p.10 #1 · MS-Optics lenses Image and Discussion Thread
Mayasan wrote:
Yes, 50mm f1.1 is very close to leica summilux pricing. I notice that the sonnetar f1.1 has better distortion that's why I am curious to try this nice.
I also notice that you have Apoquria 35mm F1.4, how does it compare to apollon 36mm f1.3 ? except for the min focus distance, do they have any difference?
Actually I don't have Apoqualia 35/1.4. I'd like to get one but they are too rare and highly priced in 2nd hand market and I don't want to pay huge premium so I haven't bought one so far.
I have the Apoqualia 35/1.3 Slim II, and Apollon 36/1.3. Apoqualia 35/1.4 and 35/1.3 Slim are quite different based on reviews.
This one video compares Apollon and Apoqualia 35/1.4. It's not a very technical review or comparison but it gives an idea on the differences:
p.10 #2 · MS-Optics lenses Image and Discussion Thread
Juha Kannisto wrote:
Actually I don't have Apoqualia 35/1.4. I'd like to get one but they are too rare and highly priced in 2nd hand market and I don't want to pay huge premium so I haven't bought one so far.
I have the Apoqualia 35/1.3 Slim II, and Apollon 36/1.3. Apoqualia 35/1.4 and 35/1.3 Slim are quite different based on reviews.
This one video compares Apollon and Apoqualia 35/1.4. It's not a very technical review or comparison but it gives an idea on the differences:
Saw that youtube review too, according to the host, the Apoqualia has better rendering than the apollon for his taste, while apollon has rounder aperture and focus closer for extra benefit for using mirrorless camera. Thanks to this post and your shared photoes, I have became very interested in exploring MS optics lens.
p.10 #3 · MS-Optics lenses Image and Discussion Thread
That’s a cool comparison. Thanks for sharing. I also have the silver Apollon but haven't tried the Apoqualia. Their focal lengths seem quite similar, so I'd categorize both as "35mm".
I prefer the Apollon's rendering in all the side-by-side shots because it has more character. The higher spherical aberration and additional glow from the Apollon align with my taste. Whenever I want less aberration, I just dial the aperture to around f/1.7. Based on this test, the Apollon appears sharper than the Apoqualia at f/2 and smaller apertures. Focusing down to 0.3m is incredible when using it on my A7CR UT.
Although I'd like to try the 35mm f/1.4 Apoqualia someday, I'm very satisfied with the size, weight, and performance of the 36mm f/1.3.
That said, my copy required significant work. It was not aligned with the RF and was quite loose. Disassembling it was incredibly challenging, but thankfully @yukosteel helped me tremendously. I placed a drop of blue Loctite on all screws and ensured it was 100% aligned with my rangefinder.
p.10 #4 · MS-Optics lenses Image and Discussion Thread
I wish the apollon has the same lens barrel style as the Apoqualia. I feel like the Apolon aperture ring is too thin to adjust, overall I think the Apoqualia has better ergonomics. I don't see both lens differ too much in rendering though.
p.10 #5 · MS-Optics lenses Image and Discussion Thread
Fred Miranda wrote:
That’s a cool comparison. Thanks for sharing. I also have the silver Apollon but haven't tried the Apoqualia. Their focal lengths seem quite similar, so I'd categorize both as "35mm".
I prefer the Apollon's rendering in all the side-by-side shots because it has more character. The higher spherical aberration and additional glow from the Apollon align with my taste. Whenever I want less aberration, I just dial the aperture to around f/1.7. Based on this test, the Apollon appears sharper than the Apoqualia at f/2 and smaller apertures. Focusing down to 0.3m is incredible when using it on my A7CR UT.
Although I'd like to try the 35mm f/1.4 Apoqualia someday, I'm very satisfied with the size, weight, and performance of the 36mm f/1.3.
That said, my copy required significant work. It was not aligned with the RF and was quite loose. Disassembling it was incredibly challenging, but thankfully @yukosteel@ helped me tremendously. I placed a drop of blue Loctite on all screws and ensured it was 100% aligned with my rangefinder....Show more →
Thanks! I'm also very satisfied with my Apollon and I also like the 35/1.3 Slim II quite a bit. It's got a bit trickier rendering though. I would also like to get the 35/1.4 to have all different versions but I think for practical use the 36/1.3 might be the best of them for me since I really like the closer focusing and it's also pretty good for stopped down corner-to-corner sharp shots.
