raid
Dad Photographer
Sparrow said:
Stewart, Which image gallery did you favor; A or B ?
Raid
Field testing : Summilux and the Beast
- Thread starter raid
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 57
- Views 3K
Stewart, Which image gallery did you favor; A or B ?
Raid
raid
Dad Photographer
There is always the option to use a faster film and get a 35mm/2 ... with many terrific options!
Raid
Raid
Sparrow
Veteran
raid said:
I’ve sent a PM; I don’t want to distract Magus
🙂
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
M
Magus
Guest
Intuition is the Short Cut through Logic.
Intuition is the Short Cut through Logic.
Post deleted by posters request
Intuition is the Short Cut through Logic.
Post deleted by posters request
Last edited:
raid
Dad Photographer
Dear Magus: Thank you for the summary of the main lens optical charcateristics. Which lens is Lens A (or B), and which do you like more?
(i) As I said, I am very familiar with the ASPH Summilux's fingerprint and know many CVs fairly well. One of the defining characteristics of the Leica ASPH lenses is their OOF rendition. These lenses are better-corrected and therefore the OOF is 'better corrected', making for a rendition that is my preferred one but one that many don't prefer - they often characterise it as 'harsh' and tend to prefer the 'creamier' OOFs of older-generation lenses or non-ASPH lenses. Here the two lenses under discussion show precisely those characteristics (cfr. A13/B12, look at B13, B15 and compare the OOF rendition to the similarly corresponding shots in set A.
It is here where I first noticed a clear difference between these two lenses. One lens has a "harsher" [!] OOF look than the other. I am one of "those guys" who like the creamier look. Maybe it's just me.
(ii) Micro-contrast in the ASPH Summilux shows up in a very specific way. It is quite high; the CV lenses are mushier in this respect - which is my basic issue with them. Again, this matches what I saw (cfr. the wheels and backs of the cars in A17/B16 as well as the detail on that inflatable thingy in all those shots).(iii) Macro-contrast and acutance ditto - the bearded artist series shows this quite well.
This is an interesting point, Magus. The optical designs are not identical, and such fine points are results of the designs.
(iii) Handling of flare: the ASPH Summilux can be a sinner here, especially without the hood. The Nokton, however, is a greater sinner (it is, after all, a "beast" ). Again, this is what I see in the photographs (A30/B29).
I used the lens hood with each of the two lenses.
Now that we have successfully "confused" quite a few people here, what is the conclusion? Is one lens [based on my flawed field test] more appealing than the other or does each lens have its support group?
(a) Both lenses are big for a RFF camera, but the CV lens appears much larger than the Lux.
(b) The CV snapped into focus better for my eyes than the Lux.
(c) The Lux is more expensive than the CV.
(d) The CV has a max aperture of 1.2 vs. a 1.4 for the Lux.
(e) My personal taste in the external look of lenses makes me favor the Lux over the CV lens.
Points (c) and (d) would be the decisive points for my own personal decision making if one day I were to look to buy one of these two lenses. If the cost of the Lux seems "too high" [it is costly!], then it is very clear that the CV is a better option with respect to cost. If shooting wide open in very dark rooms is the main reason for getting a fast lens, then a 1.2 max aperture may prove to be a better choice than the 1.4 max aperture unless you are willing to compensate with a faster film or maybe adjust the developing process of B&W film.
If neither a 1.4 or 1.2 is really needed, there are plenty of first class 35mm lenses with max aperture of 2.0 available.
This is just my overall stream of thought at this point.
Cheers,
Raid
(i) As I said, I am very familiar with the ASPH Summilux's fingerprint and know many CVs fairly well. One of the defining characteristics of the Leica ASPH lenses is their OOF rendition. These lenses are better-corrected and therefore the OOF is 'better corrected', making for a rendition that is my preferred one but one that many don't prefer - they often characterise it as 'harsh' and tend to prefer the 'creamier' OOFs of older-generation lenses or non-ASPH lenses. Here the two lenses under discussion show precisely those characteristics (cfr. A13/B12, look at B13, B15 and compare the OOF rendition to the similarly corresponding shots in set A.
It is here where I first noticed a clear difference between these two lenses. One lens has a "harsher" [!] OOF look than the other. I am one of "those guys" who like the creamier look. Maybe it's just me.
(ii) Micro-contrast in the ASPH Summilux shows up in a very specific way. It is quite high; the CV lenses are mushier in this respect - which is my basic issue with them. Again, this matches what I saw (cfr. the wheels and backs of the cars in A17/B16 as well as the detail on that inflatable thingy in all those shots).(iii) Macro-contrast and acutance ditto - the bearded artist series shows this quite well.
