foto_fool
Well-known
tbarker13 said:
And I think Noriaki may have bought all of them
. Following Roland's advice above, I went back and rescanned 30 comparison frames. I dug into the Silverfast options and made sure auto-contrast was off (it was), turned off sharpening and picked "other monochrome" as the negative type as I have found this setting to provide the least amount of auto processing. I set the level sliders for darks, mids and highs at 0, 0, and 255 (full range) and set the input/output at 5/250/0/255 to provide a little headroom.
Then I scanned each frame as a 16-bit TIFF, opened each in Photoshop and checked the histogram, and pulled the numbers into a chart. If anyone wants to see the numbers and charts, pm me or post here and I will put them up. But frankly I think they demonstrate small changes in lighting and slight under- and over-exposure from frame to frame rather than any intrinsic transmission or contrast differences between the lenses.
So next time I do an amateurish lens test I will surely use a body with AE, at least if I want to compare these characteristics.
Still, I am satisfied with the real-world observations in this comparison. I satisfied my curiosity about the 35/1.4 Nokton and am happy it is part of my kit. I also convinced myself that I don't need to sell any one of these lenses. In this respect I don't know if I can view the comparison as a success or a failure
.
MikeL
Go Fish
John, I have a Biogon I can drop off if you ever get the itch to do this again, in case you are thinking about having four 35mm lenses.
foto_fool
Well-known
Thanks Mike, but I do not need four 35's! The point of this exercise was to get down to two, but I can't do it - lack of will.
I come late to using the 35mm focal length - been using 50's most of my life, and until recently I thought the only reason for owning a 35 was to give me a 50mm equivalent on the R-D1. But I'm getting used to them and enjoying the change in perspective.
Matt(1pt4)
Established
Cool test. Thanks for posting the results.
Damaso
Photojournalist
I was very excited about the idea of the CV 35 1.4 but the more I see the images the less excited I am. I think what I really want is a Lux Asph but of course the question is one of money. Do I get the CV with the faster half stop and .7 focusing distance (compared to what I have now) or wait it out? Hmmmm.....
foto_fool
Well-known
Damaso - If you will accept the opinion of a rank amateur, after looking through your blog it seems to me that the CV would have done fine for 95%+ of the shots you show there. And the Summilux ASPH is bigger than your Ultron.
But IME once I start asking myself if I want/need a particular lens it's like an itch that won't go away.
But IME once I start asking myself if I want/need a particular lens it's like an itch that won't go away.
volvohagi
Member
2) The Summilux is sharper near-field and much softer far-field than the other two lenses.
thanks for the comparions
maybe lux asph do nicer because its asph in the near-field at f1.4-f4
new nokton is just a retro design,so the shortcome comes ^@^
thanks for the comparions
maybe lux asph do nicer because its asph in the near-field at f1.4-f4
new nokton is just a retro design,so the shortcome comes ^@^
foto_fool
Well-known
I started this experiment to see if I wanted to sell one of these 35's and determined I didn't. They each do something well, two by being small, two by being fast (there is some overlap) and one by being close to perfect despite its size, IMO .
I'm planning the color comparison, I hope with the addition of a 35mm Biogon loaner. With or without the extra lens I plan to shoot these on the R-D1 for sure, but I will take advice on the film body.
I want to avoid the issues I had on the last outing with the +/- quarter to half stop variation in the shots from the meter on the M6. That means something with AE. (Yes I know I maybe could read the little M6 triangles a little more carefully, or use an external meter, but I want this to be easier.)
I don't have an M7. My choices are Zeiss Ikon or Hexar RF. I have a magnifier from HKSupplies for the Hexar so the EBL is the same on both, though the wider physical baselength on the ZI theoretically makes for more accurate focusing. The auto film advance on the HRF is a plus. The faster shutter on the HRF won't be a factor, since I will probably be using slow film.
Absent advice to the contrary I will probably go with the ZI, just for its cleaner viewfinder.
Film? Superia 200 I can get developed locally. Chromes of any sort will take longer to get back. Maybe I will shoot a roll of each.
Rainy weather forecast for this weekend, but warmer, clear and dry next week. With luck I might have something to post by Easter weekend.
. I'm planning the color comparison, I hope with the addition of a 35mm Biogon loaner. With or without the extra lens I plan to shoot these on the R-D1 for sure, but I will take advice on the film body.
I want to avoid the issues I had on the last outing with the +/- quarter to half stop variation in the shots from the meter on the M6. That means something with AE. (Yes I know I maybe could read the little M6 triangles a little more carefully, or use an external meter, but I want this to be easier.)
I don't have an M7. My choices are Zeiss Ikon or Hexar RF. I have a magnifier from HKSupplies for the Hexar so the EBL is the same on both, though the wider physical baselength on the ZI theoretically makes for more accurate focusing. The auto film advance on the HRF is a plus. The faster shutter on the HRF won't be a factor, since I will probably be using slow film.
Absent advice to the contrary I will probably go with the ZI, just for its cleaner viewfinder.
Film? Superia 200 I can get developed locally. Chromes of any sort will take longer to get back. Maybe I will shoot a roll of each.
Rainy weather forecast for this weekend, but warmer, clear and dry next week. With luck I might have something to post by Easter weekend.
