MikeL
Go Fish
ampguy said:
That's what I said, first 2 rolls were the v4 pre-apsh.......Ah, 50-50 chance, I thought it was worth it.
I had the 35mm asph before going to the Nikkor 35mm f1.8, and a few photos in the first 2 rolls with open aperture indoors looked like images from the lens I had. Quick transition to OOF areas, a bit more saturated. Less so with rolls 3-4. Just goes to show how processing can be a bigger deal than the lens. Looks like size and, according to internet talk, construction (glue), might be the only practical difference between the two. To me.
ferider
Veteran
I think people can stop voting now.
ampguy
Veteran
Octagon OOF
Octagon OOF
Roland,
What is the significance of this? Is it a flare thing? Could it have been caused by the B&W filter (rect hood was on) or a wide aperture (leica adv. photo book says this is best stopped down to 5.6).
Octagon OOF
Roland,
What is the significance of this? Is it a flare thing? Could it have been caused by the B&W filter (rect hood was on) or a wide aperture (leica adv. photo book says this is best stopped down to 5.6).
ferider said:I think people can stop voting now.
ferider
Veteran
Not sure, Ted. I would think it has to do with the shape of the aperture
blades. Does the ASPH have less blades (I assume 8) compared to the v4 ?
Or do they form a less perfect circle ?
Roland.
blades. Does the ASPH have less blades (I assume 8) compared to the v4 ?
Or do they form a less perfect circle ?
Roland.
ampguy
Veteran
The asph has 10 blades
The asph has 10 blades
They both have non-perfect circles, at least from f2 to f4, one very noticeable difference is the diameter of the pre-asph is much larger than the asph, and it's rear surface area is relatively large compared to the asph, even the it's such a smaller lens.
The asph protrudes deeper and is concave, while the pre-asph is convex and not so deep protruding. For example, the asph can't be used on the heavystar double m-couplers because it goes too deep inwards form the mount, while the pre-asph, rokkor, and hexanon-m 50 all are shallow enough from the mount to work with the back to back mounts.
The Zeiss 28 biogon also protrudes deep and is not a good candidate for the double back to back lens holder.
The asph has 10 blades
They both have non-perfect circles, at least from f2 to f4, one very noticeable difference is the diameter of the pre-asph is much larger than the asph, and it's rear surface area is relatively large compared to the asph, even the it's such a smaller lens.
The asph protrudes deeper and is concave, while the pre-asph is convex and not so deep protruding. For example, the asph can't be used on the heavystar double m-couplers because it goes too deep inwards form the mount, while the pre-asph, rokkor, and hexanon-m 50 all are shallow enough from the mount to work with the back to back mounts.
The Zeiss 28 biogon also protrudes deep and is not a good candidate for the double back to back lens holder.
ferider said:
ampguy
Veteran
so now i'm wondering
so now i'm wondering
are those really octagons or dectagons???
so now i'm wondering
are those really octagons or dectagons???
ampguy
Veteran
Thanks x-ray
Thanks x-ray
I do see the aperture patterns that Roland pointed out with the asph.
I will have to check out the Biogon 35 now (as well as cron v3)! I do know it's a big lens for a 35 from the other thread, it looks no smaller than the asph, and a lot bigger than the pre-asphs (though may not need a hood).
Thanks x-ray
I do see the aperture patterns that Roland pointed out with the asph.
I will have to check out the Biogon 35 now (as well as cron v3)! I do know it's a big lens for a 35 from the other thread, it looks no smaller than the asph, and a lot bigger than the pre-asphs (though may not need a hood).
x-ray said:
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
ampguy
Veteran
ok
ok
but in your image (and mine), I don't think these aperture reflections are designed to be highlighted (were you using a filter?) which is why I wonder if it is flare related like x-ray implies.
Yes, more circular is probably better but the bright fish scale perfect circle OOF areas by some lenses is not necessarily "smoother" than an octagon or dectagon IMHO.
