much thicker than 0.9 of M mount. Not a solid review...
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Too bad he doesn't test again the ZM and FLE. And, doesn't the SL sensor stack negatively affect IQ compared to the M-line?
Edit: I just did a quick google, and according to the dpreview thread which gathered info from Kolari, the sensor stack is 1.45, thinner than Sonys but thicker than the Z cameras, and much thicker than 0.9 of M mount. Not a solid review...
IIRC, SL cameras have a different microlens design that helps with M lenses, but it won't equal M sensor performance. And the SL 601 he used would be less capable of matching M sensor performance than the SL2-S BSI sensor.
Jan 30, 2023 at 09:46 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
highdesertmesa wrote:
I've landed on the LLL 35mm 8-Element. I played the LLL lotto and got two good ones out of three, one of them being the collapsable version that does 0.5m MFD. It has character wide open, is fairly fast, is reasonably-sharp in the center wide open and across the frame stopped down, is super small, and has insane build quality.
I'm on the preorder list for the Steel Rim reissue, and that plus the 8E will probably be the perfect two 35s for me.
As I understand it that is a remake of one of the Leica M 35 f/1.4 pre-Ash versions. I would classify that as small, fast, but not that strong on IQ. Of course that last part is sort of subjective as many people like the character of that sort of lens. It just isn't my cup of tea, but of course YMMV.
Steve Spencer wrote:
As I understand it that is a remake of one of the Leica M 35 f/1.4 pre-Ash versions. I would classify that as small, fast, but not that strong on IQ. Of course that last part is sort of subjective as many people like the character of that sort of lens. It just isn't my cup of tea, but of course YMMV.
Yes, the Leica Steel Rim reissue is a remake of the original 35 Lux pre-ASPH v1. Glow + sharp subject underneath the glow at f/1.4 but high IQ stopped down. If you need clinical sharp at f/1.4, it wouldn't be what you want.
Are these all bad copies, or did Cosina release such a crappy lens?
What is the point of lens with soft mid frame?
Is it really that bad that you all would suggest not to buy these?
I'm trying to understand the reason for all these comments - is this lens so bad that even amateur hobbist shouldn't buy it, or is it just pro photographers don't like it cause there is about 1% of image quality harmed by wee flaws of this lens?
I’m still playing around with my 35mm f1.5 and it’s my only 35mm lens anyway so my opinion will probably be invalid given it’s a sample size of 1. I’m not a pixel peeper nor a portrait photographer and it must by my eyes but to me several of the shots in the review where he says that the CV is softer than the TTArtisan actually look the opposite to me: the CV being sharper.
I subscribe to his Patreon feed which means we have monthly zoom calls. If anyone has questions they’d like me to ask put them down here. The calls are themed and tomorrow’s is about digital gear.
phinix wrote:
I'm trying to understand the reason for all these comments - is this lens so bad that even amateur hobbist shouldn't buy it, or is it just pro photographers don't like it cause there is about 1% of image quality harmed by wee flaws of this lens?
If you like to take photos where the subject is not centered in the frame but slightly off to either side, your subject will be relatively soft when shot with this lens. That's why a drop in midfield sharpness is a problem. If you always place your subject in the center, or if you don't care whether your subject appears sharp, no problem.
This isn't really about pixel peeping; it's pretty obvious to even a casual viewer.
Ianforber wrote:
I’m still playing around with my 35mm f1.5 and it’s my only 35mm lens anyway so my opinion will probably be invalid given it’s a sample size of 1. I’m not a pixel peeper nor a portrait photographer and it must by my eyes but to me several of the shots in the review where he says that the CV is softer than the TTArtisan actually look the opposite to me: the CV being sharper.
I subscribe to his Patreon feed which means we have monthly zoom calls. If anyone has questions they’d like me to ask put them down here. The calls are themed and tomorrow’s is about digital gear. ...Show more →
Am I blind or Nokton is sharper than that TT?
He's talking rubbish, look at that video, specifically at that frame here: https://youtu.be/gghdB_BfGiM?t=248
phinix wrote:
Am I blind or Nokton is sharper than that TT?
He's talking rubbish, look at that video, specifically at that frame here: https://youtu.be/gghdB_BfGiM?t=248
You're not blind. These tests are really quite terrible coming from a reviewer. I was hoping he would at least show us some of his portraits close up or some tripod based tests. The two videos of his were really frustrating to watch.
phinix wrote:
Are these all bad copies, or did Cosina release such a crappy lens?
What is the point of lens with soft mid frame?
Maybe ask that question to Leica because their 35mm Summicron also has a pronounced mid-zone dip and is the same size as this CV lens, while being 33% heavier and a stop slower. What a crappy lens!*
fjablo wrote:
Maybe ask that question to Leica because their 35mm Summicron also has a pronounced mid-zone dip and is the same size as this CV lens, 33% heavier and a stop slower. What a crappy lens!*
*neither lens is actually crappy...
I have a few lenses with midfield dips but their images are so compelling that I simply work within their constraints (e.g., the ZM 50/1.5 Sonnar). A midzone dip by itself is no reason to dismiss an otherwise good lens, but it has to have other redeeming qualities to compensate. Not sure that would be the case with the CV 35/1.5 for me (I'm only going by the images I've seen, I haven't tried it myself), but others may feel differently.
fjablo wrote:
Maybe ask that question to Leica because their 35mm Summicron also has a pronounced mid-zone dip and is the same size as this CV lens, while being 33% heavier and a stop slower. What a crappy lens!*
*neither lens is actually crappy...
