Fred Miranda wrote:
Half of you guessed it correctly, which just goes to show how difficult it is to differentiate the output from these two lenses. After checking dozens of comparisons myself, I can now only notice minor differences. I’d say these two lenses produce very similar images.
Result:
A = Leica
B = Simera
Interesting. That was my gut instinct reaction when first viewing them. With closer examination of the mid zone area, B seemed a bit weaker and created doubts, potentially suggested the Lux. It really is amazingly close! From an optical standpoint, there doesn't seem to be much difference. It may come down to design/ergonomics. And of course, price!
rscheffler wrote:
Interesting. That was my gut instinct reaction when first viewing them. With closer examination of the mid zone area, B seemed a bit weaker and created doubts, potentially suggested the Lux. It really is amazingly close! From an optical standpoint, there doesn't seem to be much difference. It may come down to design/ergonomics. And of course, price!
Maybe I missed, but do we know if there is a midzone differential aside from MFD and infinite? I just went on contrast as I didn't know about the midzone. I usually shoot a 50/1.4 from 3-12 feet. Would be nice to know.
If the results are this consistent across multiple comp and distances, tough for Leica Maybe instead of being lazy and with half-baked updates for the 35 and 50 Lux, they should have actually improved the optics while keeping the size small. You'd think given the age of those 2 lenses, they could improve meaningfully. Now we see CV and Thypoch at these price points. Hard to justify as a Leica shooter. Then again, not everyone is worried about justifying their purchases.
Then again, Pentax did the same thing with their 31/43/77 updates a couple years back. Minimal changes that didn't meaningfully address IQ issues.
The aperture ring spacing in all the DZO cine lenses (including the very serious Arles and Vespid ranges, and the optically identical sibling Simera-C) is a DZO convention. The Simera-C range reflects the expectation that most work will be done at more open apertures, with almost none using f11-f16-f22.
A lot of cine footaqe is shot in very low light, particularly using the T1.5 series. Cine gearing presumably permits the user to view the effects of intermediate aperture settings as they change the value. The Simera photography lenses also inherited much of the visual character and overall balance from these established PL format cine lenses.
People in that niche of the cine world are trying to find ways to 'take the edge off digital' using filters etc., so DZO developed a package look blending modern optical practice and organic vintage character.
philip_pj wrote:
The aperture ring spacing in all the DZO cine lenses (including the very serious Arles and Vespid ranges, and the optically identical sibling Simera-C) is a DZO convention. The Simera-C range reflects the expectation that most work will be done at more open apertures, with almost none using f11-f16-f22.
A lot of cine footaqe is shot in very low light, particularly using the T1.5 series. Cine gearing presumably permits the user to view the effects of intermediate aperture settings as they change the value. The Simera photography lenses also inherited much of the visual character and overall balance from these established PL format cine lenses.
People in that niche of the cine world are trying to find ways to 'take the edge off digital' using filters etc., so DZO developed a package look blending modern optical practice and organic vintage character. ...Show more →
I thought a lot of budget lens makers have the uneven spaced aperture positions because it's mechanically easier to design.
Their Arles Range lenses sell for ~$2500 each, their PAVO anamorphics set of six is over $26,000. Cheap against Cooke and Zeiss, but it's relative and depends on your budget.
philip_pj wrote:
Their Arles Range lenses sell for ~$2500 each, their PAVO anamorphics set of six is over $26,000. Cheap against Cooke and Zeiss, but it's relative and depends on your budget.
Doesn't make any difference to me, I would still own one. But I don't think it's a feature – unless doing this with the aperture ring has another benefit.
You can see why they did it, though. It wasn't a blunder or a cheap out. It's just what they do, a very different thing.
One thing I'll keep an eye on is the appearance of the 21mm - a 21/f1.4 it will be - and the one I really want to see because they will get most traction from it - the 75/1.5, which already exists in Simera-C. The Arles 21mm lens is wonderful. The Arles range is really new - June-September 2024!
philip_pj wrote:
You can see why they did it, though. It wasn't a blunder or a cheap out. It's just what they do, a very different thing.
One thing I'll keep an eye on is the appearance of the 21mm - a 21/f1.4 it will be - and the one I really want to see because they will get most traction from it - the 75/1.5, which already exists in Simera-C. The Arles 21mm lens is wonderful. The Arles range is really new - June-September 2024!
75 1.5! It would be nice to have something else reasonably priced to compete with the Voigtlander 75 1.5 that doesn't look like a pirate's telescope
Nov 09, 2024 at 10:21 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
highdesertmesa wrote:
75 1.5! It would be nice to have something else reasonably priced to compete with the Voigtlander 75 1.5 that doesn't look like a pirate's telescope
The cine lens is T1.5, so I would expect the photography lens to be f/1.4. A 75 f/1.4 that is similar to this 50 f/1.4 would be really welcome.