This is an interesting point, Magus. The optical designs are not identical, and such fine points are results of the designs.
(iii) Handling of flare: the ASPH Summilux can be a sinner here, especially without the hood. The Nokton, however, is a greater sinner (it is, after all, a "beast" ). Again, this is what I see in the photographs (A30/B29).
I used the lens hood with each of the two lenses.
Now that we have successfully "confused" quite a few people here, what is the conclusion? Is one lens [based on my flawed field test] more appealing than the other or does each lens have its support group?
(a) Both lenses are big for a RFF camera, but the CV lens appears much larger than the Lux.
(b) The CV snapped into focus better for my eyes than the Lux.
(c) The Lux is more expensive than the CV.
(d) The CV has a max aperture of 1.2 vs. a 1.4 for the Lux.
(e) My personal taste in the external look of lenses makes me favor the Lux over the CV lens.
Points (c) and (d) would be the decisive points for my own personal decision making if one day I were to look to buy one of these two lenses. If the cost of the Lux seems "too high" [it is costly!], then it is very clear that the CV is a better option with respect to cost. If shooting wide open in very dark rooms is the main reason for getting a fast lens, then a 1.2 max aperture may prove to be a better choice than the 1.4 max aperture unless you are willing to compensate with a faster film or maybe adjust the developing process of B&W film.
If neither a 1.4 or 1.2 is really needed, there are plenty of first class 35mm lenses with max aperture of 2.0 available.
This is just my overall stream of thought at this point.
Cheers,
Raid
Last edited:
raid
Dad Photographer
OK, ... here it goes:
I labeled Roll # 11 and Roll # 12 and mailed them off to Rav, after having written down which roll was used with which lens and in which order. I am GLAD that I also wrote down that I had forgotten to take off the lens cover for three shots with the Lux, and accordingly there should be three blank negatives for the front porch photos. The blank negative have such cleared the mystery for myself here.
I don't know what happened, but somehow the roll labeling looks reversed [what I have as Roll # 11 looks now as Roll # 12]. As if there was not enough confusion! However, the note on the three missed shots due to leaving the lens cap on saved the day for me.
I even informed Roland and Rav about what I thought were Lenses A and B.
Now I know which lens is which! Do you?
Just kidding ....
What you have as Lens A is the CV 35mm/1.2 and what you have as Lens B is the 35mm/1.4 Summilux asph.
Unless I am wrong !
Again ... just kidding you!
Raid
I labeled Roll # 11 and Roll # 12 and mailed them off to Rav, after having written down which roll was used with which lens and in which order. I am GLAD that I also wrote down that I had forgotten to take off the lens cover for three shots with the Lux, and accordingly there should be three blank negatives for the front porch photos. The blank negative have such cleared the mystery for myself here.
I don't know what happened, but somehow the roll labeling looks reversed [what I have as Roll # 11 looks now as Roll # 12]. As if there was not enough confusion! However, the note on the three missed shots due to leaving the lens cap on saved the day for me.
I even informed Roland and Rav about what I thought were Lenses A and B.
Now I know which lens is which! Do you?
Just kidding ....
What you have as Lens A is the CV 35mm/1.2 and what you have as Lens B is the 35mm/1.4 Summilux asph.
Unless I am wrong !
Again ... just kidding you!
Raid
Last edited:
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
Last edited:
raid
Dad Photographer
Dear Magus: You guessed [or identified] before my last posting.
Raid
Raid
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
Sparrow
Veteran
I selected B Magus, however I am as you know cheap, a Yorkshire trait, and the difference even in good light is such that I won’t regret going for the CV.
Great thread Raid very useful, many thanks
Regards
Great thread Raid very useful, many thanks
Regards
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
raid
Dad Photographer
I just got back another roll of film taken by the Summilux at F 1.4 and 1/15 sec. I will load it up soon. This hopefully will "seal" the test of the Summilux. I sent it back to Fred yesterday.
Raid
Raid
morgan
Well-known
Thanks for doing the test, very interesting. I have a newly arrived 35mm nokton sitting right here, waiting for my R2A to come back from an adjustment, and seeing the signature of the nokton isn't helping my patience. 🙂
raid
Dad Photographer
Morgan: Your Nokton will be an excellent lens. Enjoy it. I have neither of these fine lenses, so I am happy with what I currently own.
Raid
Raid
Similar threads
- Poll