The only thing I'm missing with Apollon is that I can't use it at hard inifnity with any of my adapters, I need to focus slightly closer regardless of adapter.
From handling point of view I'm really happy with my Apollon. With 35/1.3 Slim II the aperture control is a bit tricky since I need to reach the aperture pin with a finger through a rather narrow opening (luckily I have slim fingers) and slide it back and forth. Getting it to precise stopped-down position may take a couple of attempts and it's definitely not as nice as on the Apollon where I can use the hood to control aperture.
I've bid on 35/1.4 a couple of times at Yahoo Japan Auctions but never won the bidding as of yet. There's always a limit on how hight I want to go as the quality of the available copies is often rather unknown and it might not be possible to do any returns and get a refund.
p.10 #6 · MS-Optics lenses Image and Discussion Thread
Mayasan wrote:
I wish the apollon has the same lens barrel style as the Apoqualia. I feel like the Apolon aperture ring is too thin to adjust, overall I think the Apoqualia has better ergonomics. I don't see both lens differ too much in rendering though.
Do you use the hood with the Apollon? I find it quite easy to adjust the aperture by turning the hood. I think for focusing action there should not be much difference since both have similar focusing sticks. I've never had a chance to try the 35/1.4 personally though.
p.10 #7 · MS-Optics lenses Image and Discussion Thread
Juha Kannisto wrote:
Do you use the hood with the Apollon? I find it quite easy to adjust the aperture by turning the hood. I think for focusing action there should not be much difference since both have similar focusing sticks. I've never had a chance to try the 35/1.4 personally though.
Yes, without any filter, the hood is easier to grip instead of the aperture ring itself.
Even both lens are similar in size and weight, the design of the Apoqualia is sligthyl more thoughtful and refined in my opinion, the focus ring and aperture are in right proportion, much easier to grip the aperture ring. Overall it looks more handsome mounting to leica M body.
p.10 #8 · MS-Optics lenses Image and Discussion Thread
Mayasan wrote:
Yes, without any filter, the hood is easier to grip instead of the aperture ring itself.
Even both lens are similar in size and weight, the design of the Apoqualia is more thoughtful and refined in my opinion, the focus ring and aperture are in right proportion, much easier to grip the aperture ring. Overall it looks more handsome mounting to leica M body.
I agree that the Apoqualia 35/1.4 looks very appealing in product photos I've seen. It's a very beatiful lens. But I think the aperture mechanism on it might be more vulnerable to issues than on the Apollon, e.g. I've read of various problems with the Apoqualia aperture ring (missing screws making it stop working and such) but not so much with the Apollon. Maybe Apollon's aperture ring could be more reliable in the long run...
p.10 #9 · MS-Optics lenses Image and Discussion Thread
Juha Kannisto wrote:
I agree that the Apoqualia 35/1.4 looks very appealing in product photos I've seen. It's a very beatiful lens. But I think the aperture mechanism on it might be more vulnerable to issues than on the Apollon, e.g. I've read of various problems with the Apoqualia aperture ring (missing screws making it stop working and such) but not so much with the Apollon. Maybe Apollon's aperture ring could be more reliable in the long run...
I see. this apollon is my 2nd MS optics lens after the sonnetar 50mm f1.3. I wish it has good longevity. The sonnetar feel more sturdy than the Apollon on my hand. I also got VM voigtlander 35/f.15 Nokton and 50/f1.5 Nokon II, build quality and ergonomics are much superior than MS optics. I understand it is very unfair to compare both brands. At the end of the day, MS optics is all about its quirkiness, playing with small and light weight lens is such a joy.
p.10 #10 · MS-Optics lenses Image and Discussion Thread
Honestly, I don't find either lens (Apollon, Apoqualia) particularly attractive or tactical marvels. My interest in them comes solely from their rendering character, size, and weight. I'm also a fan of the company and like to support businesses that think outside the box.
p.10 #11 · MS-Optics lenses Image and Discussion Thread
Fred Miranda wrote:
Honestly, I don't find either lens (Apollon, Apoqualia) particularly attractive or tactical marvels. My interest in them comes solely from their rendering character, size, and weight. I'm also a fan of the company and like to support businesses that think outside the box.
