N.delaRua
Well-known
What is the 28 mm summiduper???
P.S. Lovely lens, very lovely lens and relative to the competition seems like a "bargain."
P.S. Lovely lens, very lovely lens and relative to the competition seems like a "bargain."
sazerac
Well-known
Great shots! Thank you for posting. The contrast definitely looks improved but at the cost of the bokeh. Anybody got a side by side of images from the v1 vs v2?
Moriturii
Well-known
Just me or does anything think that all bokeh look alike? This looks the same as all other bokehs I've seen, except for ones that have swirly bokeh like Summarit.
Bokeh blind.
Bokeh blind.
leicashot
Well-known
Ok so I've inspected my first full rez DNG file and I'm convinced this lens could be as sharp as the Summilux ASPH. Personally I was always prepared to sacrifice 'a little' bokeh for sharpness wide open
jlindstrom
Established
It s an old "joke"..
see this: http://leica-users.org/v20/msg07414.html
summidupe is in the last lines.
scottwallick
ambition ≥ skill
I'm going to have both lenses next week; shall I do a few side-by-side comparison shots with the M9 or will that just cause rage?
Bruin
Noktonian
At f1.2 vs. f1.4, or f1.4 for both?
Wobba
Member
Yes, on balance the new Nokton is quite a remarkable lens.
I was referring to the 28 Summicron.
Wobba
Member
Just me or does anything think that all bokeh look alike? This looks the same as all other bokehs I've seen, except for ones that have swirly bokeh like Summarit.
Bokeh blind.
A lot of emphasis is placed on bokeh but there are many other attributes that weigh in to whether I prefer one lens over another. The Summarit, in my view, has the best bokeh of all the Leica 35's.
Wobba
Member
Interesting. I was not aware of this joke. I made up this dopey term on the fly in referring to the 28 CRON I had just purchased.
leicashot
Well-known
Even though I'm feeling sick I'm going to do a few quick and nasty comparison shots in the next few hours.....
Wobba
Member
Go for it. Why the rage? There's no such thing as the perfect lens. There are many factors that need to be considered and balanced in choosing a lens and bokeh is just one of them. I have no idea whether the bokeh of the v1 is better or not. Either way, the bokeh of the v2 is pretty good and better than any Leica ASPH lens I have owned. When you also consider that the v2 is very sharp from wide open, with good contrast, zero focus shift, and renders beautifully for 1/5 the price of a new 35 LUX ASPH, you just can't go wrong.
Wobba
Member
Good stuff !!
umcelinho
Marcelo
looks like there is no bullseye effect on light balls... which sounds pretty good to me! it's one thing i just am not a fan of in this lens
Leica All Day
Veteran
thanks a lot man.......taking one for the team......I am pretty sure there are a lot of us waiting for a comprehensive review from you......go for it....
cheers, michael
leicashot
Well-known
Firstly, let me thank Stephen at Cameraquest for getting me this lens, great service as usual....
Ok now so here we go. Here are my first impressions on the design, build and size/weight.
Box/presentation: Typical Voigtlander, no frills but well packaged, but now with the addition of the word 'aspherical' added to the box's exterior.
Size: A little thinner, it obvious Voigtlander has given this lens a notable workout. As soon as you pick it up it feels smaller - not significantly, but noticeable and its very welcomed. It also feels and looks like a tiny bit shorter.
Weight: I haven't weighed then because knowing the specs means nothing to me. in the hand they feel about the same.
Design: This one is a little more handsome. It's black paint finish is less glossy then verison 1 and more like the typical Leica lenses. Lens index and aperture numbers are all engraved as before. It's focus now goes down to 0.5M, that's 20cm closer, although the M rangefinder does not couple that close so you'll 'need to remember' this when shooting. For M 4/3 cameras and others with live view, this addition will make this lens an easy upgrade decision for many who like to work in close range, as this is the only 35mm rangefinder lens in the world with a 1.2 aperture and 0.5M close focus limit/ability.
The focus ring has been widened which I didn't really notice in use but it's nice and there's a little more distance between the focus ring and the aperture ring. Focus throw is very similar, though I didn't directly compare them. Even with the extra 0.2M on version II it doesn't seem much/if any longer, but you must watch out when focusing. When I want to get close I usually twist the focus ring all the way to 0.7M and line up the rangefinder patch. You can't do it that way with this one, so extra care must be taken.
At the front of the lens lies a bayonet silver filter end just like it's Zeiss ZM cousins which I believe looks handsome, and actually makes the lens look shorter. The optional LH-8 hood clicks and turns onto the bayonet mount and costs an extra $109.
Also there is a welcomed red dot to assit in mounting the lens to body. Previously on the mount was a little red mark.
Glass: The glass coating and concave shape 'appear to be' identical.
Aperture blades: Same with the aperture blades, here at f/4.
Accessories: Because the small hood IS NOT included Voigtlander are now including a nice pinch lens cap found with some of their other lenses. So no more hood cap.
Build Quality: Identical. No more or less feeling of quality with the version II.
On the body, the lens lens looks a little smaller, but black always does compared to chrome/silver. In the hands is where you feel it's obvious slimming down. A very welcome change.
Ok now so here we go. Here are my first impressions on the design, build and size/weight.
Box/presentation: Typical Voigtlander, no frills but well packaged, but now with the addition of the word 'aspherical' added to the box's exterior.
Size: A little thinner, it obvious Voigtlander has given this lens a notable workout. As soon as you pick it up it feels smaller - not significantly, but noticeable and its very welcomed. It also feels and looks like a tiny bit shorter.
Weight: I haven't weighed then because knowing the specs means nothing to me. in the hand they feel about the same.
