Yucky 35mm G lens

[Bob Michaels]

FWIW, I use the 45mm hood on both the 35mm and the 28mm biogon and never see any vignetting. (Yes, the 45mm hood on the 28mm biogon)

But I almost never use a filter.

Bob Michaels

 

[Doug]

First roll out of my "new" 35mm Planar, Ilford XP-2 Super, with a UV filter holding the GG-2 hood further from the lens... and note this is the hood intended for the 45mm Planar and is longer than the GG-1 specified for the 35! Seems not to cause any vignetting though.

First shot at about f/5.6 I think, a grab-shot of a bit of horsing around in the Cingular Wireless store. Second is at f/2.8 in a library, at very close distance to the subject and displaying some pleasant bokeh! Third is muted daylight at about f/11 I think, in a motel being demolished.

I don't see any sign of the softness that this lens has been criticized for; it has nice tonality, nice bokeh, no noticeable corner fall-off in my shots, and in the full-size 2000x3000 scans the sharpness looks excellent, with the lady in the library impressively crisp. A winner!

 

[dagata]

35/2 Planar

35/2 Planar

If you look at David Alan Harvey's "Cuba" book, you'll see a shot or two where the 35 1.4 Summicron vignettes. I find the 35/2 Planar almost equally as good as the 45--except at f/2. Vignetting isn't the issue as much as the sharpness, but it's a stupendous lens nevertheless.

 

[Doug]

Welcome, dagata, and thanks for your comments. I may not have been clear about the vignetting, and that word has been misused too, leading to misunderstanding. Vignetting, as opposed to cosine-squared-law falloff, is caused by a physical shading at the extremities of the angle of view. Such as from a too long or too small-diameter lens hood (and all lenses vignette at the limits of their circles of illumination). My used 35 Planar came with the longer hood from the 45 Planar, and there's a UV filter extending it even longer... So that's why I would not have been surprised to see some vignetting, and it's perhaps a little remarkable that there isn't. 🙂

Good to hear your opinion, then, that the 35 is a stupendous lens, if slightly less stupendous than the 45... !

 

[Socke]

I'm waiting for one to arrive, then I know first hand 🙂

 

[furcafe]

FWIW, I've also had nothing but positive experiences w/the 35/2 Planar & have never understood why it has such a (relatively) poor reputation. For about a year, I also had the 35/2 Summicron-M ASPH & was able to compare the 2 lenses (still have the Planar), & didn't find the 'cron to be that overwhelmingly better (especially considering it cost about $1000 more!). I've never noticed any light fall-off w/the Planar. Per jlw's post, mine doesn't appear to be as sharp @ f/2-f/2.8 in the corners as my 35/1.4 Summilux-M ASPH (or the ASPH 'cron that preceded it), but corner sharpness is not a big deal for me; in that regard, I agree w/Socke's observation that the 35/2 Planar resembles older lenses from the '60s (don't know if it was deliberately designed that way like the 35/2 Hexanon on the Hexar AF).

I don't see any sign of the softness that this lens has been criticized for; it has nice tonality, nice bokeh, no noticeable corner fall-off in my shots, and in the full-size 2000x3000 scans the sharpness looks excellent, with the lady in the library impressively crisp. A winner!

 

[geoset]

I agree with Bob. I also use the full range of G lenses (except the 16mm) and find little or no quality difference between the 35mm and the others in B&W enlargements up to 11x14". Personally I prefer the 45mm focal length and when travelling usually couple it with a 28mmm. I find the 21mm has its use occasionally but most of the time is too wide for my taste.

 

[jaap]

The Contax G planar 35mm is a wondelfull lens I think. Already at f4.0 it's a it best. Except for the extreem corners. Thank you