rover said:
From what I have read, the 35/1.8 is similar in signature to the 2.8. Have you seen this?
Hi Rover,
According to the "35 x 4" test Joe (back alley) did a while ago, it's closer to the f/2. From his test pictures I couldn't see much difference in contrast.
The 35/1.8 design is 6 years older than the 35/2, so it could be a low-contrast lens as well. I will find out soon.
Maybe I can find a 35/3.2 and a 35/3.5 too. I wouldn't expect much from the 4-element 35/3.5 but could imagine that the 35/3.2 is underrated by most, since it has 6 elements alike the 35/2.8.
Lately I gathered a nice black Komura 35/2.8 in LTM. Either it's unsharp or has alignment problems. This needs to be checked first.
What triggers me most is the newly arrived 35/1.5. Nobody seems to have facts but all (except very few who have used it) say the lens is a dog. Similar story as with the 0.95/50. If it would cost 1500 USD like a Summilux 1.4/35 from the same era, probably all these people would talk about "special glow", atmosphere and stuff like that... in terms of cold facts this is what E.Puts wrote about Leica's first 1.4/35:
"At full aperture the overall contrast is
very low . Coarse detail is recorded with clean edges, but becomes much softer
when going to the corners of the picture. Fine detail is rendered with low
contrast and even finer structures are lost in the image noise, as contrast
becomes so low as to blur the small details.
The flare level is on the high side. Stopping down to 1:2.8, overall contrast quite
markedly improves (...)
The long production period of the Summilux is a clear indication
how difficult it is to improve on a well designed lens when the parameters are
really difficult (1,4 and an angle of 64º are heavy obstacles for a designer.
Vignetting is high with almost 3stops and distortion is not
detectible. The Summilux, when compared to the Summicron version of its day showed a much lower contrast at wider apertures, but when stopped down had better performance in the field.
Sounds like a good picture taker? Obviously, most photographs, different to Puts, don't have a clue that design of a 35/1.4 is
a bit more demanding than of a 50/1.4!
It can be expected the performance of the Canon 35/1.5 is equally "poor" wide open... means, stop-it-down except you
must use wide-open, or need the small DOF. At least the light falloff could be a little better due to the large front element, which - on the other hand - could collect wrong light and flare even more than the Summilux.
Well: what's nice about the 35/1.5 - it's
much smaller than the 50/0.95, far less intrusive, and can be used on my Bessa's. Let's wait for one or two BBQ/ candle-light evenings where I can take it around, and see the results...