For me, i would treat it as a cheaper substitute for 35mm steel rim/pre-asph. I need classic rendering lens that I can take it everywhere. MS optics has a special place among all the M-mount brands.
p.10 #12 · MS-Optics lenses Image and Discussion Thread
Fred Miranda wrote:
Good question. I haven't tried a filter on the Apollon myself, but I believe there are a few 34mm filters available. However, finding high-quality glass in this size might be challenging. Do not get the Tiffen or Opteka. They are not great optically.
What color filter manufacturer does FMForum recommend?
p.10 #13 · MS-Optics lenses Image and Discussion Thread
CampK wrote:
What color filter manufacturer does FMForum recommend?
Assuming this means you want to use these lenses for B&W film, beware that many MS Optics lenses have strong focus shift, which means focus on film cameras will likely be hit and miss...and probably a lot of miss for some of these lenses. If you're using on a digital Leica (e.g., monochrom) that offers LiveView, you'll want to use that feature when focusing MS Optics lenses as rangefinder focusing won't be reliable. Not all MS Optics lenses have extreme focus shift, but the two I own do and I've seen it mentioned in reviews of some of their other lenses.
Some of these lenses have unusual filter sizes, and I haven't seen color filters anywhere for those sizes. You can always check filterfind.net for hard-to-find filters; otherwise I usually find B+W colored filters to be good quality.
p.10 #14 · MS-Optics lenses Image and Discussion Thread
bjhurley wrote:
Assuming this means you want to use these lenses for B&W film, beware that many MS Optics lenses have strong focus shift, which means focus on film cameras will likely be hit and miss...and probably a lot of miss for some of these lenses. If you're using on a digital Leica (e.g., monochrom) that offers LiveView, you'll want to use that feature when focusing MS Optics lenses as rangefinder focusing won't be reliable. Not all MS Optics lenses have extreme focus shift, but the two I own do and I've seen it mentioned in reviews of some of their other lenses.
Some of these lenses have unusual filter sizes, and I haven't seen color filters anywhere for those sizes. You can always check filterfind.net for hard-to-find filters; otherwise I usually find B+W colored filters to be good quality....Show more →
Thanks for the reply! I should have been more clear. I'm using an M11M with Voigtlander lenses. Was trying to find recommendations for color filters and using search, this is the thread that popped up. I was going to buy Tiffen until l saw Fred say they weren't great.
p.10 #15 · MS-Optics lenses Image and Discussion Thread
CampK wrote:
Thanks for the reply! I should have been more clear. I'm using an M11M with Voigtlander lenses. Was trying to find recommendations for color filters and using search, this is the thread that popped up. I was going to buy Tiffen until l saw Fred say they weren't great.
I'm using B+W colored filters on my Voigtländer lenses and they've been fine.
p.10 #16 · MS-Optics lenses Image and Discussion Thread
Hi @Juha Kannisto, I know I already brought the topic to you before but I’m still puzzled by my copy of the Apoqualia 35mm 1.3 ii Slim.
I use it from time to time and it can delivers some great funky results and a lot of awful with results too even for me.
I had it tested by a pro and he was puzzled as I am and didn’t understand the results he was gaining, he just assured me it was centered and that the infinity was right.
The lens just does what it wants, I can be on focus, or it will be sharp off center, or it will be blurry, sometimes the smear gains almost half the frame but on one side, sometimes, the results are great.
It’s just all over the place, do you feel your copy also have a mind of its own?
My Sonnetar 50 1.3 is behaving very well just to have a point of comparison.
I stumbled on that review of the the 35mm 1.3 ii that links a text from Miyazaki about that specific lens
p.10 #17 · MS-Optics lenses Image and Discussion Thread
Sonnar-7 wrote:
Hi @Juha Kannisto@, I know I already brought the topic to you before but I’m still puzzled by my copy of the Apoqualia 35mm 1.3 ii Slim.
