Rogier
Rogier Willems
Here is my 2nd album with a rented lens in order to figure out what lens(es) to buy for my Leica M8.
This time I rented the lens from Keeble & Shuchat.
Weather predictions are very poor but I really wanted to try it. So I rushed before work to Palo Alto to pick-up the lens and quickly took some shots on the fly. Turned out I shot in jpeg rather than in RAW.
My first experiences are mixed. The equivalent to 50mm lens view angle does not my normal shooting style and I have to get used to it. But its not as narrow as expected.
I am disappointed about the sharpness wide open, also I needed to perform quite a few corrections in to make the images "pop" a bit. From f2.8 upward its much better, but my main attraction to this lens the the large f1.4 bore.
Perhaps its just this (older) copy, the poor weather and my hurry to get something done.
Will work it more the next two day's.
Also I was very surprised to find that the 35mm frame lines are way smaller than what the lens captures. There is quite a bit that is captured outside the frame.
Flickr album with 35mm Summilux
Flickr album with 25mm Biogon
This time I rented the lens from Keeble & Shuchat.
Weather predictions are very poor but I really wanted to try it. So I rushed before work to Palo Alto to pick-up the lens and quickly took some shots on the fly. Turned out I shot in jpeg rather than in RAW.
My first experiences are mixed. The equivalent to 50mm lens view angle does not my normal shooting style and I have to get used to it. But its not as narrow as expected.
I am disappointed about the sharpness wide open, also I needed to perform quite a few corrections in to make the images "pop" a bit. From f2.8 upward its much better, but my main attraction to this lens the the large f1.4 bore.
Perhaps its just this (older) copy, the poor weather and my hurry to get something done.
Will work it more the next two day's.
Also I was very surprised to find that the 35mm frame lines are way smaller than what the lens captures. There is quite a bit that is captured outside the frame.
Flickr album with 35mm Summilux
Flickr album with 25mm Biogon
sparrow6224
Well-known
I don't know whether it's your shooting style, how the lenses made you feel, or the qualities of the lenses themselves, but the 25mm Zeiss shots are more vivid, sharper, and more interesting than the 35mm Summilux shots.
ramosa
B&W
I'd be wary of making a decision based on these two shoots. Between the two sets of photos, there appear to be significant differences in lighting and setting. The Zeiss images certainly look better, but the natural light is much better, and the scenery is much more dramatic. The Leica images have awful light (not your mistake, just the way the weather was that day), and the scenery is mundane. Aside from that, though, you certainly may have sensed a preferred weight or preferred field of view between the two lenses. In regards to field of view, of course, you can also ask yourself what focal lengths have fit you best in your previous experiences with other cameras.
Anyway, glad to see that you're enjoying your M8--and that you live close to a good Leica shop (probably Keeble and Shuchat?). That's a good shop, in fact, the shop that got me hooked on Leica RFs after a visit about three years ago.
Anyway, glad to see that you're enjoying your M8--and that you live close to a good Leica shop (probably Keeble and Shuchat?). That's a good shop, in fact, the shop that got me hooked on Leica RFs after a visit about three years ago.
Rogier
Rogier Willems
Thanks for all the feedback 
Sure I am not making a decision based on a quick run around in bad weather. I am sharing my experiences so others can learn from them as well.
Still I think one should be awed when putting on a new piece of glass. So far I am disappointed with this particular lens / camera combination.
Still its great to be able to shoot with low light and isolate the background nicely.
Some of the shots taken with the Zeiss were also taken with heavy overcast weather. I realize that both are entirely different lenses. And I am not making a comparison between the lenses as such.
Will do some more shooting over the next few day's
Sure I am not making a decision based on a quick run around in bad weather. I am sharing my experiences so others can learn from them as well.
Still I think one should be awed when putting on a new piece of glass. So far I am disappointed with this particular lens / camera combination.
Still its great to be able to shoot with low light and isolate the background nicely.
