Renzsu
Well-known
Flare with the 1.2, it does happen indeed, but when it does, I kind of like it 🙂
Camera on tripod, subject on a slatted table with varied background. Pictures taken at 1 stop aperture intervals from f1.4 to f16. Camera refocused each time on same part of object in case focus ring was moved as a result of changing the aperture.
Focus point remained in sharp focus throughout, depth of field (clearly defined by slatted table) increased as expected from a few centimetres to several metres.
I'm not claiming my tests were optical bench laboratory standard but as an empirical evaluation they were good enough to stop me worrying about the lens.
.....Maybe it's just not the lens for me, that's why I'm looking for some feedback on other lenses to make a decision whether to keep it or not 🙂
Wow, funny how people see things differently. That's exactly the type of rendering from this lens that I love 🙂
[edit] Thanks, Roland, I've tried using a matte tape on the inner side of the hood thread and also tried the same with a step-up adapter ring I have, covering the entire surface of the inner thread, but I'm still getting the round flares... even with the hood. 🙁
From my messing with the 35mm summilux pre-asph, the round flares come from light hitting the very edge of the lens at f1.4. Hoods can't help much with this. On the pre-asph, it is very hard to get round flares when stopping it down to f1.7. By f2, I can't make round flares happen on the two copies I've used. When I need f1.4, I accept the abberations and potential for round flares. At f2 and smaller apertures, images are quite similar to the version 4 summicron (I can't tell them apart when I had both), but with its streched design, there are consequences at f1.4 that people either like or don't.
Umcelinho, assuming the CV Nokton has a similar design, were your photos all at f1.4?