New version of 35mm f1.2 mentioned on APUG

[LeicaFoReVer]

the 35 1.1 is going to be a completely different beast from all the previous designs, it's like a painter using a brush made from different hairs. Same width, but completely different look from the other brush of the same width.

the 50 1.4 will give results of similar quality, look and feel of the 50 lux. I'm looking forward to seeing some test shots. But don't expect to seeing anything on flickr till summer.

are those all rumors or confirmed?? 😱

 

[bwcolor]

I've seen the beta software on a modified M9 casing. Still no movie function. But higher ISO, and much improved writing to the SD card. Also better grayscale jpg rendering.

It makes sense that they would use Maestro in 9.2.

 

[former member]

It would not be hard to make a 35mm F1.1 that goes to 0.5m, but it will lose rangefinder coupling at ~0.65m with most cameras. But not with an M-Mount Mirrorless camera, that is not an issue.

They could do what the Nikkor 5cm F1.4 and F2 in LTM do: have a "bump" in the focus to let you know when RF coupling will drop out.


Now- if they want to go much closer than 0.5m, will need floating elements.

 

[RayPA]

Roland -- I agree 100%. Though the distortion was never a big deal breaker for me, yet it was still there. The VF intrusion ruined my RF experience with a "normal" focal length lens.

neither issue is a big one for me. I don't like distortion with smaller street shooting-type lenses, because when I shoot street, I encounter a lot of strong verticals. I never really noticed the distortion with the 35/1.2. However, I use it primarily in my low-light kit, so it gets 'special' use. I did try it on the street a couple of months ago and really noticed the weight after a couple of hours.


/

 

[Krosya]

Conspiracy theories where there are none. Alright, I'll let the cat out of the bag.

Cosina is secretly trying to develop a new 35 f/1.1. (really it's 1.09777) they've got prototypes out - around 5 of them, but they're designing various hoods that don't obstruct the viewfinder anymore than current ones. I've seen the SC version - this will be HUGE in the japanese market. The MC version is expected to be a big seller with M8 and M9 and M9.2 (soon to be announced) owners.

Cosina is also developing a new 50 f/1.4 asph to compete with Leica's offering and it's supposed to be around the $799 price point. The prototypes I've seen are very similar looking in size and weight to the 50 summilux.

FYI, I've never signed an NDA so I can share what I know.

If any of this is true, new 35mm will have a whole new signature, which may or may not be as good as present 35/1.2. If 50/1.1 any indication of how thing will go - I'm not holding my breath.
As far as new 50 asph - that would be interesting to see, but really - old CV 50/1.5 Asph is very very good already. I dont know how they can make a better lens (signature, etc), maybe just slap an M-mount on it, repalcing LTM, and possibly changing barrel a bit, like they did with CV 21, 25, etc. - not sure if it's worth the price increase.
I'm sure there will be new 35 and 50, as the ones they have now are not as good, IMO, as older versions. So they really do need to have some good replacements. Questions is - will they be better? I'm sure they will be more expensive, though. 😱

 

[kevin m]

Less viewfinder intrusion and distortion would be great.

Jeez, it's a 35mm f1.2 lens! If you want/need an f1.2 lens, then distortion and compact size aren't really your chief concerns.

 

[Keith]

What's not happening here is significant ... there has been no comment in this thread by Tom A. If you check his member profile you'll find he visited RFF eleven minutes ago!

That's enough to convince me it's reality!

 

[horosu]

What I would really want is a 35/1.4 that would have the former 35/1.2's performance in a smaller package.

That's all.

Why would they produce ever bigger prototypes/lenses (35/1.1???) when SIZE and not performance was most people's concern with the 1.2 is beyond me.

 

[noimmunity]

The VF intrusion ruined my RF experience with a "normal" focal length lens.

Try it without hood on a ZI: finder blockage is minimal.

 

[kevin m]

..Why would they produce ever bigger prototypes/lenses (35/1.1???) when SIZE and not performance was most people's concern with the 1.2 is beyond me.

Because the f1.2 has a look like no other 35mm lens. That's it in a nutshell. If you like that look then you put up with the size. If the size bugs you, then buy one of the many alternative slower 35's available.

 

[horosu]

Yeah but the look alone didn't sell enough lenses apparently.

Keep the look add the size and you have a winner

Because the f1.2 has a look like no other 35mm lens. That's it in a nutshell. If you like that look then you put up with the size. If the size bugs you, then buy one of the many alternative slower 35's available.

 

[former member]

They sold all that they produced, and did not have to lower prices to clear them out.

I'm very happy with my 35/1.2 Nokton. Also happy with the 35/1.7 Ultron. Those are my two keepers for 35 focal length. The latter is an amazing lens.

 

[Nikkor AIS]

I kind of missed the boat on the 35 1.2 ASPH. I went so far as to have the one at Vintage Visuals in my hand. It just didn't feel right for me at the price Tim was asking.
If the rumour is true and I suspect it is (I will believe anything), I imagine there will be plenty of the 35 1.2 up for sale in the near future.

 

[Doug]

My first guess on the changes was of minimal differences to accommodate the different aspherical surfaces... Try to minimize any other changes, keep as many existing parts as-is. They have a successful product, and unless they had some design modifications in mind anyway, it would make sense for the next run to have as few changes as possible, and match the fine performance.

 

[ferider]

Jeez, it's a 35mm f1.2 lens! If you want/need an f1.2 lens, then distortion and compact size aren't really your chief concerns.

Compact size and visibility are a concern when I use rangefinders.

I personally don't mind the distortion, or weight for that matter. But I refuse to find a lens useful that covers 30% of my view. The speed difference between f1.2 and f1.4 is not significant enough for me.

 

[Keith]

Compact size and visibility are a concern when I use rangefinders.

I personally don't mind the distortion, or weight for that matter. But I refuse to find a lens useful that covers 30% of my view. The speed difference between f1.2 and f1.4 is not significant enough for me.

Dependant on the camera you put it on of course ... on an Ikon you barely see it Roland! 😀

 

[ferider]

You can also use it on a crop M8 where it will intrude less, or on an EVIL body, where it will not intrude at all. Think about all the speed you get ! All your friends will be really jealous that your lens is soooo big 😀 Size actually might help selling this lens, so maybe the new "35/1.1" is even bigger.

 

[former member]

My Cnon 50/0.95 is Big.

These Noktons are teeny.

 

[horosu]

Ditto...🙂

IMHO the goal should be a 35/1.4 aspheric more compact than the recently discontinued one.

Performance-wise everybody liked that lens.

Compact size and visibility are a concern when I use rangefinders.

I personally don't mind the distortion, or weight for that matter. But I refuse to find a lens useful that covers 30% of my view. The speed difference between f1.2 and f1.4 is not significant enough for me.

 

[Never Satisfied]

I have the the 35mm Nokton and it lives on my 8.2, the size is only an issue if you let it be one.
I hope that any changes to the lens don't destroy the presonality it's famous for.
When the 50 1.1 was realeased I nearly sold my cattle station to buy one, but when I saw the results, well I still have my cattle station.
But, I'm glad that someone appart from Leica is still investing money in developing new glass for the M series, without CV it would be Leica or nothing.

Andrew.
P.S. Are you staying dry Keith?