ampguy
Veteran
the lens has OK bokeh, as does this one - a Fuji F72EXR:
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Someone needs a hug.
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
Well, the test wasn't scientific. Ya got me pardner.
The point is that the m4/3 cameras offer a way to see what happens when different lenses are used on the same sensor. Actually, the point was just to have some fun. So, a pointless point, really and that's my point, not to put to fine a point on it. And while I am feeling pointy-headed about it, let me make a pointed observation, and point out that it may be a bit much to pointedly participate while pointing to pointlessness. Period (or if you prefer, point, game, set and match).
Edit: love the bokeh, ampguy
The point is that the m4/3 cameras offer a way to see what happens when different lenses are used on the same sensor. Actually, the point was just to have some fun. So, a pointless point, really and that's my point, not to put to fine a point on it. And while I am feeling pointy-headed about it, let me make a pointed observation, and point out that it may be a bit much to pointedly participate while pointing to pointlessness. Period (or if you prefer, point, game, set and match).
Edit: love the bokeh, ampguy
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
hehe.. while I too like the look of the Biogon I am going to play devil's advocate (and not say "what's the point?"): Isn't this a bit "unfair" to the Summicron v. IV? I mean, you're pitting a lens with much more up to date optics against an old Leica.
Go at 'er
Cheers,
Dave
Go at 'er
Cheers,
Dave
Mister E
Well-known
MCTuomey
Veteran
Ben, I asked the question because I noticed that the right eye of the subject of the zeiss pic is in focus while her left eye is not. And in the cron pic both of the subject's eyes are in focus.
Assuming you focused on the nearest (right) eye in each pic and any cropping was done equally b/w them, a couple of observations. one, the cron may have a dof distribution that more readily encompasses, in this case, both eyes of a very near subject. two, the zeiss may have a dof distribution that less readily encompasses, in this case, both eyes of a very near subject.
Getting both eyes in focus at a given aperture in a head shot makes a better photo, imho.
It's possible the zeiss is front-focusing a bit, too. At any rate, the cron seems to have the more favorable dof configuration, if that matters to anyone.
Last edited:
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Now that's a point where a (really) more scientific comparison would be useful. I'd want to see a lot more photos, taken under more tightly controlled conditions.
Mister E
Well-known
A lens simply cannot front focus on a PnS/EVIL camera when shooting in stop down mode like this. You see exactly what the lens is seeing.
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
Well, that's true. But in practice if you are racking focus and stop when you hit the zone of best focus (or perceived zone of best focus), you could have more of that zone in front or behind your point of focus when you snap the exposure, depending on where you were in your lens's travel. There are also nominal differences in the focal length of lenses and slight variations between formulas. I remember Ed Schwartzriech posted something about this when comparing the 50/1.4 Asph and the 50 Millennium Nikkor -- there were real differences in the DOF.
MCTuomey
Veteran
Only if you're looking for all of it. Which would take more time than I expect Ben had to make that lovely candid ...
ampguy
Veteran
Again, different 35mm lens have different DOF characteristics.
MCTuomey
Veteran
Can't agree more. My point is conjecture, but based on more than Ben's two pics. I may have a few pictures taken from the short time I owned a cron 35 IV and a zm 35/2 together. Will look.
Turtle
Veteran
Have you seen what people pay for the 35mm V4 cron? There must be a fault in this casual test that ended up showing the ZM as having greater aparrent sharpness and smoother OOF. Prices for the V4 cannot possibly be related to some sort of mass hysteria - why would they be - Leica buyers are a very rational bunch. My hunch is that if you got in a time machine and shot this again, using starving Africans or Bosnian refugees, the V4 would indeed be the far better lens. Perhaps the V4 somehow responds better to 'crisis shots' due to the types of lines and tone you tend to find in such images?
In order to conduct a fair test, not only would you have to do side by sides on a tripod, you would also have to use a suitable subject. A burning building, natural disaster, or similar scene of carnage would show that the V4 rises to these challenges far better than the ZM at any aperture.
Put frankly, the 35 V4 is the best kept secret in the photographic world and prices will skyrocket further if all those talented pros and amateurs out there catch on, so shhhhhh. Keep talking up lenses like the ZM 35s, 35 Summarit and CV 35 2.5 and keep this gem available to the real shooters. I'm with you Benjamin - throw' em off the scent!
In order to conduct a fair test, not only would you have to do side by sides on a tripod, you would also have to use a suitable subject. A burning building, natural disaster, or similar scene of carnage would show that the V4 rises to these challenges far better than the ZM at any aperture.
