Stopped dreaming....about the Lux

[baycrest]

What's a great lens but basically a tad on the large and heavy side? CV 35mm f/1.2. Its really a great, low contrast, super sharp. But due to its size, I did tend to leave it at home a bit.

The CV 35mm f/1.4, I 've tried a few copies at the store, but couldn't find one that was sharp. Kinda of like fuzzy most of the time.

The Biogon I've got, is not as sharp in the centre as my CV, and I found it a bit too contrasty for my taste, darks too dark, lights too light. Also i'd prefer it at f/1.4.

My situation on those 2 lenses took me into the stores again where a brand new Lux 35 was available (some guy changed his mind after pre-ordering from Solms). I tried it out for 20 minutes, and yes it was lovely. But it was also just under $4,000. Ouch!

So I tried (don't laugh) CV40 Classic f/1.4 and the Classic Sinigle Coat. My own taste had me preferring the Multi-coated lens, which did surprise me. While there was a difference between the CV40 and the Lux. It didn't seem to be worth the $3,700+ difference.

You know I was really hoping after lusting after the Lux so long, that it was going to knock my socks off. But it just didn't. I really enjoy the Leica lens I have, but to me the CV40 seemed pretty darn close. That's even forgetting that is costs less than 10% of the LUX.

So for me, I bot the CV, filed down the flange and it now brings up the 24/35 framelines and hand coded it as a Lux. I've finally stopped dreaming about the 35 Lux!

 

[Ben Z]

I had a 35 Summilux-ASPH. I don't regret one bit that I sold it, I just regret selling it when I did, which was in '06, for $1700 :bang:

 

[pfoto]

Interesting. Has anyone made the choice between the ASPH 35mm Summicron & Summilux? I use both and I'm trying to decide between them. The Summicron is looking good to me, both in terms of in-focus and OOF rendering. I'm surprised because I read that the Summicron is harsh and the Summilux renders a bit more like the older lenses. Of course there is sample variation and I could have a great Summicron and a moderate Summilux.

Anyone out there made this decision?

 

[ferider]

Why laugh ? The 40 Nokton is a great lens. Lives next to the 75/1.4 in my bag. Phantastic combo, very similar rendering.

Price and value are not the same.

Roland.

 

[breathstealer]

Which store was this at? I'm maybe in the market for a CV 35/1.4, and your location info puts us in the same place.

 

[ampguy]

Since you have both

Since you have both

I'd ignore the fourms, and go shoot with both of them with a tripod using the same camera and film, and swap the lens, make notes, and review some large prints where you will easily see subtle differences not easily seen on-screen. It's tedious, but in the end, you will be satisfied with your decision.

Interesting. Has anyone made the choice between the ASPH 35mm Summicron & Summilux? I use both and I'm trying to decide between them. The Summicron is looking good to me, both in terms of in-focus and OOF rendering. I'm surprised because I read that the Summicron is harsh and the Summilux renders a bit more like the older lenses. Of course there is sample variation and I could have a great Summicron and a moderate Summilux.

Anyone out there made this decision?

 

[Joshua]

Great choice. I went for the SC version myself, but they are both fantastic. I love the choppy bokeh that it provides instead of the smooth kind. Reminds me a bit of the Noctilux signature.

Example:

I did the same as you and filed down the tab to get the 35mm frame lines and honestly, they're pretty darn accurate.

Could you walk me through hand coding it as a Lux? And what are the advantages of that instead of just leaving it uncoded?

 

[Ascender]

You're dreaming!

You're dreaming!

What's a great lens but basically a tad on the large and heavy side? CV 35mm f/1.2. Its really a great, low contrast, super sharp. But due to its size, I did tend to leave it at home a bit.

The CV 35mm f/1.4, I 've tried a few copies at the store, but couldn't find one that was sharp. Kinda of like fuzzy most of the time.

The Biogon I've got, is not as sharp in the centre as my CV, and I found it a bit too contrasty for my taste, darks too dark, lights too light. Also i'd prefer it at f/1.4.

My situation on those 2 lenses took me into the stores again where a brand new Lux 35 was available (some guy changed his mind after pre-ordering from Solms). I tried it out for 20 minutes, and yes it was lovely. But it was also just under $4,000. Ouch!

