Tim Gray
Well-known
I know this lens wasn't mentioned, but I'm tickled pink by my ASPH Summilux. I guess some call it clinical, but I've never seen that. I just see dependable. Wide open, stopped down, at infinity, in close, against light, into the light, etc.
GoneSavage
not actually
A bit off topic here (the conversation seems to have gone lux-centric) but I think the sonnar is a better lens than some give credit. While I have heard many people downplay the impact of focus shift on a 2.8 optimized sonnar at 1.5, I think this shift could easily be responsible for any perceived "softness" wide open. This is especially true in situations where the subject is closer than two meters, as the lens will focus about 4 inches closer than indicated by the rangefinder.
Richard G
Veteran
The front focus in absolute measure depends on the precise distance: it's more like 3.5cm than 4 inches at 1m: see M Fogiel's tests with photographs taken at 45˚ from a distance of 1m. (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=53589&d=1198359717)
martin s
Well-known
You know thanks for this image, I have the pre-asph and such bad bokeh in a few portraits I shot lately in front of trees I was on the verge of selling it. I settled on keeping it anyway, but this picture convinced me to maybe use it soon.
martin
GoneSavage
not actually
Indeed Richard, I have seen the tests, and I don't proclaim to be stating exact measurements; I only meant to provide another insight. I shoot a lot of close portraits, and have found the shift at 1.5 to be even more prominent than stated in M Fogiel's samples.
ps: just finished The Big Sleep. Chandler is one of a kind!
ps: just finished The Big Sleep. Chandler is one of a kind!
Richard G
Veteran
Another Chandler fan–that's good to know. The Big Sleep is great. I am still learning with my Sonnar. I am finding my images OK and my tests confusing. With a chessboard set up at just under one metre I found the focus shift was perhaps as much as 4.2cm but at a greater distance on a line of books it appeared to be much less. However, unlike Roger Hicks's test, the books stuck out at various distances, interfering with a precise assessment. The only encyclopedias are at the beach house. I am likely to stick with my 2.8 calibrated version.