As much as I am enjoying this lens I have to say that my fears about the friction style caps is turning out to be true. They do not stay on well. The slightest brush against them and they fall off. happened to me with the square hood multiple times this afternoon.
1bwana1 wrote:
As much as I am enjoying this lens I have to say that my fears about the friction style caps is turning out to be true. They do not stay on well. The slightest brush against them and they fall off. happened to me with the square hood multiple times this afternoon.
Interesting and sorry to hear this. I've used both caps and have had only good results with them.
'THYPOCH vs VOIGTLANDER (Simera 28mm 1.4 vs Nokton 28mm 1.5)'
'Watch before you buy: 28mm 1.5 Voigtlander Nokton vs. 28mm 1.4 Thypoch Simera'
Notes: Do see the last one if image quality matters, he does a better job. The hood runaround is an issue with CV. Price puts it at nearly twice the Nokton's asking price. CA might be worse on the Nokton. Simera has very nice color, warmer than the depressing palette of the more modern look of the Zeiss-like Nokton, and reviewers preferred it. Bokeh is a very strong suit of the Simera 28mm, hard to match this. 'Mandler-like'. None of these guys knew about DZO.
philip_pj wrote:
'see the Voigt Nokton vs. the Simera 28's'
YT titles:
'Voigtlander 28mm f/1.5 vs Thypoch 28mm f/1.4'
'THYPOCH vs VOIGTLANDER (Simera 28mm 1.4 vs Nokton 28mm 1.5)'
'Watch before you buy: 28mm 1.5 Voigtlander Nokton vs. 28mm 1.4 Thypoch Simera'
Notes: Do see the last one if image quality matters, he does a better job. The hood runaround is an issue with CV. Price puts it at nearly twice the Nokton's asking price. CA might be worse on the Nokton. Simera has very nice color, warmer than the depressing palette of the more modern look of the Zeiss-like Nokton, and reviewers preferred it. Bokeh is a very strong suit of the Simera 28mm, hard to match this. 'Mandler-like'. None of these guys knew about DZO. ...Show more →
Thanks ... I guess I meant Fred's take on them. I tend to prefer Fred's way of approaching things.
philip_pj wrote:
'see the Voigt Nokton vs. the Simera 28's'
YT titles:
'Voigtlander 28mm f/1.5 vs Thypoch 28mm f/1.4'
'THYPOCH vs VOIGTLANDER (Simera 28mm 1.4 vs Nokton 28mm 1.5)'
'Watch before you buy: 28mm 1.5 Voigtlander Nokton vs. 28mm 1.4 Thypoch Simera'
Notes: Do see the last one if image quality matters, he does a better job. The hood runaround is an issue with CV. Price puts it at nearly twice the Nokton's asking price. CA might be worse on the Nokton. Simera has very nice color, warmer than the depressing palette of the more modern look of the Zeiss-like Nokton, and reviewers preferred it. Bokeh is a very strong suit of the Simera 28mm, hard to match this. 'Mandler-like'. None of these guys knew about DZO. ...Show more →
Lucky for me, I never watched or read any reviews about these Simera lenses. So, it will be from a fresh eye. 😉
I wish their E lenses had electronic contacts. It's the biggest reason keeping me from trying them out and is the reason I have yet to try a Laowa lens.
I took notice of the Thypoch Simera 28 when it first was announced. Then based on how much I liked the Simera 50, I picked up the 28 M mount lens a week ago.
All I can say is that if you like the Simera 50, then you will enjoy the 28mm 1.4. They pair well together.
It has the focus lock still but I don't mind it in the least. In use, when focusing, the little button is depressed, so that you can rotate the mechanism to infinity and back it does not lock. While the 50 has a tab, it is somewhat smaller than the Leica tabs so that it almost takes more effort to insert your finger into the recess.
Consequently I tend to use my thumb and forefinger when focusing on both lenses and I think this gives me more precise control over the focus. The focus throw is very short I find.
In terms of haptics, I like the Simeras's very much. I have used Leica M lenses from the mid 70's on and off, to the present day. I like the fact that the aperture ring is spaced well apart from the focus ring. They both offer a little more resistance so that I can set them up for a certain situation and they will not get accidentally moved, which happened often with the Leica lenses. When shooting the Simera's my fingers support the lens by going to the empty area between the two rings, so again, no accidental shifting takes place.
In terms of the depth of field indicators on the Thypoch, I will probably never use it, as I rarely did on the Leica versions. This might have been a useful indicator when film was used, but needs to be recalibrated for the digital sensor for it to be a useful tool IMO. So I am pleased with the Thypoch solution as it visually a more pleasing way of dealing with the problem.
My one suggestion for Thypoch's development program would be to display the focal length of the lens on the lens itself, as other manufactures do. So far the offerings are all almost identical in design and size and since I plan on acquiring the 75 1.4, and possibly the 21 when they do appear, I want to be able to quickly identify which is which. These are my thoughts on the Simera lenses so far. Other opinions may differ.
I six bit encoded my Simera 50 f/1.4 yesterday. Probably the easiest lens to do. Just one black spot. The recessed outer band of the lens mount should keep it from rubbing off.
Kent, I can't help it, been a researcher for too long.
'the aperture ring is spaced well apart from the focus ring.'
