ftllens wrote:
iunno how I missed this lens, been catching up. is the FL true to 35mm throughout focus range? or little wider or tight based on MFD or INF? I mean focus breathing I guess
aside from fle 2, this is exactly what I need for between 21 1.4 and the 50 1.0 for the ltw general carry.
now I wait for a good deal on a type 1
There is noticeable focus breathing, but it depends on how far you’re pulling focus as to whether it would bother you.
Thanks for the beautiful cat photo, I was missing it.
On the most magnified section comparing centre to mid frame there is a considerable difference. I have no idea whether both are focused accurately, but the centre photograph looks much sharper, with much more contrast and micro contrast.
Did you use the SL and focus with your focus point or magnification exactly on the mid frame cat, or was this a focus and reframe shot with an M camera?
wolfloid wrote:
Thanks for the beautiful cat photo, I was missing it.
On the most magnified section comparing centre to mid frame there is a considerable difference. I have no idea whether both are focused accurately, but the centre photograph looks much sharper, with much more contrast and micro contrast.
Did you use the SL and focus with your focus point or magnification exactly on the mid frame cat, or was this a focus and reframe shot with an M camera?
I never focus and reframe when I have the EVF available. That's just the resolving power (or lack thereof) of this lens at the midframe wide open at that distance. At closer distances, say MFD to 1.5m, midframe is sharper but never as sharp as the center.
What's crazy to me is this lens off center wide open performs so much better than many vintage Leica "character lenses" that some pay thousands of dollars for. They are actually paying for softness off center. They want softness off center. Some aren't even sharp in the center! This isn't even rare for many modern high performing lenses – 50 Lux is not as sharp at close distances off center wide open, even more so if you get a sub-optimal copy. It's not as noticeable as this lens, but it's there. The GF 80 on the GFX 100S is not as sharp off center at close distances wide open. I could go on!
raizans wrote:
i hope i'm not the only idiot who thought "midframe" meant "the middle of the frame," i.e., the center.
I think technically it would be defined as the middle point between the center and corner along the diagonal axis, or at least that is where testers are taking their samples from. To me, midframe should be anywhere in the oval band between the center and the corners regardless of axis, because otherwise what would you call those middle areas? I guess they are still midframe, but for the purposes of testing, we pick the more challenging spot.
wolfloid wrote:
Thanks for the beautiful cat photo, I was missing it.
On the most magnified section comparing centre to mid frame there is a considerable difference. I have no idea whether both are focused accurately, but the centre photograph looks much sharper, with much more contrast and micro contrast.
Did you use the SL and focus with your focus point or magnification exactly on the mid frame cat, or was this a focus and reframe shot with an M camera?
highdesertmesa wrote:
I never focus and reframe when I have the EVF available. That's just the resolving power (or lack thereof) of this lens at the midframe wide open at that distance. At closer distances, say MFD to 1.5m, midframe is sharper but never as sharp as the center.
What's crazy to me is this lens off center wide open performs so much better than many vintage Leica "character lenses" that some pay thousands of dollars for. They are actually paying for softness off center. They want softness off center. Some aren't even sharp in the center! This isn't even rare for many modern high performing lenses – 50 Lux is not as sharp at close distances off center wide open, even more so if you get a sub-optimal copy. It's not as noticeable as this lens, but it's there. The GF 80 on the GFX 100S is not as sharp off center at close distances wide open. I could go on! ...Show more →
I agree. When I saw the early samples showing midframe weakness I thought it reminded me of the 50 Lux ASPH. But my experience with the Lux has been that it's more usable at midframe wide open than stopped down to f/2.8-4 where it picks up a nervous quality in the plane of focus until stopped down more. I avoid rule of thirds compositions with it unless at or close to wide open (and accept lower off-axis sharpness) or stopped down to f/5.6 and more.
Based on Fred's test and comparisons against other 35s earlier in this thread, at least at infinity, the VM35/1.5 seems to gradually improve in the midframe as its stopped down without a buildup of 'nervousness' for the first few stops.
Brief intermission from tech talk I like it on the silver, but the matte black version would look incredible on the black chrome M-A or the new M6 that is matte black paint.
With the sun just outside the frame, there is a certain angle that will really provoke veiling flare. It's easy enough to avoid unless that's the exact composition you want. Protective filter or not makes zero difference, the flare was the same with and without it. Using the LH-12 hood (made for the 21 f/3.5 and 28 f/2) does help out in this situation, making it easier to use my hand to eliminate most of the flare. The LH-4N hood is pretty much useless in such a situation. I could not provoke any vignetting with the LH-12 at any aperture at any distance.
I'm only now starting to shoot this wide open. Unlike some other lenses I've tried recently, I am seeing very nice bokeh all the way to the edges. The shot posted below should show a partial rendering of the transition zone since the distance from the closest leaf/blade to the fence behind it is about 3m, then the rest is infinity at around 1/8 mile and beyond. If shooting wide open and the subject/focus point is much further away, say 5m, then the background at infinity looks pretty damn ugly. Not sure, but I don't think that's an issue confined to this particular lens.