So I tried (don't laugh) CV40 Classic f/1.4 and the Classic Sinigle Coat. My own taste had me preferring the Multi-coated lens, which did surprise me. While there was a difference between the CV40 and the Lux. It didn't seem to be worth the $3,700+ difference.

You know I was really hoping after lusting after the Lux so long, that it was going to knock my socks off. But it just didn't. I really enjoy the Leica lens I have, but to me the CV40 seemed pretty darn close. That's even forgetting that is costs less than 10% of the LUX.

So for me, I bot the CV, filed down the flange and it now brings up the 24/35 framelines and hand coded it as a Lux. I've finally stopped dreaming about the 35 Lux!

Honestly, if you're trying to convince yourself that CV40 is better than the Leica, keep dreaming! Cheaper, more accessible but better? ummmmm......... NO!

 

[Ascender]

Either you're high on crack......

Either you're high on crack......

Great choice. I went for the SC version myself, but they are both fantastic. I love the choppy bokeh that it provides instead of the smooth kind. Reminds me a bit of the Noctilux signature.

Example:

I did the same as you and filed down the tab to get the 35mm frame lines and honestly, they're pretty darn accurate.

Could you walk me through hand coding it as a Lux? And what are the advantages of that instead of just leaving it uncoded?

or just plain blind. So let me get this right, you're saying that this (and I use the term reluctantly) bokeh is on the level of a Leica Lux or a Notc? Have you any idea of the process that goes into making the aforementioned Leica glass?

-charlie

 

[sam_m]

or just plain blind. So let me get this right, you're saying that this (and I use the term reluctantly) bokeh is on the level of a Leica Lux or a Notc? Have you any idea of the process that goes into making the aforementioned Leica glass?

-charlie

I don't see where he said it was on the same "level" as anything - bokeh is very subjective and personal preferences vary a great deal, I've never heard of bokeh being able to be measured quantitatively. He said it reminded him a bit of the noctilux's bokeh, that's all.

Expensive glass = good bokeh??? since when???

 

[sam_m]

Honestly, if you're trying to convince yourself that CV40 is better than the Leica, keep dreaming! Cheaper, more accessible but better? ummmmm......... NO!

I'm really getting tired of this sort of post - show me where he says he thought the cv40 was better then the 35/1.4 asph??????

 

[baycrest]

I'm really getting tired of this sort of post - show me where he says he thought the cv40 was better then the 35/1.4 asph??????

Thanks Sam

You are extremely correct. I said...

"I tried it out for 20 minutes, and yes it was lovely. But it was also just under $4,000. Ouch! :bang:

While there was a difference between the CV40 and the Lux. It didn't seem to be worth the $3,700+ difference (to me ).

You know I was really hoping after lusting after the Lux so long, that it was going to knock my socks off. But it just didn't.

I really enjoy the Leica lens I have, but to me the CV40 seemed pretty darn close. That's even forgetting that is costs less than 10% of the LUX"

Best
Rob

 

[baycrest]

Which store was this at? I'm maybe in the market for a CV 35/1.4, and your location info puts us in the same place.

I picked up my CV 40 at Tin Cheung in TST:

Tin Cheung Camera Company
6B Carnavon Rd., Shop 5, 1/F. Friends' House
Tsimshatsui, Kowloon

I'm not sure if New Francisco near the Shangrila Hotel in TST East carries CV, but they do have a large selection of Leica stuff

New Francisco Photo Co.
62 Mody Road
Shop No. G50-51, Wing On Plaza Tsimshatsui, Kowloon

Best Rob

 

[baycrest]

Advantages of Hand Coding the CV 40.

Excellent question, but my answer is not so excellent. Perhaps those with the CV40 for some time can advise if they find coding as a 35 LUX has noteable benefits in picture quality....

Just to re-cap I've filed off 1 mm of the lens "Flange" to bring up the 24/35 framelines. These are the most accurate in-camera framlines for any of the lens I have including 24mm, 28mm, 35mm 50mm. What you see is what you get.

