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.
As an informative exercise for myself, I went through my portfolio (my own unbiased keepers over a long period) and I tallied up every photo shot with a 35mm lens. And then, I denoted which 35mm was used.
The point is— did the high micro contrast, or the slightly busier bokeh or a midzone dip, or axial CA really make a difference in real world photos? Or is it just more of a testing and nerdy gripe I have?
My data revealed several helpful aspects for me, and changed my paradigm for how I think about (and purchase) lenses.
The thing about buying lenses, like all other equipment, is to buy what you need and within your means.
There is no point reading into reviews without first getting these parameters defined.
In my case, I set these are my criteria:
a) A fast 35 lens
b) Compact
c) Suitable for street, i.e. must have a tab focus and a nice focus throw
d) Modern design
e) Reasonable bokeh for those night shots
f) Priced below USD 1K
With that in mind, I read forums and reviews. Buying this lens was a no brainer.
rramesh wrote:
The thing about buying lenses, like all other equipment, is to buy what you need and within your means.
There is no point reading into reviews without first getting these parameters defined.
In my case, I set these are my criteria:
a) A fast 35 lens
b) Compact
c) Suitable for street, i.e. must have a tab focus and a nice focus throw
d) Modern design
e) Reasonable bokeh for those night shots
f) Priced below USD 1K
With that in mind, I read forums and reviews. Buying this lens was a no brainer.
I'm curious - why do you need tab focus for street?
initial impressions: got the 35/1.5 couple weeks ago while travelling but was using it on the A7iii with the VM-E adapter. It felt pretty amazing really: tiny and light, felt somewhat like the 35/1.4 Noktons only slightly longer but also slightly lighter. Even with the whole RF lens into Sony body curved focal plane issue (which affects all lenses really) due to the sensor filter, it was pretty lovely to shoot with, ergonomics wise, and image wise it felt pleasant overall - yes, midframe isn't as sharp as the center, also if nailed focus and then recomposed to have the focus goal by midframe there was a perceivable drop in sharpness but if I set the actual magnifier to that spot, it is decent enough. that perceived drop in sharpness could be potentialised by the actual distance to what has been focused being slightly longer due to the reframing. Added the Shapeways 35/2.5 3D printed hood and it worked like a charm on covering the chrome ring, while also giving it some protection.
On the M10, I've taken a few shots at home but haven't done any controlled testing, but so far: it balances so nicely on the M10 body, the set feels pretty light which is most welcome. The shots I've taken with it look pretty sharp where I focused, what is a bit annoying is that there is no Lightroom profile for it yet so doing the few corrections that are needed manually.
I'll compare it to the 40/1.2 on the M10 when I have some time, a bit pressed with projects lately! But quite curious on the outcome, as it doesn't quite make sense for me to keep two lenses that have a rather similar appeal, each with their own pros and cons. One should likely stay, and the other find a new home.
marcelography wrote:
initial impressions: got the 35/1.5 couple weeks ago while travelling but was using it on the A7iii with the VM-E adapter. It felt pretty amazing really: tiny and light, felt somewhat like the 35/1.4 Noktons only slightly longer but also slightly lighter. Even with the whole RF lens into Sony body curved focal plane issue (which affects all lenses really) due to the sensor filter, it was pretty lovely to shoot with, ergonomics wise, and image wise it felt pleasant overall - yes, midframe isn't as sharp as the center, also if nailed focus and then recomposed to have the focus goal by midframe there was a perceivable drop in sharpness but if I set the actual magnifier to that spot, it is decent enough. that perceived drop in sharpness could be potentialised by the actual distance to what has been focused being slightly longer due to the reframing. Added the Shapeways 35/2.5 3D printed hood and it worked like a charm on covering the chrome ring, while also giving it some protection.
On the M10, I've taken a few shots at home but haven't done any controlled testing, but so far: it balances so nicely on the M10 body, the set feels pretty light which is most welcome. The shots I've taken with it look pretty sharp where I focused, what is a bit annoying is that there is no Lightroom profile for it yet so doing the few corrections that are needed manually.
I'll compare it to the 40/1.2 on the M10 when I have some time, a bit pressed with projects lately! But quite curious on the outcome, as it doesn't quite make sense for me to keep two lenses that have a rather similar appeal, each with their own pros and cons. One should likely stay, and the other find a new home....Show more →
Awesome to hear. Please let us know what you think about it compared to 40/1.2. I'm in the same position so really would like to see what you going to decide.