Damaso
Photojournalist
You may well be correct foto_fool. But I also feel like I want something a bit sharper (I am planning on making large prints at some point. I guess I will have to at least try out the CV 35. I don't have any complaints with my 1.7 except the corner sharpness. The size of the Lux asph doesn't really put me off since I am still recovering from SLRs...
venchka
Veteran
For the shoppers
For the shoppers
Bump!
For the shoppers
Bump!
MCTuomey
Veteran
joe, when i had an R-D1 the 35/2.8 canon ltm lived on it. especially outdoors. perfection. imvho.
venchka
Veteran
Can anyone explain this?
Can anyone explain this?
foto_fool, or anyone:
Is this a case where:
A. While sharp, the other two lenses got sharper than the Konica lens?
B. The Konica lens lost sharpness?
Was there anything wrong with the Konica lens at 5.6 or 8.0? I have a tendency to use 5.6 and 8.0 a lot with my 35/2.0 UC-Hexanon lens. Is this a bad thing?
Thanks!
Can anyone explain this?
foto_fool, or anyone:
Is this a case where:
A. While sharp, the other two lenses got sharper than the Konica lens?
B. The Konica lens lost sharpness?
Was there anything wrong with the Konica lens at 5.6 or 8.0? I have a tendency to use 5.6 and 8.0 a lot with my 35/2.0 UC-Hexanon lens. Is this a bad thing?
Thanks!
venchka
Veteran
Help a brother out
Help a brother out
"Bueller? Bueller? Anybody?"
Last Saturday, in the harsh Texas noonday sun, I found myself using f/4.0 and f/11 and avoiding f/5.6 & f/8. Lens is the 35mm UC-Hexanon. Was this silly?
Help a brother out
"Bueller? Bueller? Anybody?"
Last Saturday, in the harsh Texas noonday sun, I found myself using f/4.0 and f/11 and avoiding f/5.6 & f/8. Lens is the 35mm UC-Hexanon. Was this silly?
Last edited:
__hh
Well-known
Thanks for this comparison.
I have the 35mm Lux and the UC-Hex myself. I actually sold the UC-Hex a few weeks ago. Thankfully, the buyer (I refrain from using any unsavory terms here) wanted a refund because the paint on the lens cap had a flake on it (black paint on Konicas does that all the time). I am now a proud owner of this lens again and I will unlikely let it go.
The biggest "drawback" of the UC-Hex is its 0.9m close focusing distance. However, my other 35mm lens can do the 0.7m and the extra stop at F1.4.
The utility, tactile feel, size, compactness, build quality, and (most importantly) the image making potential makes the UC-Hexanon a keeper for me. On a standard 0.72x VF camera, this lens is really handy and the whole kit is very small. You don't actually need the hood on it most times because it is also flare resistant.
Paired with the 'Lux, I don't miss my V4 Summicron anymore.
I have the 35mm Lux and the UC-Hex myself. I actually sold the UC-Hex a few weeks ago. Thankfully, the buyer (I refrain from using any unsavory terms here) wanted a refund because the paint on the lens cap had a flake on it (black paint on Konicas does that all the time). I am now a proud owner of this lens again and I will unlikely let it go.
The biggest "drawback" of the UC-Hex is its 0.9m close focusing distance. However, my other 35mm lens can do the 0.7m and the extra stop at F1.4.
The utility, tactile feel, size, compactness, build quality, and (most importantly) the image making potential makes the UC-Hexanon a keeper for me. On a standard 0.72x VF camera, this lens is really handy and the whole kit is very small. You don't actually need the hood on it most times because it is also flare resistant.
Paired with the 'Lux, I don't miss my V4 Summicron anymore.
jmkelly
rangefinder user
UC Hex paired with the Summilux, I don't miss the 35mm Nokton
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Anyone for a UC-Hexanon-swap? I might have something interesting to trade, I've had this UC-itch for quite some time now, it needs scratching!
venchka
Veteran
OK, so I will stop obsessing. Use f/5.6 and f/8.0 with carefree abandon. I mean, how much sharper than sharp does a guy need?
CLE-RF: If you offer includes paid transportation from Texas to Holland for a face to face trade.............
Grinning.
CLE-RF: If you offer includes paid transportation from Texas to Holland for a face to face trade.............
Grinning.
tbarker13
shooter of stuff
I've never noticed any sharpness issues with mine. But then I also don't spend a lot of time comparing it with other lenses.
I will agree with the earlier comment, however, about the one weakness of this lens - the min focus of .9 meters.
I will agree with the earlier comment, however, about the one weakness of this lens - the min focus of .9 meters.
venchka
Veteran
I own a bushel of cameras that focus closer than .9 meters. If/when I need that.
If you can't deal with focusing at 1 meter, don't buy a rangefinder camera. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
I'm taking two rolls of Kodachrome to Wally World after work. All shot with the 35mm UC-Hexanon and DR Summicron. A few with the Canon 135mm just for something different. We shall see what we shall see.
If you can't deal with focusing at 1 meter, don't buy a rangefinder camera. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
I'm taking two rolls of Kodachrome to Wally World after work. All shot with the 35mm UC-Hexanon and DR Summicron. A few with the Canon 135mm just for something different. We shall see what we shall see.
peter_n
Veteran
I also sold mine a few weeks ago because of the 0.9M near focus and the size of the tab, which I found uncomfortably small. It's a great lens, but the increase in value and the fact that I have three 35s that focus to 0.7M did it for me. No regrets, I think...