I think filters might be a cause, they're coming off this weekend if no rain.
ok
but in your image (and mine), I don't think these aperture reflections are designed to be highlighted (were you using a filter?) which is why I wonder if it is flare related like x-ray implies.
Yes, more circular is probably better but the bright fish scale perfect circle OOF areas by some lenses is not necessarily "smoother" than an octagon or dectagon IMHO.
I think filters might be a cause, they're coming off this weekend if no rain.
RayPA said:the point is...it's not "round, circular, smooth."
.
ferider
Veteran
Ted, these are the corners between the aperture blades, independent
of filter. When you open up completely the circles will be round. When
you close down further, these things will degenerate into stars. For example,
a Canon 50/1.4 wide open and then close down some and then more
The more blades you have, and the rounder they are the less this affect
happens. It did not happen in any of your v4 shots, BTW.
I only saw flare in the shot quoted in post #2, which might have been filter
caused.
Best,
Roland.
of filter. When you open up completely the circles will be round. When
you close down further, these things will degenerate into stars. For example,
a Canon 50/1.4 wide open and then close down some and then more
The more blades you have, and the rounder they are the less this affect
happens. It did not happen in any of your v4 shots, BTW.
I only saw flare in the shot quoted in post #2, which might have been filter
caused.
Best,
Roland.
ampguy
Veteran
Thanks Roland
Thanks Roland
Your explanation and sequence of photos explains a lot about the shapes.
I'll have to experiment more with this.
Thanks!
Thanks Roland
Your explanation and sequence of photos explains a lot about the shapes.
I'll have to experiment more with this.
Thanks!
ferider said:
x-ray
Veteran
Don't confuse OOF specular highlights with flare. Big difference. Every lens that I've seen will give the pattern of the aperture in the oof specular highlights and many will give stars when stopped down. What i was speaking about when I mentioned the aperture pattern in the image was actual flare from a light source outside the image field and light striking the front element from an oblique angle.
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
What Roland is illustrating is light coming from the subject.
When you see highlight spots of the aperture shape at apparently random positions on the image, that is a kind og "ghosting" of the aperture blades. The light comes in from outside of the subject area thus cannot directly hit the film (it's out of the frame) however if it is very strong light, e.g. the Sun is just outside of the frame, then it can be reflected back from the aperture blades or fromlens elements behind the aperture blades, and then reflected again backward into the lens from the lens surfaces in the front. Even with coated lenses there is some level of reflection, and even if this is below 1%, for a strong light source this can be enough to show up on the image. Since the light is shaped by the aperture blades, the end result will resemble the aperture shape a bit. Depends also on the lens structure and where the actual internal reflection happens.
Many times more than one of the lens surfaces will produce this reflection and more than one spot will appear; some of them are coming from a longer distance and do not resemble the aperture shape anymore (from infinity they would all look round); some of them come from a closeby lens surface and those will carry the aperture shape. But they all line up nicely one after the other on the image (supposing that there is only one strong highlight source outside of the frame - otherwise multiple series can appear,e.g. evening and street lamps).
When you see highlight spots of the aperture shape at apparently random positions on the image, that is a kind og "ghosting" of the aperture blades. The light comes in from outside of the subject area thus cannot directly hit the film (it's out of the frame) however if it is very strong light, e.g. the Sun is just outside of the frame, then it can be reflected back from the aperture blades or fromlens elements behind the aperture blades, and then reflected again backward into the lens from the lens surfaces in the front. Even with coated lenses there is some level of reflection, and even if this is below 1%, for a strong light source this can be enough to show up on the image. Since the light is shaped by the aperture blades, the end result will resemble the aperture shape a bit. Depends also on the lens structure and where the actual internal reflection happens.
