stevencrichton
Established
They sure do!
But the 1.4 the bokeh is so harsh
Oh no wait .. It's great!
Out of interest how is the 1.2 when at f2? does it clear up the halos on the focus areas?
But the 1.4 the bokeh is so harsh
Oh no wait .. It's great!Out of interest how is the 1.2 when at f2? does it clear up the halos on the focus areas?
Ronald M
Veteran
Compared my V4 to the ASPH a few years ago and kept the V4.
I am not pleased with either wide open or the 8 element I had at one time.
Checking out MTF on the leica site today and the 35 ASPH is not up to snuff with modern lenses. 18 years old at this point. Due for update.
The other lenses work well on my M9, 50 ASPH Lux, 50 2.8 last, 75 APO, 90 macro elmar. The 35 was new at time of test and V4 I bought in 80`s new and has never been serviced.
Update it please to modern standards.
I am not pleased with either wide open or the 8 element I had at one time.
Checking out MTF on the leica site today and the 35 ASPH is not up to snuff with modern lenses. 18 years old at this point. Due for update.
The other lenses work well on my M9, 50 ASPH Lux, 50 2.8 last, 75 APO, 90 macro elmar. The 35 was new at time of test and V4 I bought in 80`s new and has never been serviced.
Update it please to modern standards.
Lss
Well-known
It sounds like you know the reason (field curvature) that makes this lens a poor fit for your use. The simplest solution seems to be a similar lens with less field curvature. Until now the thread has been about corner sharpness, which can be interpreted very differently.
brusby
Well-known
I'm not sure what you're saying here. Would you please give me some examples? The obvious interpretations seem pretty clear and straightforward to me, in that 1) all of the lenses under test are roughly comparable in the center both wide open and closed down, 2) the asph is clearly sharper in the corners wide open, 3) and all the lens are roughly comparable in the corners stopped down, with the asph maintaining a slight advantage.
Would you please share your source for the data on the relationship between angle of incidence and field curvature? Although AOI is almost certainly changing with a change in focus distance, it seems to be merely a side effect of change in focus rather than a cause of field curvature changes. Are you citing a general principle of lens design or something specific to the v4? I'd like to see it in more detail.
Ansel
Well-known
I think perhaps most people using this lens with film (which it was designed for after all) would have been using zone focussing for street photography, where absolute focus/sharpness is not so critical.
furcafe
Veteran
While I don't have experience w/that version of the 35 'cron, I do have many vintage lenses & what you're describing is just a fact of life. Digital sensors are simply much less forgiving & the instant feedback can exacerbate the problem & make it easier to focus (no pun intended) on the negative. I think you can use the positive aspects of old lenses to your advantage, but you will have to learn new techniques & workflow to match the new medium.
fti
Established
Interesting discussion.
I use my 35mm V4 exclusively on my M9. I absolutely fell in love with the way this lens renders. It's beaten up, has a few scratches, fonts are becoming illegible, but boy do I love this lens. It has truly got to be one of the most versatile lenses out there. Having said that, I'd probably feel the same about its predecessors.
I think few other posters have struck a good point, and it really comes down to what you use this lens for. If you want sharpness, if you shoot landscape, buildings, etc... this one's probably not for you. I shoot people, and people in their environment, and for me sharpness across the frame is just not necessary.
I've tried other 35's (non summicron pre-asph's) and although they are better performers they just don't evoke the same emotion.
It's a pity that the bokeh king gets a bad rap every so often ~albeit a misnomer. It's a stunning little lens. It's definitely not everyone's cup 'o tea but it delivers! Then again, the V4 is probably overpriced due to it's notoriety. It'd be nice to see it come down to sensible prices so that more can enjoy this lens as much as I do.
Le roi est mort, vive le roi!
I use my 35mm V4 exclusively on my M9. I absolutely fell in love with the way this lens renders. It's beaten up, has a few scratches, fonts are becoming illegible, but boy do I love this lens. It has truly got to be one of the most versatile lenses out there. Having said that, I'd probably feel the same about its predecessors.
I think few other posters have struck a good point, and it really comes down to what you use this lens for. If you want sharpness, if you shoot landscape, buildings, etc... this one's probably not for you. I shoot people, and people in their environment, and for me sharpness across the frame is just not necessary.
I've tried other 35's (non summicron pre-asph's) and although they are better performers they just don't evoke the same emotion.
It's a pity that the bokeh king gets a bad rap every so often ~albeit a misnomer. It's a stunning little lens. It's definitely not everyone's cup 'o tea but it delivers! Then again, the V4 is probably overpriced due to it's notoriety. It'd be nice to see it come down to sensible prices so that more can enjoy this lens as much as I do.
Le roi est mort, vive le roi!
stevencrichton
Established
I'm not looking for ultimate resolution or or sharpness. I'm looking for focus capability in particular.
I was more than pleased with a cheap nikon AF 35mm f2 (new a good £700 less), on an slr, as I could ensure facial details would be held in focus.