"Midframe weakness", we see it shown but not really mapped, so I did a quick estimation of it in Photoshop based on where I find f/1.5 weak and where I find it sharp. As Steve pointed out earlier in the thread, most of us are not bothered by lenses that are not sharp off-center as long as the transition goes smoothly from center to edge with the edge being softest. With lenses like this, however, anywhere not in the midzone including the far corners can be as sharp as the center at f/1.5 when focused there. I think that disturbs some people I guess.
highdesertmesa wrote:
As Steve pointed out earlier in the thread, most of us are not bothered by lenses that are not sharp off-center as long as the transition goes smoothly from center to edge with the edge being softes
And some of us are ready to exchange full frame sharpness for a smoother, creamier bokeh and Topaz Sharpen AI.
highdesertmesa wrote:
A few recent shots and observations.
With the sun just outside the frame, there is a certain angle that will really provoke veiling flare. It's easy enough to avoid unless that's the exact composition you want. Protective filter or not makes zero difference, the flare was the same with and without it. Using the LH-12 hood (made for the 21 f/3.5 and 28 f/2) does help out in this situation, making it easier to use my hand to eliminate most of the flare. The LH-4N hood is pretty much useless in such a situation. I could not provoke any vignetting with the LH-12 at any aperture at any distance.
I'm only now starting to shoot this wide open. Unlike some other lenses I've tried recently, I am seeing very nice bokeh all the way to the edges. The shot posted below should show a partial rendering of the transition zone since the distance from the closest leaf/blade to the fence behind it is about 3m, then the rest is infinity at around 1/8 mile and beyond. If shooting wide open and the subject/focus point is much further away, say 5m, then the background at infinity looks pretty damn ugly. Not sure, but I don't think that's an issue confined to this particular lens.
"Midframe weakness", we see it shown but not really mapped, so I did a quick estimation of it in Photoshop based on where I find f/1.5 weak and where I find it sharp. As Steve pointed out earlier in the thread, most of us are not bothered by lenses that are not sharp off-center as long as the transition goes smoothly from center to edge with the edge being softest. With lenses like this, however, anywhere not in the midzone including the far corners can be as sharp as the center at f/1.5 when focused there. I think that disturbs some people I guess.
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Love the BPM’s Used them on my CV 35/1.2iii and 751.5 with good results, though I used 1/8,1/4 and 1. And great landscape photo above!
Would you mind to post these two 35/1.5 photos with the BPM in color?
Thanks, yeah, I'd only ever tried the 1/4 before, so the 1/2 strength is new to me. That 1 strength must be something to behold
Here's the shot in color – I overexposed on purpose to bring out the glow, so there is noticeable fringing.
Would be curious to see how the effect changes as the lens is stopped down. IOW, is it most effective wide open? Or is there still some effect a few stops down?
rscheffler wrote:
Would be curious to see how the effect changes as the lens is stopped down. IOW, is it most effective wide open? Or is there still some effect a few stops down?
The blur from the out of focus areas wide open is probably accentuating the filter's diffusion effect. Wide open plus overexposure can create some halation in daylight like you'd get from street lights and signs at night. A properly exposed shot reduces the glow quite a bit, where it becomes more of a softening effect. Stopping it down does the same. Scene contrast plays a bit part of how the filter looks as well. I'll need to experiment with it some more to see how it behaves, but the new Sigma 60-600 arrived this afternoon, so I'll be a little distracted for a day or two with that.
highdesertmesa wrote:
The blur from the out of focus areas wide open is probably accentuating the filter's diffusion effect. Wide open plus overexposure can create some halation in daylight like you'd get from street lights and signs at night. A properly exposed shot reduces the glow quite a bit, where it becomes more of a softening effect. Stopping it down does the same. Scene contrast plays a bit part of how the filter looks as well. I'll need to experiment with it some more to see how it behaves, but the new Sigma 60-600 arrived this afternoon, so I'll be a little distracted for a day or two with that.
Interesting. I should experiment with some of these filters, and am thankful for your images and writing.
Enjoy your Sigma 60-600! Our super-zooming Sigma is the original 150-600mm Sport version, for the Nikon F mount, so, is quite heavy and bulky, but, when all set-up and ready to go, can do amazing things. Your newer Sigma 60-600 should be even more amazing.
I think technically it would be defined as the middle point between the center and corner along the diagonal axis, or at least that is where testers are taking their samples from. To me, midframe should be anywhere in the oval band between the center and the corners regardless of axis, because otherwise what would you call those middle areas? I guess they are still midframe, but for the purposes of testing, we pick the more challenging spot.
I like it on the silver, but the matte black version would look incredible on the black chrome M-A or the new M6 that is matte black paint.