Put frankly, the 35 V4 is the best kept secret in the photographic world and prices will skyrocket further if all those talented pros and amateurs out there catch on, so shhhhhh. Keep talking up lenses like the ZM 35s, 35 Summarit and CV 35 2.5 and keep this gem available to the real shooters. I'm with you Benjamin - throw' em off the scent!
leicashot
Well-known
Have you seen what people pay for the 35mm V4 cron? There must be a fault in this casual test that ended up showing the ZM as having greater aparrent sharpness and smoother OOF. Prices for the V4 cannot possibly be related to some sort of mass hysteria - why would they be - Leica buyers are a very rational bunch. My hunch is that if you got in a time machine and shot this again, using starving Africans or Bosnian refugees, the V4 would indeed be the far better lens. Perhaps the V4 somehow responds better to 'crisis shots' due to the types of lines and tone you tend to find in such images?
In order to conduct a fair test, not only would you have to do side by sides on a tripod, you would also have to use a suitable subject. A burning building, natural disaster, or similar scene of carnage would show that the V4 rises to these challenges far better than the ZM at any aperture.
Put frankly, the 35 V4 is the best kept secret in the photographic world and prices will skyrocket further if all those talented pros and amateurs out there catch on, so shhhhhh. Keep talking up lenses like the ZM 35s, 35 Summarit and CV 35 2.5 and keep this gem available to the real shooters. I'm with you Benjamin - throw' em off the scent!
I just compared the two briefly yesterday and it was obvious on the back of the camera that the Zeiss is superior in sharpness, contrast and bokeh. On the computer monitor, this was only further enhanced. I chose correctly.
Turtle
Veteran
I was being sarcastic with my last post and would hate to think anyone toook it literally. I could tell, like most could, that shot one was obviously from the Zeiss. I shoot many ZMs and a few Leica lenses and looking at my images, the ZMs leave me wanting for nothing in most cases. I have the 35 f2 Biogon, the 35 Summarit and CV 35 pancake II. I prefer the Summarit as the best all rounder, but all are very good indeed. The CV stands out as an outrageous bargain comparatively, but is a touch weaker wider open in the extreme corners and vignettes more. As wonderful as the V4 cron likely is, I cannot fathom why people spend the money they do on this lens, especially when it is generally reckoned that the performance at f2 is fairly weak compared to modern optics. For someone looking to 'bring back the bacon' something with more flare resistance and better F2 performance makes more sense... and for someone happy to concede half a stop, the Summarit 35 2.5 is a wonderful performer with sublime bokeh no matter what (so it seems). Hell, you can have a used as new Summarit for about $500 less than a 20 year old V4 that might need a CLA, has no warranty, less flare resisatnce, dubious build...
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Let's at least acknowledge that "fairly weak" in this particular context still means "equal to, and probably better than, any SLR 35mm (full-frame) lens on the market, even today." The v. IV was an extraordinary lens on its release and even today it's a very, very fine lens; the improvements since are incremental.
Last edited:
Oh Two
Established
Harumphhh!
Harumphhh!
You knew it was coming, so here it is.
From what I see and from what I have owned, I still cherish my old 2.8 Sumaron. Why quibble about a a half stop when you can quibble about a full stop?
Harumphhh!
You knew it was coming, so here it is.
From what I see and from what I have owned, I still cherish my old 2.8 Sumaron. Why quibble about a a half stop when you can quibble about a full stop?
MCTuomey
Veteran
Follow-up to my post regarding comparing dof configuration b/w the zm 35/2 and cron IV 35/2. I'll show 2 pics for each lens focused on the same wall from the same shooting position, one full size and the other a lower right crop at 100%. Please ignore the obvious lack of control over light and other variables. Please concentrate only on the relative in-focus condition of the tree branches. First, here are the full pic and lower right 100% crop of the wall taken on an M8 w/ the Cron IV wide open:
Attachments
MCTuomey
Veteran
And here are the full size pic and lower right crop at 100% of the same wall taken on the same M8 with the Zeiss Biogon 35/2, shot wide open. Again, please ignore the important variables like lighting etc and concentrate just on the relative in-focus condition of the tree branches.
I realize this is insufficient a sample to prove a point. These shots, taken at different times only to verify lens condition upon purchase, are the only ones I have of the same subject taken from the same position with both lenses. They are all I can produce in support of my earlier suggestion that the Cron 35 has a larger dof distribution than the Zeiss 35 Biogon when shot wide open.
I realize this is insufficient a sample to prove a point. These shots, taken at different times only to verify lens condition upon purchase, are the only ones I have of the same subject taken from the same position with both lenses. They are all I can produce in support of my earlier suggestion that the Cron 35 has a larger dof distribution than the Zeiss 35 Biogon when shot wide open.
Attachments
kossi008
Photon Counter
Well, those pictures are not really helpful. I'm also unsre from your wording what your claim is. Are you trying to prove that at the same aperture, the Summicron has a shallower DOF than the Biogon?