I use it from time to time and it can delivers some great funky results and a lot of awful with results too even for me.
I had it tested by a pro and he was puzzled as I am and didn’t understand the results he was gaining, he just assured me it was centered and that the infinity was right.
The lens just does what it wants, I can be on focus, or it will be sharp off center, or it will be blurry, sometimes the smear gains almost half the frame but on one side, sometimes, the results are great.
It’s just all over the place, do you feel your copy also have a mind of its own?
My Sonnetar 50 1.3 is behaving very well just to have a point of comparison.
I stumbled on that review of the the 35mm 1.3 ii that links a text from Miyazaki about that specific lens
I've also read the review/article on Shige's Hobby page and I've also seen Miyazaki-san's explanation / warning about the particular behavior where the best contrast and best sharpness are not on the same plane with this lens (esp. when the lens is wide open) and they are reported to be on same plan from f4 and onwards. I think this lens is probably very difficult to focus optimally on a rangefinder so many people may have returned the lens due to not getting satisfactory focus with their Leica cameras.
Personally I haven't felt that the lens is that difficult to focus on an EVF. I've usually got satisfactory focus results on my Sony A7C / A7CII even though I take most of my bokeh shots wide open at f1.3 with this lens (and I stop down to f8 for infinity type shots). I do like soft focus lenses too and I think this lens is never pin sharp wide open.
I notice in my personal use that when I try to use the lens wide open for long distance shots (I usually don't even try that), the lens can't really focus all that far (at f1.3 "sharpest" focus seems to reach to about 10m at most even at hard infinity), but when I stop down it will gradually reach to longer distances. I use hard infinity with my lens when shooting at f8 and it provides very good corner to corner sharpness except that the extreme corner areas are never good but that often doesn't matter too much, depending on the scene.
Additionally this lens has strong characteristic at widest apertures where the edges / corners get sharper when they would be expected to be out of focus and there's some swirl effect, and I think that makes bokeh shots look jarring sometimes. That's one thing that could spoil some bokeh shots but it really depends on the scene.
I don't know exactly how to explain all the behaviors of this lens but I really like my copy and when I use it I always tend to get many shots that I really like. I also get some at f1.3 that are spoiled by the edge/corner sharpening, e.g. it can be really distracting on certain type of scenes but it also doesn't always jump out as distracting and might add some interesting flavor to some shots.
As for the collapsible nature of this lens, I agree with Shige's Hobby article in that the collapsibility is not really useful as the lens doesn't really lock into the collapsed position and it feels better to keep it in extended position at all times. The aperture control is a little tricky too and I think it might not work for some people, but with my slim fingers it's OK and I can slide the aperture stick left and right without too much trouble. It's easy to put the aperture to wide open position but to move it to exact f8 or other aperture might take some back and forth swipes.
This lens was the 2nd one I got after Sonnetar 50/1.3 after my renewed interest in MS-Optics lenses (there was around 5 year gap where I didn't use any MS-Optics lenses although I always kept my original 28/4) and I've enjoyed both a lot. I agree that Sonnetar is much easier lens to understand in terms of results, but I always enjoy the element of surprise when I'm shooting with the 35/1.3.
p.10 #18 · MS-Optics lenses Image and Discussion Thread
Juha Kannisto wrote:
I've also read the review/article on Shige's Hobby page and I've also seen Miyazaki-san's explanation / warning about the particular behavior where the best contrast and best sharpness are not on the same plane with this lens (esp. when the lens is wide open) and they are reported to be on same plan from f4 and onwards. I think this lens is probably very difficult to focus optimally on a rangefinder so many people may have returned the lens due to not getting satisfactory focus with their Leica cameras.
Personally I haven't felt that the lens is that difficult to focus on an EVF. I've usually got satisfactory focus results on my Sony A7C / A7CII even though I take most of my bokeh shots wide open at f1.3 with this lens (and I stop down to f8 for infinity type shots). I do like soft focus lenses too and I think this lens is never pin sharp wide open.