Some of the shots taken with the Zeiss were also taken with heavy overcast weather. I realize that both are entirely different lenses. And I am not making a comparison between the lenses as such.
Will do some more shooting over the next few day's
Rogier
Rogier Willems
Ah good tip about the masks, guess that I don't have the updated ones in my M8.
I have been looking at images taken with CV lenses, unfortunately only very few speak to me.
I have been looking at images taken with CV lenses, unfortunately only very few speak to me.
paragon
Established
Hi Rogier
The light looks "poor" on your Summilux shoot, and looking at the shots I can see why you are disappointed
I have recently purchased a M8 and for me I have found, (it is obvious I know), that I need good light to be happy with the results. This is changing as I get used to the camera.
As each day goes by I get to know the camera better and I can see improvements, but shooting in poor light can be very disappointing even with the best equipment.
Good luck
The light looks "poor" on your Summilux shoot, and looking at the shots I can see why you are disappointed
I have recently purchased a M8 and for me I have found, (it is obvious I know), that I need good light to be happy with the results. This is changing as I get used to the camera.
As each day goes by I get to know the camera better and I can see improvements, but shooting in poor light can be very disappointing even with the best equipment.
Good luck
Last edited:
gshybrid
Well-known
Rogier
I had a Zeiss 25 when I first bought my M8. I sold it to buy a 35 summilux asph. I love the lux but I recently bought another Zeiss 25. There is something about that lens on an M8 that is just magic. The lux excels in low light and for it's out of focus rendering but the Zeiss has become my everyday lens. The two lenses compliment each other so I'm keeping both.
Geof
I had a Zeiss 25 when I first bought my M8. I sold it to buy a 35 summilux asph. I love the lux but I recently bought another Zeiss 25. There is something about that lens on an M8 that is just magic. The lux excels in low light and for it's out of focus rendering but the Zeiss has become my everyday lens. The two lenses compliment each other so I'm keeping both.
Geof
Ron (Netherlands)
Well-known
Apart from the 35mm summicrons and summaRons I am currently using a lot, the 25mm biogon was and is my most favorate lens - and many people consider the shots made with that lens the best in my collection: extreme high resolution combined with beautiful color rendition.
The old type summilux is by no means a match for the outstanding Biogon, the best lens of the Carl Zeiss range (technically speaking the 25mm is even better than the 21mm and 35mm Biogons).
This pic to show what the Biogon is capable of (I know it was posted before):
ps if you have to use that summilux stopped down to 2.8, then I would look after a fine Summaron or one stop better Summicron.
The old type summilux is by no means a match for the outstanding Biogon, the best lens of the Carl Zeiss range (technically speaking the 25mm is even better than the 21mm and 35mm Biogons).
This pic to show what the Biogon is capable of (I know it was posted before):
ps if you have to use that summilux stopped down to 2.8, then I would look after a fine Summaron or one stop better Summicron.
Last edited:
Rogier
Rogier Willems
Rogier
Rogier Willems
Yep I agree totally!
But I might take the 28mm rather than the 25. And add the 18 later.
gshybrid
Well-known
I haven't tried a 28 biogon but I just traded a 21 biogon 2.8. It was nice but so close to the 25 that I traded it for an 18 distagon... I just got it a few days ago. I haven't shot much with it. It's sharp and it seems like a true wide on an M8 but I think it's so close to my much smaller cv 15 that I might let it go as well. I like all the performance of Zeiss wides but all except the 21 f4.5 are fairly large.
Rogier
Rogier Willems
I am very curious how you like the results from the Zeiss 18 vs CV 15. I am going back and forth between them.
Please keep us posted on your experiences
Rogier
Rogier Willems
Today I took Bart into the city. Unfortunately I was not feeling very well. Regardless I got a better feel for this lens. Still this is not a"magic" lens on this camera. Full open (and that is what you buy a f1.4 for..) the contrast and sharpness are mediocre. As it turns out this lens is over 15 years old. More recent versions are claimed to be much better. Unfortunately the recent versions are very expensive. No worry, the 50mm equivalent view angle is not my thing. And if needed a Zeiss 35mm F2.0 will do perfectly fine for way less money ;-)
These recent images have received minor changes in Aperture. Most importantly a bump in contrast was needed to make them "work".
