Ansel
Well-known
I dont think the V4 Cron 35 was sharp in the corners at f2 even with film... But nobody shoots at f2 for across the frame sharpness anyway. Just stop down a bit and you should be fine.
Range-rover
Veteran
Just remember these lenses were made for film in mind, I had the lens it was good but
I thought the V3 was better but don't know how it would work on digital I know on
film it was nice.
Range
I thought the V3 was better but don't know how it would work on digital I know on
film it was nice.
Range
stevencrichton
Established
Ansel. I think it was usable on film in comparison. I'm talking about the third lines not the edges, or the third to the edge.
geotrupede: Yes as stated above 5.6 it's fine.. however below 4 it's abysmal. The russian lenses have more chance of being properly in focus. Resolution is not an issue, the focus is. With such field curvature and only the means to focus on the central region with accuracy means it's not a usable lens.. yes colour, OOF etc .. all very nice. A smeared un-focused eye on a person shot no. Also the weight / size is not an issue. It's still much smaller than any comparable 1.4 35mm SLR lens. The new nikon is a 67mm filter a gigantic hood and 600g! Against a summicron it's heavier ...
Lawrence: The internet has a lot to answer for! Also I think there is also a lot of mythology that people want to see too, then relay on as "character". I also think that sometimes people who shoot with leica's also get too attached to classical street photography, where certain aspects are dismissed over the mystique of the "decisive moment". I'm not a great lover of the genre, therefore your comments on the biogon are big hit with me. If you have any DNG's I'd love to have a look if you could send one?
On the Summilux I'll be honest that I'd love to have one ( i was very close to buying one a few years ago for my M4 but decided to go for a linhof roll film system over it at that time), but know to steer clear for that reason. Roger Hicks, I know loves his, it appears to be the lens cap for his M's. He does state in his books that even on film, wide apertures are usable but only in absolute needs must situations not regular shooting.
Chris: I know sample variation can be a nightmare with RF gear.. the M9 is like an infinite x multiplier to this. Quite simply the system is at the limits of tolerance. Even with the 40mm I have, I tried another in the shop and that was off. So I went with the one I have now.
Bonatto: The 40mm crops up a lot because it's a strangely unsung hero. Yes point it at point light sources the OOF can be a bit off, but it's nowhere near as bad as people would like to make out, even f2 sorts out most of it. My stuff with the M9 is here and On Film
In comparison to the 35mm voigt 1.4 from what I have seen it's a lot better in every respect. It was I think due to it being a gateway lens for Voigtlander into the leica community fold. A fast lens for the venerable CL. Also a major factor as well is that composition wise on the M's when you modify it for the 35mm framelines it's very very close to them in comparison to a 35mm.
Rangerover: On film I do expect it to be very good. I've just not got round to loading some film, the UK weather has not been in my favour recently. I think at F2 again it's not going to be stellar, but I would expect off the centre usable for focus accuracy. Alas the laws of Physics & Internet Snake Oil make it less than amazing on an M9. At wider apertures. 5.6 and below great.. but I have 2 lenses that are already beautiful at 5.6.
Overall I think my mind is getting made up. Realistically I can't afford a brand new ASPH. I do use F2 as a tool when needed. So having to rely on going down to f5.6 isn't an option in all situations to ensure focus is correctly retained.
geotrupede: Yes as stated above 5.6 it's fine.. however below 4 it's abysmal. The russian lenses have more chance of being properly in focus. Resolution is not an issue, the focus is. With such field curvature and only the means to focus on the central region with accuracy means it's not a usable lens.. yes colour, OOF etc .. all very nice. A smeared un-focused eye on a person shot no. Also the weight / size is not an issue. It's still much smaller than any comparable 1.4 35mm SLR lens. The new nikon is a 67mm filter a gigantic hood and 600g! Against a summicron it's heavier ...
Lawrence: The internet has a lot to answer for! Also I think there is also a lot of mythology that people want to see too, then relay on as "character". I also think that sometimes people who shoot with leica's also get too attached to classical street photography, where certain aspects are dismissed over the mystique of the "decisive moment". I'm not a great lover of the genre, therefore your comments on the biogon are big hit with me. If you have any DNG's I'd love to have a look if you could send one?