I notice in my personal use that when I try to use the lens wide open for long distance shots (I usually don't even try that), the lens can't really focus all that far (at f1.3 "sharpest" focus seems to reach to about 10m at most even at hard infinity), but when I stop down it will gradually reach to longer distances. I use hard infinity with my lens when shooting at f8 and it provides very good corner to corner sharpness except that the extreme corner areas are never good but that often doesn't matter too much, depending on the scene.
Additionally this lens has strong characteristic at widest apertures where the edges / corners get sharper when they would be expected to be out of focus and there's some swirl effect, and I think that makes bokeh shots look jarring sometimes. That's one thing that could spoil some bokeh shots but it really depends on the scene.
I don't know exactly how to explain all the behaviors of this lens but I really like my copy and when I use it I always tend to get many shots that I really like. I also get some at f1.3 that are spoiled by the edge/corner sharpening, e.g. it can be really distracting on certain type of scenes but it also doesn't always jump out as distracting and might add some interesting flavor to some shots.
As for the collapsible nature of this lens, I agree with Shige's Hobby article in that the collapsibility is not really useful as the lens doesn't really lock into the collapsed position and it feels better to keep it in extended position at all times. The aperture control is a little tricky too and I think it might not work for some people, but with my slim fingers it's OK and I can slide the aperture stick left and right without too much trouble. It's easy to put the aperture to wide open position but to move it to exact f8 or other aperture might take some back and forth swipes.
This lens was the 2nd one I got after Sonnetar 50/1.3 after my renewed interest in MS-Optics lenses (there was around 5 year gap where I didn't use any MS-Optics lenses although I always kept my original 28/4) and I've enjoyed both a lot. I agree that Sonnetar is much easier lens to understand in terms of results, but I always enjoy the element of surprise when I'm shooting with the 35/1.3....Show more →
Thank you for that detailed analysis of the lens, I feel like your copy is a weirdo like mine and that it is supposed to behave with a mind of its own.
It’s such a strange artefact, I will reread your insights and make some more tests, I had some great shots with it but is it hard to get those, it’s quite a frustrating piece of glass when it gives you some delights and many headaches.
Such a puzzling and cryptic lens.
p.10 #19 · MS-Optics lenses Image and Discussion Thread
Last weekend I added MS-Optics H-Prot 40/6.3 (Silver Rhodium #22) (2017 release) to my collection as there is one shop that still has some unsold stock and I wanted to try it. This lens is based on 1890 Anastigmat (later named Protar) optical design by Paul Rudolph at Zeiss. 4 elements in 2 groups, and lens weight is 45g.
I used to have H-Dagonar 40/6.3 but I didn't really bond with it so I traded it away after a few months. I think I may like this H-Prot more based on my initial trials with it. H-Prot has basically no noticeable vignetting at all whereas H-Dagonar had fairly strong vignetting on my A7CII. I like the colors from H-Prot better as well. H-Prot is not supposed to reach 100% contrast & sharpness before f11 but my copy seems to be quite good at f8 already and I prefer to use it there rather than stop down all the way to f11.
Some samples, all taken with my stock Sony A7CII at f8 (long distance) or at f6.3 (close range shots).
I ran these through C1 Pro and applied some of my favorite filmic presets as usual. Otherwise I just adjusted exposure a bit on some shots.
Officially this lens focuses to 0.6m but the focus ring allows focusing noticeably closer than the 0.6m mark. I measured closest focus at around 0.47cm without help from a helicoid adapter. With my CV VM-E closer focus adapter II it focuses pretty close. It also has surprisingly shallow depth of field at f6.3 in close distance shooting and great care has to be taken to get the sharp focus at the right position. The slow aperture is a bit of a challenge indoors and in anything other than bright daylight as usually I prefer to shoot at ISO 100 or lowest possible at all times.
At f8 it's pretty good corner-to-corner on my A7CII but here also it's important to get the focus just right, if it's a slight bit off it shows in the results quite noticeably. Hard infinity on my Rayqual adapter was not 100% spot on with this lens (have to focus a hair closer) so can't utilize that. Then I'll rather use it with my CV helicoid adapter, or perhaps with my LM-EA9 MK2 (haven't tested that combo yet but will try that next), as it will also be quite nice to have the option to focus very close.
