Tom A
RFF Sponsor
I had two 35f1.4 Asph's. The first one flared so badly that it was useless!!! It was exchanged after some arguments with Leica and after they actually tested it. The new one still flared - not as much as the first one, but I always distrusted it. Problem with Rf is that you only see the flare after the film has been processed!!! The 35f1.4 Asph also had some issues with back focus at close up. Not enough to worry me - once I figured out how to compensate. It is a very sharp lens, even at f1.4 - but the flare issue turned me off it.
ampguy
Veteran
Hi Tom
Hi Tom
I know what you mean about the wide open flare, sometimes it's a nice glow, and other times it's FTW?! so with film I bracket when I can and do a 1.4 and 1.7 shot. Usually both end up fine but on occasion the 1.4 has a tad of veling flare that the 1.7 half stop down doesn't.
I do feel that if it flares all the time at 1.4, then there might be haze or dust or something in the lens. As I certainly have a lot of just normal non-flared 1.4 shots in various daylight and mixed lighting indoor scenes, taken on the first shot.
I also have a rect 12526 hood, but not sure it does more than the 12504 round one wrt flare.
I realize most folks like to make fun of this photo blogger, but he's also got some good examples of non or low flare wide open shots:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/35mm-f14
The 35 asph was always too big, too much distortion, and too expensive for me, but I've seen some good photos from that lens. Any truth that there is a new 35 asph in the works?
In any case, while I don't understand it, the worst lux photo's I take look better than the best CV 35/1.4 photos I've seen. Is it all the distortion or focus shift in the CV's? Many people whom I trust know what they are doing have found the 35/1.4 likable and usable, so I will actually try that lens someday, to try to figure out what it is I'm missing about that lens.
Hi Tom
I know what you mean about the wide open flare, sometimes it's a nice glow, and other times it's FTW?! so with film I bracket when I can and do a 1.4 and 1.7 shot. Usually both end up fine but on occasion the 1.4 has a tad of veling flare that the 1.7 half stop down doesn't.
I do feel that if it flares all the time at 1.4, then there might be haze or dust or something in the lens. As I certainly have a lot of just normal non-flared 1.4 shots in various daylight and mixed lighting indoor scenes, taken on the first shot.
I also have a rect 12526 hood, but not sure it does more than the 12504 round one wrt flare.
I realize most folks like to make fun of this photo blogger, but he's also got some good examples of non or low flare wide open shots:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/35mm-f14
The 35 asph was always too big, too much distortion, and too expensive for me, but I've seen some good photos from that lens. Any truth that there is a new 35 asph in the works?
In any case, while I don't understand it, the worst lux photo's I take look better than the best CV 35/1.4 photos I've seen. Is it all the distortion or focus shift in the CV's? Many people whom I trust know what they are doing have found the 35/1.4 likable and usable, so I will actually try that lens someday, to try to figure out what it is I'm missing about that lens.
herzie
Member
I wonder about the high second-hand price for this lens. What price do you think is reasonable?
Lord Fluff
Established
I too am pondering this exact same choice. I tried a Lux once (in a fairly dark shop) with no VF magnifier, and to be honest the results were rubbish. I keep looking back at the shots I took and trying to determine what part I played in the rubbishness, and I suspect it was a big one.
The thing is, I want it as a wedding lens - kind of an equivalent to my Canon 85/1.2 - so I'm used to demanding lenses, though wide open the 85 will always nail one little plane of sharp focus - my Lux shots seemed soft everywhere.
But, is the focussing ring always really stiff on the Lux? Maybe it's supposed to help, but it didn’t for me I have to say.
I've seen great results from the Lux stopped down, crazy sharp with lovely bokeh, but then I do ponder if you're using the lens that way then you may as well buy a Cron?
I'm sure the Lux is the better 'investment', but will I produce more great shots with it? So hard to tell......
The thing is, I want it as a wedding lens - kind of an equivalent to my Canon 85/1.2 - so I'm used to demanding lenses, though wide open the 85 will always nail one little plane of sharp focus - my Lux shots seemed soft everywhere.
But, is the focussing ring always really stiff on the Lux? Maybe it's supposed to help, but it didn’t for me I have to say.
I've seen great results from the Lux stopped down, crazy sharp with lovely bokeh, but then I do ponder if you're using the lens that way then you may as well buy a Cron?
I'm sure the Lux is the better 'investment', but will I produce more great shots with it? So hard to tell......