On the Summilux I'll be honest that I'd love to have one ( i was very close to buying one a few years ago for my M4 but decided to go for a linhof roll film system over it at that time), but know to steer clear for that reason. Roger Hicks, I know loves his, it appears to be the lens cap for his M's. He does state in his books that even on film, wide apertures are usable but only in absolute needs must situations not regular shooting.
Chris: I know sample variation can be a nightmare with RF gear.. the M9 is like an infinite x multiplier to this. Quite simply the system is at the limits of tolerance. Even with the 40mm I have, I tried another in the shop and that was off. So I went with the one I have now.
Bonatto: The 40mm crops up a lot because it's a strangely unsung hero. Yes point it at point light sources the OOF can be a bit off, but it's nowhere near as bad as people would like to make out, even f2 sorts out most of it. My stuff with the M9 is here and On Film
In comparison to the 35mm voigt 1.4 from what I have seen it's a lot better in every respect. It was I think due to it being a gateway lens for Voigtlander into the leica community fold. A fast lens for the venerable CL. Also a major factor as well is that composition wise on the M's when you modify it for the 35mm framelines it's very very close to them in comparison to a 35mm.
Rangerover: On film I do expect it to be very good. I've just not got round to loading some film, the UK weather has not been in my favour recently. I think at F2 again it's not going to be stellar, but I would expect off the centre usable for focus accuracy. Alas the laws of Physics & Internet Snake Oil make it less than amazing on an M9. At wider apertures. 5.6 and below great.. but I have 2 lenses that are already beautiful at 5.6.
Overall I think my mind is getting made up. Realistically I can't afford a brand new ASPH. I do use F2 as a tool when needed. So having to rely on going down to f5.6 isn't an option in all situations to ensure focus is correctly retained.
Range-rover
Veteran
I know that the V4 was redesigned for better use of F2, I remember the Leica rep showing
me the difference between the V4 and V3 and after awhile I went for it. I always looked
at that bubble rear element and thinking it would be better. I would keep it and try it
for awhile to see how it goes maybe it needs a good CLA.
Range
me the difference between the V4 and V3 and after awhile I went for it. I always looked
at that bubble rear element and thinking it would be better. I would keep it and try it
for awhile to see how it goes maybe it needs a good CLA.
Range
stevencrichton
Established
It was CLA'd last year, but is away into Malcolm Taylor this week. So I have paperwork to back it up. I imagine a boxed CLA'd by a master one fetches a much better price if I do sell it.
Richard G
Veteran
I have the v4 Summicron on my camera at the momemnt. For me the number one attribute is size and ergonomics. If the C Biogon was smaller at max aperture 2.8 I'd have that on all the time. I am hardly ever using the Summicron wide open, except at night when I really like it in black and white on the M9. Haven't used it all on the Monochrom yet.
stevencrichton
Established
Ergonomics wise the 40mm with the amazing shapeways 3d printed hood is all of about 5mm higher. It's a bit heavier as the optical block doesn't contain plastics. So it's a close tie there.
On the biogon I 100% agree. if they had the C size as an F2 I think Leica would have a disaster on their hands! I'd added a summicron tab to mine it's once again a close tie..
nnngh .. too many lenses all nearly the same.. I should just invent a machine that allows me to mash them all together. All issues sorted!
On the biogon I 100% agree. if they had the C size as an F2 I think Leica would have a disaster on their hands! I'd added a summicron tab to mine it's once again a close tie..
nnngh .. too many lenses all nearly the same.. I should just invent a machine that allows me to mash them all together. All issues sorted!
Denton
Established
Nokton 40 and Summicron IV
Nokton 40 and Summicron IV
I have the Summicron 35mm V4 and owned the Nokton 40mm f1.4. The Nokton was a very sharp lens, but I like Bokeh...Why paint a picture and leave most of the canvas crappy?...and the Nokoton has gruesome bokeh on point light sources.
The Summicron is not that great wide open. Even on center I suspect there are much better lenses, like Zeiss. It's a small lens though. My favorite lens in 35mm is the f2.5 color skopar, but it can flare, but razor sharp edge to edge. I'm not confident, however, that all Voightlander lenses are consistent from sample to sample. My 21mm f4, for example, is soft on the left side and thinking of dumping it for a Biogon!
Denton
Nokton 40 and Summicron IV
I have the Summicron 35mm V4 and owned the Nokton 40mm f1.4. The Nokton was a very sharp lens, but I like Bokeh...Why paint a picture and leave most of the canvas crappy?...and the Nokoton has gruesome bokeh on point light sources.