This is why I'm asking - is this mid zone softness a really big issue, that so many would not be interested in it? I'm not an expert in lens, that is why I'm asking. Is this issue a minor problem that we shouldn't be focusing on it when considering this lens? Or is it a big issue and many of people decided not to purchase these because of it?
I know that all lens have specific characteristics, "character" if you prefer to call it. Would this mid-zone softness be something that totally writes it off, or could this lens still be highly scored and could be used in 99% of scenarios? Everyday normal use, not pixel peeping lab tests.
Looking at photo examples here in this thread thatguys posted, it looks great, photos are nice and I cannot tell if this lens have very noticible issue there or not. That is why this kind of reviews, tests and statements can be misleading. I hope you know what I mean.
phinix wrote:
Are these all bad copies, or did Cosina release such a crappy lens?
What is the point of lens with soft mid frame?
Is it really that bad that you all would suggest not to buy these?
I'm trying to understand the reason for all these comments - is this lens so bad that even amateur hobbist shouldn't buy it, or is it just pro photographers don't like it cause there is about 1% of image quality harmed by wee flaws of this lens?
Look at the first few pages of this very thread. Fred and a few others have some nice tests looking at mid-field performance of this lens. Fred tested three copies of the lens and said they all performed similarly. He looks at the performance on the Leica M10R and on the Sony A74. He compares the performance to the Leica M 35 f/1.4 FLE, the CVM 35 f/1.4 classic, and the CVM 35 f/2 ultron. Others chip in with nice tests and comparisons as well. My summary is that the midfield reduction in sharpness is there, but in my view it is not extreme, but that is a subjective judgment. Look at the tests and see what you think of the midfield weakness yourself.
I prefer a lens that gradually weakens from center to corner, but the amount of midfield weakness of this lens would not deter me from buying, but that is a subjective judgment. There are, however, other areas of the lens' performance that would keep me from buying it: mainly what I see as strong axial CA and when I combine the mid zone weakness with very high vignetting, and with less than optimal bokeh (none of which would disqualify the lens on their own) the overall performance has enough problems to make me less than excited about the lens. I love that a lens with such a fast aperture is this small, however.
Despite that judgment in my view each of the other three lenses it was tested against have significant issues/problems as well. The Leica M 35 f/1.4 FLE has even worse axial CA than this new lens and also has less than optimal bokeh. The CVM 35 f/1.4 is softer than the new lens everywhere (center, midfield, and corners which are quite bad a wider apertures), and the lack of sharpness at wider apertures is just too much me (again a personal judgment). The CVM 35 f/2 ultron has very similar performance to the new lens and is only slightly smaller and almost a stop slower. There are tradeoffs with all these lenses.
The only lens among these that I would buy if it weren't so expensive is the Leica M 35 f/1.4 FLE as it has stellar performance in most areas with just two major flaws, IMO (bokeh I don't like, and axial CA). You don't have to worry too much about axial CA if you shoot black and white, and the bokeh can be managed with how you shoot (see examples from airfrogusmc for how that can be done with stunning results). I can see liking this lens a lot for some types of shooting. Personally, there are a lot of flaws that I can manage if they are the only flaw or one of just two, but this new lens has so many things I would have to work around I know from past experience I would find using it a chore with too many things to keep track of while shooting.
phinix wrote:
or could this lens still be highly scored and could be used in 99% of scenarios
This is what I do and I'm very happy with it. I like the bokeh a lot and sharpness is much better than the Summarit 2.4 it replaced.
As for the rest, the Internet is full of people complaining mainly about thing they do not own or do not use.
When it comes to digital pictures today, most of what we "test" does not appear on a big print nor on a screen unless you pixel-peep at 100%.
And most of the "flaws" can easily be corrected in post-processing.
So you choose the lens you want based on price, size, aperture, rendering, i.e. bokeh, vignetting, etc and you take pictures.
You'll still have 10 to 100 times more technically than 99% of the greatest pictures ever shot but for some reason, people continue to obsess about some details.
This is like sports car test where the ones with 600hp ones are supposed to make the ones with only 500hp feel slow.
If anyone wants to read strong reactions to loss of sharpness off center at wide apertures, read the threads on Leica Forum about the $7.9K USD Noct 1.2 reissue
pmeheut wrote:
This is what I do and I'm very happy with it. I like the bokeh a lot and sharpness is much better than the Summarit 2.4 it replaced.
As for the rest, the Internet is full of people complaining mainly about thing they do not own or do not use.
When it comes to digital pictures today, most of what we "test" does not appear on a big print nor on a screen unless you pixel-peep at 100%.
And most of the "flaws" can easily be corrected in post-processing.
So you choose the lens you want based on price, size, aperture, rendering, i.e. bokeh, vignetting, etc and you take pictures.
You'll still have 10 to 100 times more technically than 99% of the greatest pictures ever shot but for some reason, people continue to obsess about some details.
This is like sports car test where the ones with 600hp ones are supposed to make the ones with only 500hp feel slow.