Album with Summilux / M8 images
These recent images have received minor changes in Aperture. Most importantly a bump in contrast was needed to make them "work".
Album with Summilux / M8 images
Attachments
Last edited:
thompsonks
Well-known
Which Summilux are you using?
Which Summilux are you using?
Hi Roger,
I wonder what you mean by a 15-year-old 35 Summilux – do you mean the Type 2 that uses Series 7 filters in the hood?
That would be this one:
http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/index.php/35mm_f/1.4_Summilux_II
If that's it, then it's doing exactly what folks value it for. It has sort of a cult following because it's NOT sharp wide open – it produces lots of spherical aberrations that some folks love & call 'Leica glow.' The lens' imperfections produce a kind of radiated smoothness, as in Renaissance paintings, that some users find more attractive than sharpness – especially in portraits.
If you want an older Leica 35 at a reasonable price that's sharper 'but not too sharp' wide open, then you want a Summicron ver. 4.
If you want wide-open sharpness on a 1.4, you need a 35 Summilux marked ASPH, & newer than 15 years old. These display some focus shift, though, & have been replaced by a new model at $5K. If you want a very wide-aperture 35 at a bargain price (though it's heavy), you want a Nokton 1.2.
If on the other hand, you've found an inexpensive used 35 that's exactly 15 years old & says ASPHERICAL on it – the whole word spelled out – then buy it right now, whether you like it or not. Few were made & collectors will pay unreasonable sums for it.
I suggest that before you try out lenses, you do an Internet search to find out what they are. Many Web threads about Summiluxes discuss what I've summarized above. Here's an example, with a 'glow' illustration (my wife's exercise ball):
http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=21282
Kirk
Which Summilux are you using?
Hi Roger,
I wonder what you mean by a 15-year-old 35 Summilux – do you mean the Type 2 that uses Series 7 filters in the hood?
That would be this one:
http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/index.php/35mm_f/1.4_Summilux_II
If that's it, then it's doing exactly what folks value it for. It has sort of a cult following because it's NOT sharp wide open – it produces lots of spherical aberrations that some folks love & call 'Leica glow.' The lens' imperfections produce a kind of radiated smoothness, as in Renaissance paintings, that some users find more attractive than sharpness – especially in portraits.
If you want an older Leica 35 at a reasonable price that's sharper 'but not too sharp' wide open, then you want a Summicron ver. 4.
If you want wide-open sharpness on a 1.4, you need a 35 Summilux marked ASPH, & newer than 15 years old. These display some focus shift, though, & have been replaced by a new model at $5K. If you want a very wide-aperture 35 at a bargain price (though it's heavy), you want a Nokton 1.2.
If on the other hand, you've found an inexpensive used 35 that's exactly 15 years old & says ASPHERICAL on it – the whole word spelled out – then buy it right now, whether you like it or not. Few were made & collectors will pay unreasonable sums for it.
I suggest that before you try out lenses, you do an Internet search to find out what they are. Many Web threads about Summiluxes discuss what I've summarized above. Here's an example, with a 'glow' illustration (my wife's exercise ball):
http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=21282
Kirk
Rogier
Rogier Willems
Hi Krik,
Thanks for the explanation. And Yes I have read and viewed tons of stuff about this lens.
I am sharing my experiences in order for other to learn and hope for clarification from people like you
For my preference it will be a asph version if that's what it takes to create the images I like ;-)
Thank you
Thanks for the explanation. And Yes I have read and viewed tons of stuff about this lens.
I am sharing my experiences in order for other to learn and hope for clarification from people like you
For my preference it will be a asph version if that's what it takes to create the images I like ;-)
Thank you
Arvay
Obscurant
Zeiss impressed me much more.
