Steve Spencer
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.8 #19 · Thypoch Simera 50mm f/1.4 ASPH. Review | |
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Good thought Steve but not sure I agree. From what we are seeing from Fred, this 50/1.4 is pretty high contrast (aside from flare interference)--maybe not quite as high as the 50 Lux, but pretty similar with a better midzone. The 50 Lux and 35 Lux (you have owned both, but tell me if you disagree) are both quite high contrast WO, especially centrally.
The 35/1.4 Simera is soft WO. My copy, even centrally, shot on a modded sensor or Stock, had pretty diminished contrasts. Resolution was fine.
So, to my mind, we have 3 of 4 lenses with quite high contrast WO, and one outlier. Having said that, your theory might hold and be right with the other aspecs from Thypoch--like flare, bokeh with the rounded many blades, etc.
We see they already dropped the horrible infinite lock. So there is inconsistency there already. I just think they released a not great 35mm, and they are learning as they go, as many newer companies do.
Makes me wonder what the 75mm will shoot like.
And now that I think about it, what Thypoch did reminds me a bit of the ZA 35/1.4 and ZA 50/1.4, with one being much high contrast than the other....Show more →
After reviewing more pictures from the Simera 35, I think you are right that it really has fairly low contrast even in the center and in that way it is quite different from the Leica M 35 lux Asph FLE, the Leica 50 lux Asph, and the Simera 50 f/1.4. Thanks for pointing that out. If Thypoch was aiming for a similar look for the 35 f/1.4 and 50 f/1.4 Simera then they really didn't achieve that for contrast, perhaps in bokeh and perhaps in more even performance across the frame, but not in contrast which I find pretty crucial.
I really like what I see in this review of the 50 f/1.4 Simera and as always I find Fred has done an excellent job in giving a feel for that lens in this review. I always liked the 50 lux Asph despite its weaknesses (propensity to flare, mid zone softness at narrower apertures, and sawtooth bokeh balls at times) and I think I would like the Simera optically at least as much.
I never fully took to the 35 lux Asph FLE. It was a great lens for contrast in the center especially, but for me the bokeh was too structured (i.e., harsh) at times and the transition zone often wasn't smooth. I also was bothered more by its midzone weakness on the M10. Still I loved its ergonomics and there is a lot to like about this lens even though I found myself wanting an alternative.
It does not look like the Simera 35 f/1.4 will be that alternative. Hopefully Fred will do a full review of that lens and I will know for sure, but it sure doesn't look like I will be interested.
My favorite 35mm that I have used by a pretty big margin is the Zeiss ZM 35 f/1.4, but it is pretty big on a Leica M camera. I am enjoying shooting manual focussing lenses on my Sony A7r V at the moment, however, and I think I might really like that lens on a Kolari modified Sony (especially if I get my A7r V modified at some point). Right now I am using a CV 40 f/1.2 on my Sony A7r V, which I like but has some annoying weaknesses (mainly more axial CA than I like and weaker close up performance than I like).
I am waiting to see if a 35mm for a Leica M camera comes along that I like better. If it does I may in a few years acquire a Leica M10R or M11, but if it doesn't then I will probably just get my Sony A7r V modified with a thin sensor stack and go with the Zeiss ZM and in the mean time live with my CV 40 f/1.2.
|