Design: This one is a little more handsome. It's black paint finish is less glossy then verison 1 and more like the typical Leica lenses. Lens index and aperture numbers are all engraved as before. It's focus now goes down to 0.5M, that's 20cm closer, although the M rangefinder does not couple that close so you'll 'need to remember' this when shooting. For M 4/3 cameras and others with live view, this addition will make this lens an easy upgrade decision for many who like to work in close range, as this is the only 35mm rangefinder lens in the world with a 1.2 aperture and 0.5M close focus limit/ability.
The focus ring has been widened which I didn't really notice in use but it's nice and there's a little more distance between the focus ring and the aperture ring. Focus throw is very similar, though I didn't directly compare them. Even with the extra 0.2M on version II it doesn't seem much/if any longer, but you must watch out when focusing. When I want to get close I usually twist the focus ring all the way to 0.7M and line up the rangefinder patch. You can't do it that way with this one, so extra care must be taken.
At the front of the lens lies a bayonet silver filter end just like it's Zeiss ZM cousins which I believe looks handsome, and actually makes the lens look shorter. The optional LH-8 hood clicks and turns onto the bayonet mount and costs an extra $109.
Also there is a welcomed red dot to assit in mounting the lens to body. Previously on the mount was a little red mark.
Glass: The glass coating and concave shape 'appear to be' identical.
Aperture blades: Same with the aperture blades, here at f/4.
Accessories: Because the small hood IS NOT included Voigtlander are now including a nice pinch lens cap found with some of their other lenses. So no more hood cap.
Build Quality: Identical. No more or less feeling of quality with the version II.
On the body, the lens lens looks a little smaller, but black always does compared to chrome/silver. In the hands is where you feel it's obvious slimming down. A very welcome change.
Last edited:
leicashot
Well-known
Bokeh testing
Bokeh testing
Ok so I only had 5 minutes to do this test so I chose to focus on bokeh wide open, considering it appears to be the main subject of discussion so far in the comparison.
The simple answer is, there is no difference. While you may be able to find slight differences, remember this was not a controlled test, just a quick and nasty one. These are downsized jpegs straight from the DNG/Lightroom. Nothing has been added to these images except for an exposure adjustment of -0.4 stop exposure on some of the rose pics outside as my exposure was at 1/4000sec with an opening of 1.2.
My subjective opinion is that the version II has slightly more sharpness wide open, but its very close. Color and contrast 'appear' to be the same, which has always been fine with me. Both lenses handle highlights very well. Frankly I'm relieved that they have not changed the legend!
...lucky because I no longer own the silver V1, which is now on it's way to its new lucky owner.
So here goes.....
V2
V1
V2
V1
V2 crop
V1 crop
V2 close focus 0.5M
V2
V1
V2 close focus 0.5M
V2
V1
V2
V1
V2 close focus 0.5M
EDIT NOTE: Also in terms of colors, I did leave the camera in Auto white balance which is a 'no-no' in testing environments. Colors could change from exposure to exposure, although everything does look consistent between the lenses as if they were the same lens.
Also, in addition, after more testing (sorry personal pictures, so can't post) I must conclude that the new lens indeed does show more sharpness wide open. It still doesn't have the absolute 'bite' of the Summilux ASPH, bu thats quite ok as it still retains it's charm and wonderful signature making it a mush smoother rendering lens than the Summilux ASPH. When I mean 'ASPH' I am referring to both pre-FLE and FLE, which I have tested side by side and found very little difference (focus issues aside). > If anyone in the CA area wants to compare their FLE to this lens I'd be happy to battle and post the results here.
So to conclude, unless you're blowing images up or pixel peeping, I really don't see a strong argument to upgrade, unless you're using the lens with live view, where the closer 0.5M focus will come in handy. For me personally, the smaller footprint and sharpness improvement wide open make it worth the upgrade.
Bokeh testing
Ok so I only had 5 minutes to do this test so I chose to focus on bokeh wide open, considering it appears to be the main subject of discussion so far in the comparison.
The simple answer is, there is no difference. While you may be able to find slight differences, remember this was not a controlled test, just a quick and nasty one. These are downsized jpegs straight from the DNG/Lightroom. Nothing has been added to these images except for an exposure adjustment of -0.4 stop exposure on some of the rose pics outside as my exposure was at 1/4000sec with an opening of 1.2.
My subjective opinion is that the version II has slightly more sharpness wide open, but its very close. Color and contrast 'appear' to be the same, which has always been fine with me. Both lenses handle highlights very well. Frankly I'm relieved that they have not changed the legend!
...lucky because I no longer own the silver V1, which is now on it's way to its new lucky owner.
So here goes.....
V2
V1
V2
V1
V2 crop
V1 crop
V2 close focus 0.5M
V2
V1
V2 close focus 0.5M
V2
V1
V2
V1
V2 close focus 0.5M
EDIT NOTE: Also in terms of colors, I did leave the camera in Auto white balance which is a 'no-no' in testing environments. Colors could change from exposure to exposure, although everything does look consistent between the lenses as if they were the same lens.
Also, in addition, after more testing (sorry personal pictures, so can't post) I must conclude that the new lens indeed does show more sharpness wide open. It still doesn't have the absolute 'bite' of the Summilux ASPH, bu thats quite ok as it still retains it's charm and wonderful signature making it a mush smoother rendering lens than the Summilux ASPH. When I mean 'ASPH' I am referring to both pre-FLE and FLE, which I have tested side by side and found very little difference (focus issues aside). > If anyone in the CA area wants to compare their FLE to this lens I'd be happy to battle and post the results here.
So to conclude, unless you're blowing images up or pixel peeping, I really don't see a strong argument to upgrade, unless you're using the lens with live view, where the closer 0.5M focus will come in handy. For me personally, the smaller footprint and sharpness improvement wide open make it worth the upgrade.
Last edited:
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Looks identical to me.