My main concern is that apart from dead centre of frame it's impossible even at f2.8 to move away from there. This is both at close and distance ranges.
I don't shoot all too much at f2, but when I do need to I need assurances that an expensive marque lens will be at least capable to do something so core to photographic requirements.
I'd challenge most people to give me examples of their favourite wide open shots where the point of interest is at the dead centres of the frame.
As case in point. here is a shot with biogon at f2.8 as a comparison. The focus was on the knife's upper portion (the screw hole was used to determine something) As you can see it's into the third, the lens is wide open and focus, not resolution or ultimate sharpness was retained.
I have also marked the centre with the green dot. I cannot with summicron at f2.8 retain focus this far over! On the green dot.. yes it would be sharp. Not where the knife detail now lies.
I was more than pleased with a cheap nikon AF 35mm f2 (new a good £700 less), on an slr, as I could ensure facial details would be held in focus.
My main concern is that apart from dead centre of frame it's impossible even at f2.8 to move away from there. This is both at close and distance ranges.
I don't shoot all too much at f2, but when I do need to I need assurances that an expensive marque lens will be at least capable to do something so core to photographic requirements.
I'd challenge most people to give me examples of their favourite wide open shots where the point of interest is at the dead centres of the frame.
As case in point. here is a shot with biogon at f2.8 as a comparison. The focus was on the knife's upper portion (the screw hole was used to determine something) As you can see it's into the third, the lens is wide open and focus, not resolution or ultimate sharpness was retained.
I have also marked the centre with the green dot. I cannot with summicron at f2.8 retain focus this far over! On the green dot.. yes it would be sharp. Not where the knife detail now lies.
fti
Established
I can understand your frustrations.... especially if you had to sell your bike to afford one and then not have it live up to its expectation.
I guess you'd like to know whether your lens is faulty in any manner or whether we are talking about an inherent issue with the lens.
Without meaning to disparage you concerns I just never bothered to take photos of rulers or test focus objects. The lens behaves very much in the way I expect whether composed to the center or off.
I hope you do figure out what's wrong with it - if anything.... and if not, I'm sure there's a perfect 35 waiting out there for you!
....maybe if I get around to it I'll try to give it a test shot with my stanely knife tonight.....
Happy shooting.
I guess you'd like to know whether your lens is faulty in any manner or whether we are talking about an inherent issue with the lens.
Without meaning to disparage you concerns I just never bothered to take photos of rulers or test focus objects. The lens behaves very much in the way I expect whether composed to the center or off.
I hope you do figure out what's wrong with it - if anything.... and if not, I'm sure there's a perfect 35 waiting out there for you!
....maybe if I get around to it I'll try to give it a test shot with my stanely knife tonight.....
Happy shooting.
stevencrichton
Established
fti .. the area I live in Edinburgh they are simply called protection
brusby
Well-known
Hand held, 1/45 sec. wide open @ f/2. If I'd been using an F/2.8 lens the shutter speed would have been about 1/20, and getting in the range where camera shake would be a real problem. Not architectural photo sharp, but plenty good for this type of shot.
Oh, and the tiny size of this lens made it possible to slip the camera into a pocket to get it into the event unobtrusively. Otherwise there would have been no photo at all.
Oh, and the tiny size of this lens made it possible to slip the camera into a pocket to get it into the event unobtrusively. Otherwise there would have been no photo at all.
Ansel
Well-known
I'm not looking for ultimate resolution or or sharpness. I'm looking for focus capability in particular.
I was more than pleased with a cheap nikon AF 35mm f2 (new a good £700 less), on an slr, as I could ensure facial details would be held in focus.
My main concern is that apart from dead centre of frame it's impossible even at f2.8 to move away from there. This is both at close and distance ranges.
I don't shoot all too much at f2, but when I do need to I need assurances that an expensive marque lens will be at least capable to do something so core to photographic requirements.
I'd challenge most people to give me examples of their favourite wide open shots where the point of interest is at the dead centres of the frame.
As case in point. here is a shot with biogon at f2.8 as a comparison. The focus was on the knife's upper portion (the screw hole was used to determine something) As you can see it's into the third, the lens is wide open and focus, not resolution or ultimate sharpness was retained.
I have also marked the centre with the green dot. I cannot with summicron at f2.8 retain focus this far over! On the green dot.. yes it would be sharp. Not where the knife detail now lies.
Hi, I think at that distance it would be a challenge to get focus all across even with the ASPH. The plane of focus is so thin at close range...
Here is one of mine at f2, subject in the middle, hand held at 1/15:
stevencrichton
Established
Just off the phone to Malcolm, the lens having arrived with him.
He has confirmed that the lens is out. It's also an early type mount so it could pose issues with a full rebuild as the plastic used in that type for the front optical cell is actually a bakealite nazi era derivative.
However on his first inspection he's confirmed that what I'm seeing, my disappointment in the performance and the field issues are all correct... Just he now needs to investigate it fully.