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Maybe I missed, but do we know if there is a midzone differential aside from MFD and infinite? I just went on contrast as I didn't know about the midzone. I usually shoot a 50/1.4 from 3-12 feet. Would be nice to know.
If the results are this consistent across multiple comp and distances, tough for Leica Maybe instead of being lazy and with half-baked updates for the 35 and 50 Lux, they should have actually improved the optics while keeping the size small. You'd think given the age of those 2 lenses, they could improve meaningfully. Now we see CV and Thypoch at these price points. Hard to justify as a Leica shooter. Then again, not everyone is worried about justifying their purchases. ...Show more →
From my experience with the 50 Lux ASPH, the mid zone becomes more of a problem in the f/2.5-4.5 range where it takes on a much more nervous look than at or near wide open. It's definitely a problem I have experienced at the working distances you prefer, at least with rangefinder focusing. The result was I'd rarely place a subject in the rule of thirds zone in that aperture range. If the Simera is better in the mid zone at all distances, it will be an easier lens to use for off-center subject placement.
I agree that Leica's 35/1.4 and 50/1.4 refreshes were a missed opportunity to keep ahead of the competition and potentially justify the price premium (for those who care more about optical performance). Maybe it was just to buy some time for 'real' replacements?
No, I can't tell with a quick glance. I have some suspicions though.
Simera, Lux.
Character/rendering is soooo close. Can't see any real difference in that respect. Resolution is too low to see actual sharpness differences but A looks like it might be sharper in the areas with text.
I really wonder if someone at Thypoch literally wanted to make a clone of the Lux.
I’m going A as the Lux, but difficult to tell at this resolution. Bokeh slightly different and from what I can tell A shows a hair bit more details. The rendering is so similar on both, I would almost think both shots are the same lens. It comes down to…do you want to spend an extra $2,000 - $2,500 for what I would consider slightly better handling?
Can you guess which one is A and which is B?
I notice Leica lens seems to suppress the highlights a little, thus my guess is A = Leica. I've seen similar phenomenon in the 28lux vs 28nokton perhaps less apparent. I'd say having slightly suppressed highlights help with dynamic range, but with today's digital sensor it probably not so relevant.
Nov 10, 2024 at 07:41 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
rsolti13 wrote:
I’m going A as the Lux, but difficult to tell at this resolution. Bokeh slightly different and from what I can tell A shows a hair bit more details. The rendering is so similar on both, I would almost think both shots are the same lens. It comes down to…do you want to spend an extra $2,000 - $2,500 for what I would consider slightly better handling?
Circling back, the kickstand spring and the inside of the front wheel are areas I'm revisiting. Although, I do have to give consideration to micro focusing differences. So, here we are again at PDC.
Probably the most PDC blind test I've seen for a very long time ... if not, ever (that I recall). The contrast diff seems to be the most noticeable margin of difference, everything else is even less noticeable than that.
If I had the Lux, the Simera would make a great "duplicate" lens to take in places where I would hate to lose a lens because of its $$$ value. In that scenario, the handling difference would be a worthwhile trade-off, with giving up very little IQ.
I wasn't planning on getting a 50 Lux ... but, had been considering the Voigt 50/1.5 Vintage II, as an "upgrade" to my 40 Cron for something else to sit between my 35 Cron / 75 Summarit.
I think this shows that the Simera needs a hard look, compared to the Voigt, before I pull the Voigt trigger. But, either way ... the Simera has made a really good showing, here ... giving credence to the point that "more glass" (i.e. the Simera's physical size) can be a good thing. OTOH, what Leica continues to show is how well they are at achieving those levels in a smaller package, where others need a larger package to get on par with Leica IQ. That, and of course they brought it to the market WAY earlier than everyone else (i.e. playing catch up, but still aren't caught up on size vs. IQ).
Kinda boils down to a Size / IQ / $$$ ... "pick two" kinda thing.
(Similar to the proverbial, good / fast / cheap ... pick two).
Of course, if we look at the Size / IQ / $$$ of the SL Lux (diff platform, I know ... just more glass = more light kinda thing), it bears a different perspective on how much size diff there is between the Lux vs. Simera.
Maybe instead of being lazy and with half-baked updates for the 35 and 50 Lux, they should have actually improved the optics while keeping the size small. You'd think given the age of those 2 lenses, they could improve meaningfully. Now we see CV and Thypoch at these price points. Hard to justify as a Leica shooter. Then again, not everyone is worried about justifying their purchases. 