The Summicron is not that great wide open. Even on center I suspect there are much better lenses, like Zeiss. It's a small lens though. My favorite lens in 35mm is the f2.5 color skopar, but it can flare, but razor sharp edge to edge. I'm not confident, however, that all Voightlander lenses are consistent from sample to sample. My 21mm f4, for example, is soft on the left side and thinking of dumping it for a Biogon!
Denton
thompsonks
Well-known
The conversation isn't really making sense to me. I don't see why anyone would use a v4 and hope for maximum sharpness at wide apertures. That's just not what it's for.
I have a v4 and a Lux FLE, and almost always use the former. There's no doubt about the latter being sharper in every respect, but IMO that's often its problem. It captures every pore and nose-hair, and this has the effect, in a medium large print, of nudging the viewer toward focusing on surface detail and indeed paying too much attention to it. It's what people call a 'clinical' lens, and if that's what you like, go for it.
The V4 resolves less but yields the impression of more rounded surfaces or more three-dimensionality. And the reason for using the wider apertures is not to register corner detail but to throw the background out of focus in a more attractive way than occurs with the aspherical lenses.
It seems, Steve, that you just don't like what the lens is 'good for.' So just sell it to someone who likes that sort of rendering, and buy a Zeiss? Then there'll be two winners.
I have a v4 and a Lux FLE, and almost always use the former. There's no doubt about the latter being sharper in every respect, but IMO that's often its problem. It captures every pore and nose-hair, and this has the effect, in a medium large print, of nudging the viewer toward focusing on surface detail and indeed paying too much attention to it. It's what people call a 'clinical' lens, and if that's what you like, go for it.
The V4 resolves less but yields the impression of more rounded surfaces or more three-dimensionality. And the reason for using the wider apertures is not to register corner detail but to throw the background out of focus in a more attractive way than occurs with the aspherical lenses.
It seems, Steve, that you just don't like what the lens is 'good for.' So just sell it to someone who likes that sort of rendering, and buy a Zeiss? Then there'll be two winners.
stevencrichton
Established
Denton: I loved my 21mm on film, I used to shoot most of my architectural work for clients with it. I'd even choose it over my digital FF nikons with a 14-24 as it was simply that good. I tried one on the M9 when I went back and it's heartbreaking it's so bad.
On the 40mm I took the previous reference mentioned to be against the voigt 35mm. Although if you compare it to the pre-asph summilux 35mm which is it's direct relation the 40mm bokeh isn't all too bad with point light sources. It too has quite a harshness to it. I think optically it's the design limitations of an f1.4 aperture vs sharpness. Stopping down on Nokton to even f2 reigns it in a great deal, plus removes a fair bit of the glow if you don't want it. The apsh corrects a lot of that in the new summilux.
Thompsonks: I'm not looking for maximum sharpness or resolution, what I've continually highlighted is that at f2 -> f4 that it seems there is little discussion that the v4 cannot retain focus accuracy off the centre of the frame very well on the M9 due to the field curvature. For instance, focus on an eye and compose to not have a person slap bang centre frame. Other than that the look, the mid tone retention and colour is great.
My summicron 3cam R was exactly the same in it's feel. For filming work it gave me the equivalent of 2 stops of post correction over other lenses, plus the way it transitions is stunning. Although if I focused on a point in the third of the frame it was in focus, as I could on a ground glass.
Also with rangefinders I'd expect larger apertures to be more workable for core compositional positions. In SLR's the design is not only for speed but focus accuracy due to the system requiring brighter projected images on the screens for manual focus.
On our digital M's an unworkable fast fstop is 100% pointless. Kinda like a porsche having a limiter put on for 70mph, the superlative experience of a premium product cannot achieved.
The discussion was started to see if I was the only one. As in so much if I had a bad example or whether the mystique doesn't match the hype. It would appear the latter is more the case. Field curvature on an M9 does cause major issues with focus retention. I'm more than blown away at 5.6 -> 11, just when I need the push it simply doesn't seem to be there.
On the 40mm I took the previous reference mentioned to be against the voigt 35mm. Although if you compare it to the pre-asph summilux 35mm which is it's direct relation the 40mm bokeh isn't all too bad with point light sources. It too has quite a harshness to it. I think optically it's the design limitations of an f1.4 aperture vs sharpness. Stopping down on Nokton to even f2 reigns it in a great deal, plus removes a fair bit of the glow if you don't want it. The apsh corrects a lot of that in the new summilux.