To give an idea of how much he goes into the cause, I was asked to provide my prescription for my glasses to see if he thought that could be causing a focus problem.
I'll admit my heart jumped with relief in the news... now I'll just have to play the long game until the work is done and I can pay my bill
He has confirmed that the lens is out. It's also an early type mount so it could pose issues with a full rebuild as the plastic used in that type for the front optical cell is actually a bakealite nazi era derivative.
However on his first inspection he's confirmed that what I'm seeing, my disappointment in the performance and the field issues are all correct... Just he now needs to investigate it fully.
To give an idea of how much he goes into the cause, I was asked to provide my prescription for my glasses to see if he thought that could be causing a focus problem.
I'll admit my heart jumped with relief in the news... now I'll just have to play the long game until the work is done and I can pay my bill
brusby
Well-known
Just off the phone to Malcolm, the lens having arrived with him.
He has confirmed that the lens is out. It's also an early type mount so it could pose issues with a full rebuild as the plastic used in that type for the front optical cell is actually a bakealite nazi era derivative.
However on his first inspection he's confirmed that what I'm seeing, my disappointment in the performance and the field issues are all correct... Just he now needs to investigate it fully.
To give an idea of how much he goes into the cause, I was asked to provide my prescription for my glasses to see if he thought that could be causing a focus problem.
I'll admit my heart jumped with relief in the news... now I'll just have to play the long game until the work is done and I can pay my bill
Interesting how you're still slamming the lens performance based upon your experience with your confirmed broken copy. Perhaps you should wait till you've got a properly working lens to make assessments.
stevencrichton
Established
Brusby,
I bought the lens with receipts for a CLA, boxed... What else would I expect? On paper, in hand the lens was as it should be. I shot some tests before handing over the money at the centre to make sure it was focussing correctly.
Now after it's been tested on a optical bench by Malcolm.. yes it's not right. So I can only make the judgement based on the proof that presented itself.
Also in the quoted text there is no negatives there... the early ones as stated use a plastic type substance to hold the front cell that is a nazi era derived copy/improvement of bakelite, not brass.. This was from the words of a very experienced lens repairer. It's also a noted issue that can cause optical issues due to removing the lens but the hood rather than the body.
The lens as I said at f2 at close quarters focussed in the centre correctly. as in the below image... (rad lines and fiat badge on the model being the point of focus) so I'd argue that the basis of my arguments were justified.
The original can be seen here .. as the linked image will have some nasty flickr resize blurring
I bought the lens with receipts for a CLA, boxed... What else would I expect? On paper, in hand the lens was as it should be. I shot some tests before handing over the money at the centre to make sure it was focussing correctly.
Now after it's been tested on a optical bench by Malcolm.. yes it's not right. So I can only make the judgement based on the proof that presented itself.
Also in the quoted text there is no negatives there... the early ones as stated use a plastic type substance to hold the front cell that is a nazi era derived copy/improvement of bakelite, not brass.. This was from the words of a very experienced lens repairer. It's also a noted issue that can cause optical issues due to removing the lens but the hood rather than the body.
The lens as I said at f2 at close quarters focussed in the centre correctly. as in the below image... (rad lines and fiat badge on the model being the point of focus) so I'd argue that the basis of my arguments were justified.
The original can be seen here .. as the linked image will have some nasty flickr resize blurring
brusby
Well-known
After you learned your lens was broken, you stated above ". . . my disappointment in the performance and the field issues are all correct"
I'm just mystified how you can have such confidence in your conclusions based on a lens you now know was broken at the time you did your evaluation.
I'm just mystified how you can have such confidence in your conclusions based on a lens you now know was broken at the time you did your evaluation.
rodt16s
Well-known
Just off the phone to Malcolm, the lens having arrived with him.
He has confirmed that the lens is out.
Now I know why Malc isn't working on the stuff I dropped off to him over a month ago.. where's my phone....haha
Pete B
Well-known
. now I'll just have to play the long game until the work is done and I can pay my bill
And that's going to be longer than you think, knowing Malcolm.
Pete
goamules
Well-known
I don't keep up with Summicrons, but are you saying this was one made in WWII? Or just the mount uses a similar plastic? If that's when it was made, I can't imagine putting this much worry into analysis. It was built before most people working in the lens industry were even born. I shoot a lot of old lenses, very, very old lenses, and simply embrace their features. You are trying to cobble a 70 year old lens, of unknown (but we now know) maintenance over the decades and generations, to a modern Digital camera. Two entirely different things. But your standards are the same as for either shooting a top film lens on film, or a modern digital lens on digital.
Field curvature is a fact of life for some lenses. Getting things in different planes in equal focus is the realm of large format cameras with movements, not hand held cameras with almost century old lenses.
Field curvature is a fact of life for some lenses. Getting things in different planes in equal focus is the realm of large format cameras with movements, not hand held cameras with almost century old lenses.
Ranchu
Veteran
edit:sorry, I wasn't thinking right.