This is obviously critical to sound and reliable operation, and it's a constant back-of-the-mind thing to remember in Zeiss CY lenses with their huge focus rings that seem to occupy almost all of the lens body. Change aperture for tripod bracketing and just brush the focus ring, you lose that shot and any subsequent to it. They still had not learned the lesson in the ZF range!
Dustin Abbott: 'In the clicked mode there are nicely defined one third stop detents between F1.4 and F8, and then full stop detents at F11 and F16. In the de-clicked mode you can very smoothly rack throughout the whole aperture range for cine work. Very nice.'
DZO sensibly assumed there will be a much greater need for finer selection of sub-stop apertures from wide open to f8. Not many of us are fudging around feeling for f13 or whatever. The change in layout might help with feedback in use, like the soft 0.7m pressure shift - my CY 35-70 has this latter idea too from way back, to show macro mode.
Do the Leica M lenses enable de-clicking? Many also enjoyed the internal focusing and FLE. Probably many more users were put off by the red dot scales than liked it as a blast from the past, not really needed in a fast lens mostly shot wide open. It might have cost them sales. How lenses look (colored dots and even fonts) is much more important than I ever realized.
philip_pj wrote:
Kent, I can't help it, been a researcher for too long.
'the aperture ring is spaced well apart from the focus ring.'
This is obviously critical to sound and reliable operation, and it's a constant back-of-the-mind thing to remember in Zeiss CY lenses with their huge focus rings that seem to occupy almost all of the lens body. Change aperture for tripod bracketing and just brush the focus ring, you lose that shot and any subsequent to it. They still had not learned the lesson in the ZF range!
Dustin Abbott: 'In the clicked mode there are nicely defined one third stop detents between F1.4 and F8, and then full stop detents at F11 and F16. In the de-clicked mode you can very smoothly rack throughout the whole aperture range for cine work. Very nice.'
DZO sensibly assumed there will be a much greater need for finer selection of sub-stop apertures from wide open to f8. Not many of us are fudging around feeling for f13 or whatever. The change in layout might help with feedback in use, like the soft 0.7m pressure shift - my CY 35-70 has this latter idea too from way back, to show macro mode.
Do the Leica M lenses enable de-clicking? Many also enjoyed the internal focusing and FLE. Probably many more users were put off by the red dot scales than liked it as a blast from the past, not really needed in a fast lens mostly shot wide open. It might have cost them sales. How lenses look (colored dots and even fonts) is much more important than I ever realized....Show more →
Researcher ... ha ha ... my wife just rolls her eyes and calls me the "Research King".
Just in case anyone is interested in how this lens performs on the GFX 100S....hard vignetting in the corners but very useable as a square format. A pano will show softness at the edges.
Maybe wrong but a square 33mm x 33mm requires an image circle of 46.7mm, whereas 24mm x 36mm needs 43.3mm IC, with an image height of ~21.7. The MTF shows a typical fall-off of 30lpmm at 22mm IH, so not bad from the above pic.
Not that it is that kind of lens and I imagine the user could mentally dial in a crop in the EVF. The high frequency fall-off starts once past 18mm IH, like the Zeiss 50MP and other similar lenses.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Just in case anyone is interested in how this lens performs on the GFX 100S....hard vignetting in the corners but very useable as a square format. A pano will show softness at the edges.
Other than the vignetting, how do the corners hold up with the thicker sensor glass when used in 35mm crop mode?
Is the vignetting worse at close focus or infinity?
philip_pj wrote:
Maybe wrong but a square 33mm x 33mm requires an image circle of 46.7mm, whereas 24mm x 36mm needs 43.3mm IC, with an image height of ~21.7. The MTF shows a typical fall-off of 30lpmm at 22mm IH, so not bad from the above pic.
Not that it is that kind of lens and I imagine the user could mentally dial in a crop in the EVF. The high frequency fall-off starts once past 18mm IH, like the Zeiss 50MP and other similar lenses.
Hi Philip, great to respond to you after all these years!
The great thing about the GFX 100s is that a user does not have to mentally dial in the crop - Fuji offers these aspect ratio options for the evf and image - 4:3, 3:2, 16:9, 1:1, 65:24 (xpan), 5:4, 7:6. For me, this makes it a great universal platform for adapting various lenses. Of course, you still have the potential drawbacks of sensor glass thickness with various lens optics.
For this lens and everyday shooting, I don't really see the sensor glass thickness as an issue unless you are really expecting absolute perfection.
cbass wrote:
Other than the vignetting, how do the corners hold up with the thicker sensor glass when used in 35mm crop mode?
Is the vignetting worse at close focus or infinity?
The corners and edges show some softness at 100% stopped down, particularly compared to the razor sharp center. I would say this lens is affected more by the sensor glass thickness as compared to some other 35mm format 50's I use on the GFX. For instance, the tiny and light Thypoch Eureka F2 I also own (though still an M mount lens) is noticeably sharper at the edges and corners as compared to the Simera on the GFX. That said, at full print size in 35mm format on the GFX (20 x 30 in. @ 300ppi), this is unnoticeable.
Vignetting should be worse at infinity vs close focus but I'm not seeing it. In both cases, you would need to stop down to at least F4 to get rid of noticeable vignetting using the GFX 35mm crop format.
and calls me the "Research King". 