Thompsonks: I'm not looking for maximum sharpness or resolution, what I've continually highlighted is that at f2 -> f4 that it seems there is little discussion that the v4 cannot retain focus accuracy off the centre of the frame very well on the M9 due to the field curvature. For instance, focus on an eye and compose to not have a person slap bang centre frame. Other than that the look, the mid tone retention and colour is great.
My summicron 3cam R was exactly the same in it's feel. For filming work it gave me the equivalent of 2 stops of post correction over other lenses, plus the way it transitions is stunning. Although if I focused on a point in the third of the frame it was in focus, as I could on a ground glass.
Also with rangefinders I'd expect larger apertures to be more workable for core compositional positions. In SLR's the design is not only for speed but focus accuracy due to the system requiring brighter projected images on the screens for manual focus.
On our digital M's an unworkable fast fstop is 100% pointless. Kinda like a porsche having a limiter put on for 70mph, the superlative experience of a premium product cannot achieved.
The discussion was started to see if I was the only one. As in so much if I had a bad example or whether the mystique doesn't match the hype. It would appear the latter is more the case. Field curvature on an M9 does cause major issues with focus retention. I'm more than blown away at 5.6 -> 11, just when I need the push it simply doesn't seem to be there.
brusby
Well-known
I've got the v4 and the asph. The asph is a bit sharper at larger apertures, particularly in the corners, but they're both plenty sharp enough to make really nice photos at any aperture.
Here is a comparison of the various models of Leica 35mm Summicrons done by Ken Rockwell. http://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/comparisons/35mm-summicron/sharpness.htm
Unless his test results are an aberration, which I don't have any reason to believe they are, the differences between properly functioning lenses of different versions are not as drastic as you suggest.
If you're not getting sharp results from the v4, even wide open, I'd suspect a cause other than the version being used. Have you checked it's focus calibration with your rangefinder? I've seen many lenses that are condemned as not being sharp turn out to be front or back focusing.
The v4 is my go to 35mm because of the uber small size and low weight. Sharpness has never been an issue.
Here is a comparison of the various models of Leica 35mm Summicrons done by Ken Rockwell. http://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/comparisons/35mm-summicron/sharpness.htm
Unless his test results are an aberration, which I don't have any reason to believe they are, the differences between properly functioning lenses of different versions are not as drastic as you suggest.
If you're not getting sharp results from the v4, even wide open, I'd suspect a cause other than the version being used. Have you checked it's focus calibration with your rangefinder? I've seen many lenses that are condemned as not being sharp turn out to be front or back focusing.
The v4 is my go to 35mm because of the uber small size and low weight. Sharpness has never been an issue.
stevencrichton
Established
As the body is fine with 5 other lenses.. It may be a cam issue / collimation issue on the v4. I'll have this 100% confirmed by Malcolm Taylor.
I've seen the Rockwell article. As always I take him with a pinch of salt. His only consistency is 6 months down the line he normally contradicts a previous review he has done. His classic examples are slating most of the ZM line as it doesn't take the filter size he already owns and posting comprehensive "reviews" of yet un released Nikon bodies and lenses. His Nikon F3 review was a joke.. he used to have a very negative review.. when he got one himself suddenly the divine light shined from the pentaprism into his retinas. With his audio equipment reviews I wouldn't be surprised if he talked up the merits of gear bringing out that extra emotion in Justin Beibers voice
I've seen the Rockwell article. As always I take him with a pinch of salt. His only consistency is 6 months down the line he normally contradicts a previous review he has done. His classic examples are slating most of the ZM line as it doesn't take the filter size he already owns and posting comprehensive "reviews" of yet un released Nikon bodies and lenses. His Nikon F3 review was a joke.. he used to have a very negative review.. when he got one himself suddenly the divine light shined from the pentaprism into his retinas. With his audio equipment reviews I wouldn't be surprised if he talked up the merits of gear bringing out that extra emotion in Justin Beibers voice
brusby
Well-known
As the body is fine with 5 other lenses.. It may be a cam issue / collimation issue on the v4. I'll have this 100% confirmed by Malcolm Taylor.