Many times more than one of the lens surfaces will produce this reflection and more than one spot will appear; some of them are coming from a longer distance and do not resemble the aperture shape anymore (from infinity they would all look round); some of them come from a closeby lens surface and those will carry the aperture shape. But they all line up nicely one after the other on the image (supposing that there is only one strong highlight source outside of the frame - otherwise multiple series can appear,e.g. evening and street lamps).
ampguy
Veteran
Thanks Roland, x-ray, and Pherdinand,
I think I understand what is happening, and that the scenarios are not directly related. The ghost flare image of the aperture when shooting in the sun is identified, and I've seen this type of issue last week with the ZM 28.
This issue of shooting in/towards the sun and getting the aperture ghost image is documented well and shown in the Leica M Advanced School book. However, the author mentions that slightly moving to a different angle can remove it, but without an SLR it's tricky to know if you have it as your lens is going to behave different than your VF glass. Bracket sun shots I guess.
The aperture reflections that show non-round OOF lights that Roland showed is a different issue as x-ray mentions, and it could be that the ASPH cron with it's 2 fewer aperture blades is more prone to it's aperture pattern being exposed vs the earlier crons. I haven't noticed it before Roland pointed it out, and it doesn't bother me even now knowing it's there, and I wonder if it's there for a reason, perhaps in other lighting OOF scenarios to prevent circular highlights?
It's definitely interesting though. The Leica M book touts the asph cron as being almost distortion free, and free of coma relative to prior versions, and I wonder if anyone has seen this in real life, or if everyone thinks it is marketing bs?
You have to acknowledge that the design is a complete new one, looking at the sizes, # of aperture blades, shape of front and rear elements, etc.
I think I understand what is happening, and that the scenarios are not directly related. The ghost flare image of the aperture when shooting in the sun is identified, and I've seen this type of issue last week with the ZM 28.
This issue of shooting in/towards the sun and getting the aperture ghost image is documented well and shown in the Leica M Advanced School book. However, the author mentions that slightly moving to a different angle can remove it, but without an SLR it's tricky to know if you have it as your lens is going to behave different than your VF glass. Bracket sun shots I guess.
The aperture reflections that show non-round OOF lights that Roland showed is a different issue as x-ray mentions, and it could be that the ASPH cron with it's 2 fewer aperture blades is more prone to it's aperture pattern being exposed vs the earlier crons. I haven't noticed it before Roland pointed it out, and it doesn't bother me even now knowing it's there, and I wonder if it's there for a reason, perhaps in other lighting OOF scenarios to prevent circular highlights?
It's definitely interesting though. The Leica M book touts the asph cron as being almost distortion free, and free of coma relative to prior versions, and I wonder if anyone has seen this in real life, or if everyone thinks it is marketing bs?
You have to acknowledge that the design is a complete new one, looking at the sizes, # of aperture blades, shape of front and rear elements, etc.
JNewell
Leica M Recidivist
Distortion, flare and coma are all different things. I can vouch for the ASPH Cron being free completely of coma at f/2. Flare is more subjective - I haven't seen it but I haven't tried to produce it, either.
kevin m
Veteran
I went way out of my way to buy a v4 Summicron 35 and was very much disappointed. I bought it from a camera shop in Austria off ebay in 1999, I believe, and had to do a wire transfer to pay for it. Had to have it, though, 'cause the internet told me it was the 'bokeh king.'
I love to shoot wide open, and the v4 is frankly mediocre at f2.0. Flare prone, not very sharp. And I haven't even mentioned the mechanical issues yet: The lock ring that kept backing off and allowing the lens group to separate from the focus mount. It got sent to Sherry once, and her fix lasted about a month, then I opened it up and fixed it myself. The v4 just isn't built like the old lenses.
The best Leica 35mm for the money is the Minolta or the Leica 40mm. That lens is a bargain. If it took 39mm filters, it'd be perfect. I see the v4 now sells for over $1,000, which, by any practical measure, is a waste of money.