I cannot find any examples of photos made with this lens in low light conditions - how does it perform in very low light? Is it good, like close to Voigtlanders f1.2 lens? or is the gap in aperture big enough to affect hugely low light performance?
phinix wrote:
I cannot find any examples of photos made with this lens in low light conditions - how does it perform in very low light? Is it good, like close to Voigtlanders f1.2 lens? or is the gap in aperture big enough to affect hugely low light performance?
it honestly performs pretty well under very low light, somewhat similar to the 1.2, I haven't yet compared them directly but from what I have been using it so far I do get this feeling (vs the 40/1.2).
about the aperture difference... it is negligible, there is no practical impact. it being a much lighter lens could impact on how stable you feel your hand with the camera - the heavier, the more stable.
marcelography wrote:
it honestly performs pretty well under very low light, somewhat similar to the 1.2, I haven't yet compared them directly but from what I have been using it so far I do get this feeling (vs the 40/1.2).
about the aperture difference... it is negligible, there is no practical impact. it being a much lighter lens could impact on how stable you feel your hand with the camera - the heavier, the more stable.
Just received this lens today, the matte black lighter one. What a gem of a lens. Size, ergos, the way the paint matches the black M11 paint, build quality – all great.
I'll have to test it more carefully to be sure, but just taking a few casual test shots on the M11, I don't see *objectionable* midframe weakness at 100% magnification.
– At 1.5m distance and f/1.5, midframe weakness wide open just isn't observable to me.
– At 3.5m distance and f/1.5, there is very slight midframe weakness.
– At infinity distance and f/8, midframe looks pretty good to me, as good as the corners at least. I do not see the midframe getting out-resolved by the corners unless maybe comparing at 300% where practical meaning is somewhat lost.
I'm not seeing unusually heavy vignetting at f/1.5, at least nothing like the 28 Ultron II at f/2. Maybe I just have a high tolerance for vignetting, IDK.
The above could change with formal testing, so I'll report back in a few days. Considering the small size and widest aperture of this lens, I'm impressed so far.
I was asked where the midframe begins to sharpen up on my copy. For infinity, it looks like f/5.6 is optimal for across the frame sharpness on the M11, though f/8 might be slightly better at magnifications beyond 100%. I noticed that the midframe sharpened up in line with the corners and was not weaker than the corners at any aperture between f/2.8 and f/8.
Will perform the same test again with midday daylight scene on a highly detailed landscape.
Magnified views are 100% in C1, default sharpening, 60mp DNGs from the M11.
Your experience mirrors mine. So far I couldn’t see any objectionable midframe weakness on my copy. It’s either both of us have higher tolerance or it could be some variance in quality control. My Distagon is still sharper across the frame and more contrasty but the smaller size and closer MFD make this lens a keeper for me (until perhaps one day I can get a perfect copy of FLE 2 )
rscheffler wrote:
Or, Cosina quietly tweaked it after the initial online concerns?
Would be good to get more user feedback from recently purchased copies.
---------------------------------------------
phinix wrote:
Would that be possible? That they tweaked it after first batch?
Maybe it's the M11 sensor? They did tweak the M11 UV/IR layer of the cover glass, but I'm not sure if that would make any difference.
Could it be focus shift? I had that on my first copy of the CV 50 f/1, which gave weak midframe with sharp center and edges at infinity.
M10-R tests do not have access to an electronic shutter to rule out shutter shock, but I'd be surprised if shutter shock only affected the midframe. I may do a test with both mechanical and electronic to rule that out.
Pretty great references shared, and it relates to what I have been observing using the lens on the M10. at f1.5 the center is sharp enough with a bit of definition loss going towards the edges, at f2.8 it is pretty much sharp all over. But obviously the tolerance on the 24mp sensor is not as tight as on the M11's 60mp.
I think though that if even sensor vibration is to be taken into consideration it becomes a bit of a stretch looking a non realistic situation of use... so I think it's fair game.
I'll take a few tripod shots at infinity at various apertures using the M10 and share results here.
marcelography wrote:
Pretty great references shared, and it relates to what I have been observing using the lens on the M10. at f1.5 the center is sharp enough with a bit of definition loss going towards the edges, at f2.8 it is pretty much sharp all over. But obviously the tolerance on the 24mp sensor is not as tight as on the M11's 60mp.
I think though that if even sensor vibration is to be taken into consideration it becomes a bit of a stretch looking a non realistic situation of use... so I think it's fair game.
I'll take a few tripod shots at infinity at various apertures using the M10 and share results here....Show more →
I forgot to mention I was shooting with a Leica UVa II filter – I meant to take that off. Will do another test without it. Even so, I would bet if you look closely at the files in LR/C1, even at 24mp I would think you'd need at least f/4 for sharpness at the edges and f/5.6 for the corners.
)