I've seen the Rockwell article. As always I take him with a pinch of salt. His only consistency is 6 months down the line he normally contradicts a previous review he has done. His classic examples are slating most of the ZM line as it doesn't take the filter size he already owns and posting comprehensive "reviews" of yet un released Nikon bodies and lenses. His Nikon F3 review was a joke.. he used to have a very negative review.. when he got one himself suddenly the divine light shined from the pentaprism into his retinas. With his audio equipment reviews I wouldn't be surprised if he talked up the merits of gear bringing out that extra emotion in Justin Beibers voice
It's easy to confirm proper focus with a simple ruler test.
And whether Rockwell's opinions are reliable or not is irrelevant here. You can see his data (the actual photos), so you can draw your own conclusions.
stevencrichton
Established
Ruler test centre frame no issues. Also general tests confirm it's ok. Centre of frame I can detect moire on fabrics etc.. Maybe the optical mount is not parallel on my lens.
Rockwell's test data in this instance can be interpreted many ways. His example of a subject at infinity, which for an f2 comparison for field curvature, isn't ideal. As optically this curvature will increase at closer distances as the angles of incidence increase on the sensor plane.
As before, I'll cross my fingers something is wrong and Malcolm Taylor will hopefully be able to correct it, otherwise I'll sell a fully CLA'd boxed v4 who will appreciate it for what it is.
Rockwell's test data in this instance can be interpreted many ways. His example of a subject at infinity, which for an f2 comparison for field curvature, isn't ideal. As optically this curvature will increase at closer distances as the angles of incidence increase on the sensor plane.
As before, I'll cross my fingers something is wrong and Malcolm Taylor will hopefully be able to correct it, otherwise I'll sell a fully CLA'd boxed v4 who will appreciate it for what it is.
Last edited:
hepcat
Former PH, USN
I've read this discussion with great interest. Please do let us know if your lens is within spec, or out of collimation.
stevencrichton
Established
I certainly will. My hope is that it's fixed and I can loose the 40 and the biogon. Then I can shoot off on the bike round Europe and take some cracking snaps
brusby
Well-known
I suppose you realize that if your lens has flat field of focus and you focus on an object off center, it will likely be out of focus when you recompose -- assuming a wide aperture and shallow depth of field.
stevencrichton
Established
Yes. I compose after focus and move with a parallel movement as with all the other lenses I have, they retain critical focus at wide apertures.
I know apart from say the Medical Nikkor we used to use in the hospital for dermatological work and the Vivitar series 1 Macro Zoom there is no such thing as a flat field per se in production lens design, but there is a usable field, which in a 35mm would be more than accounted for by the inherit depth of field.
I know apart from say the Medical Nikkor we used to use in the hospital for dermatological work and the Vivitar series 1 Macro Zoom there is no such thing as a flat field per se in production lens design, but there is a usable field, which in a 35mm would be more than accounted for by the inherit depth of field.
stevencrichton
Established
To give weight possibly to what I personally see in my images.
Malcolm Taylor, a UK repairman who is as respected as DAG or Sherry in the US, commented when I phoned him to organise getting the lens to him " The summicron v4 does have issues on the M9 it's down to physics, unfortunately I can't fix that but I can get it as close as I can"
Malcolm Taylor, a UK repairman who is as respected as DAG or Sherry in the US, commented when I phoned him to organise getting the lens to him " The summicron v4 does have issues on the M9 it's down to physics, unfortunately I can't fix that but I can get it as close as I can"
uhoh7
Veteran
Well for the price of a v4 you can have ALL the CVs LOL
1.2 (which might be the best low light lens, bar none, on the M9, because it is so forgiving. v1 prefered)
and the 35/1.4 Nokton which has really surprised me:
1.4, MC My copy is great on the M9. One more:
it is very small, as you guys know, and very versatile.
and the Skopar, which I need to figure out how to code:
But as mentioned above, it seems very crisp on the M9, and nothing is smaller.
one last skopar:
Money no object I'd own a FLE lux, but my lowly cosinas seem to get the goods just fine
1.2 (which might be the best low light lens, bar none, on the M9, because it is so forgiving. v1 prefered)
and the 35/1.4 Nokton which has really surprised me:
1.4, MC My copy is great on the M9. One more:
it is very small, as you guys know, and very versatile.
and the Skopar, which I need to figure out how to code:
But as mentioned above, it seems very crisp on the M9, and nothing is smaller.
one last skopar:
Money no object I'd own a FLE lux, but my lowly cosinas seem to get the goods just fine