I love to shoot wide open, and the v4 is frankly mediocre at f2.0. Flare prone, not very sharp. And I haven't even mentioned the mechanical issues yet: The lock ring that kept backing off and allowing the lens group to separate from the focus mount. It got sent to Sherry once, and her fix lasted about a month, then I opened it up and fixed it myself. The v4 just isn't built like the old lenses.
The best Leica 35mm for the money is the Minolta or the Leica 40mm. That lens is a bargain. If it took 39mm filters, it'd be perfect. I see the v4 now sells for over $1,000, which, by any practical measure, is a waste of money.
ampguy
Veteran
Sorry
Sorry
Sorry to hear you and x-ray got duds. I guess you want to look for the anniv. V4 versions. This is built as well as my German ASPH, and makes any CV or Zeiss lens feel like a toy.
Sorry
Sorry to hear you and x-ray got duds. I guess you want to look for the anniv. V4 versions. This is built as well as my German ASPH, and makes any CV or Zeiss lens feel like a toy.
kevin m said:I went way out of my way to buy a v4 Summicron 35 and was very much disappointed. I bought it from a camera shop in Austria off ebay in 1999, I believe, and had to do a wire transfer to pay for it. Had to have it, though, 'cause the internet told me it was the 'bokeh king.'
I love to shoot wide open, and the v4 is frankly mediocre at f2.0. Flare prone, not very sharp. And I haven't even mentioned the mechanical issues yet: The lock ring that kept backing off and allowing the lens group to separate from the focus mount. It got sent to Sherry once, and her fix lasted about a month, then I opened it up and fixed it myself. The v4 just isn't built like the old lenses.
The best Leica 35mm for the money is the Minolta or the Leica 40mm. That lens is a bargain. If it took 39mm filters, it'd be perfect. I see the v4 now sells for over $1,000, which, by any practical measure, is a waste of money.
S
Simon Larbalestier
Guest
The version V4 works well enough for me even wide open.
dreamsandart
Well-known
The 4th version 35 Summicron is getting more of a bad rap these days, interesting as just a short time ago it was a premier lens, have things changed so much in a short time? Could it be that the recent negative internet talk about this lens will reverse the perception built over a couple decades and it will be just another good but 'classic' Leica lens?
My own experience with this lens has been one in the 'great lens' camp. Its small, doesn't get in the way of the 35 frame much, and optically has always done what I've wanted it too. Leica did make compromises in its design just so it was that ideal small compact 35, and the fact newer 'aspherical' designs (and larger) have come into production don't take away from this. Its good wide open (outstanding if you look at Simon's work) and by f4 it would be hard for anyone to see a difference with a new designed lens. For me the difference is still that magical 'smooth' transition of boken and general look and flat field.
BTW: I've had three of these; one Canada made and two chrome German made and the chrome versions are a cut above, never a mount issue even after years of travel use (don't use the hood to mount the lens!) and they feel rock (brass) solid.
My own experience with this lens has been one in the 'great lens' camp. Its small, doesn't get in the way of the 35 frame much, and optically has always done what I've wanted it too. Leica did make compromises in its design just so it was that ideal small compact 35, and the fact newer 'aspherical' designs (and larger) have come into production don't take away from this. Its good wide open (outstanding if you look at Simon's work) and by f4 it would be hard for anyone to see a difference with a new designed lens. For me the difference is still that magical 'smooth' transition of boken and general look and flat field.
BTW: I've had three of these; one Canada made and two chrome German made and the chrome versions are a cut above, never a mount issue even after years of travel use (don't use the hood to mount the lens!) and they feel rock (brass) solid.
S
Simon Larbalestier
Guest
From my experience i prefer the look and handling of the V4 F/2 wide open compared to my images from the 35/1,4 pre ASPH and the Nokton 35/1.2 at apertures 1.2 through to F2.8 - the smaller 35/2 is just easier to hold and more discreet certainly in the work i do. Of course everyone's mileage varies.