In terms of the theoretical advantages, the wider the lens the more vignetting and cyan drift. The level of vignetting and cyan color decrease as you increase focal length.

On the forum, I've noticed that some do not code their 35 CV f1.2. I'm not too sure what discernable difference, I will notice choosing to hand code or not on the CV 40, since I only got the lens yesterday afternoon, so photo opportunities were limited.

Reid Reviews, does note there is some vignetting and drift at f1.4, but is somewhat difiicult to notice by f2. YMMV
​

I hope to test it out on the weekend.

Best Rob

Great choice. I went for the SC version myself, but they are both fantastic. I love the choppy bokeh that it provides instead of the smooth kind. Reminds me a bit of the Noctilux signature.

Example:

I did the same as you and filed down the tab to get the 35mm frame lines and honestly, they're pretty darn accurate.

Could you walk me through hand coding it as a Lux? And what are the advantages of that instead of just leaving it uncoded?

 

[KM-25]

Me?

I love my 35 1.4. It looks nice on the M8, but of course, it looks spectacular on a film M as it has not been castrated by a cropped sensor.

I would sell my 28/2 or 50 1.4 before I sell my 35 1.4.

 

[Sam N]

... The Summicron is looking good to me ...

Sounds like an easy decision.

 

[Joshua]

or just plain blind. So let me get this right, you're saying that this (and I use the term reluctantly) bokeh is on the level of a Leica Lux or a Notc? Have you any idea of the process that goes into making the aforementioned Leica glass?

-charlie

The jackassary on this forum continues to amaze me. People are so good at posting and yet so horrible at reading.

Try again.

The noctilux produces a certain signature type of bokeh, or OOF area if you hate the term so much, that is very messy and choppy. Its not smooth and granular as some other lenses wide open. Many people, including myself, like the type of bokeh it produces for whatever reason.

I was simply stating that the 40/1.4 from VC happens to have this same type of bokeh, one that is very choppy and messy rather than smooth. The photo was an illustration of this. If you look at the OOF areas in it, you can clearly see it. Or maybe you're blind?

Never in my post did I say anything like the VC was of the same or better quality than a noctilux and I certainly didn't mention a different "Lux" anywhere dumbass.

Here its stated much more elegant by Sean Reid:

 

[Tony C.]

The noctilux produces a certain signature type of bokeh, or OOF area if you hate the term so much, that is very messy and choppy. Its not smooth and granular as some other lenses wide open...

I was simply stating that the 40/1.4 from VC happens to have this same type of bokeh, one that is very choppy and messy rather than smooth. The photo was an illustration of this. If you look at the OOF areas in it, you can clearly see it.

Sorry, but while everyone is, of course, free to express their personal preferences, the above statements are objectively wrong. In fact, the exact opposite is true. The Noctilux produces a particularly smooth OOF area, and that VC example looks nothing like it.

Does anyone see anything "choppy or messy" about the bokeh in these images?

 

[ampguy]

I don't think Joshua's photo exhibits bokeh like a Noctilux at all (or from any CV lens I've seen photos from so far), but I do understand what he means by choppy versus smooth in his photo, and it's fine to like that kind of bokeh. An even lower priced solution that offers that kind of bokeh is the Canon A550 P&S, when taking close ups of flowers in macro mode, with that kind of foliage behind. (Does Cosina make the Canon A550 lens??)

 

[ampguy]

Hi Tony

Hi Tony

Very nice photos. To be honest, the bokeh in the first photo doesn't look that great to me, it seems like some double lining around the rear edge of the pail, and even on the handle. Just my opinion.

I think what Joshua may mean is the painting or watercolor effect that the Noctilux can do, but it does it consistently, like a van gogh, not like the inconsistent painting/watercolor effect of lesser artists, and the rendering in some cases of the CV40/35 1.4s, and Canon A550.

Here's one of my favorite Noctilux photos, no photoshopping, not even the cropping of the beginning of the film:

Sorry, but while everyone is, of course, free to express their personal preferences, the above statements are objectively wrong. In fact, the exact opposite is true. The Noctilux produces a particularly smooth OOF area, and that VC example looks nothing like it.

Does anyone see anything "choppy or messy" about the bokeh in these images?