Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Ashwin, I have Ernst Leitz GmbH Wetzlar ~ Summaron 3.5cm f3.5 (1953) that I can let borrow for the lens blowout test.By the way, if anyone wishes to let me borrow some other 35's, I'd love to do some sort of 35 mm lens blowout test on the M9 and MM down the road, in various lightings and backgrounds...could be fun!
Unfortunately I wasn't able to get back to this thread again in time to post my guesses before Ashwin reveled the order. One aspect that didn't surprise me was the pleasing bokeh of pic #2 (the ASPH) vs. the FLE. Having compared the two extensively (in color) when the FLE was first released, it was evident the two lenses performed quite differently, each having characteristics that might appeal to one group or another. Personally I found the ASPH to have smoother more desirable bokeh and a lovely more gentle rendering albeit with more field curvature, giving rise to soft edges and corners unless stopped down. It's also not quite as sharp as the FLE and of course samples have varying degrees of focus shift, often dependent on what f-stop was picked to have the lens optimized to. I personally found f2 or f2.4 to be ideal as a good compromise for optimization when having the ASPH adjusted specifically for focus shift.Very interesting - I have to say that I found the FLE rendering of highlights surprising vs the ASPH which seemed less 'digital' or distorted. Just goes to show what works best for certain types of situations and why people end up with multiple 35's & 50's.
Thanks, Jono. I agree that because of the size they do not distract. Upclose, under different lights, it could be a different story.I think you should have told Ed to stand still, so the lighting on the second shot was the same on the other two.
Vivek- I learned something about Onion Rings I was not previously aware of.
. . . . and they all look fine to me!
Time For Bed
THat's exactly what I thought! At least with this particular testToo late to edit. I meant the AA and FLE seem to have more in common.
Well, if you and your MM are anywhere near Lincoln, NE (maybe the Huskers need a new physician?) you're more than welcome to borrow the ol' 'Lux and/or my 1951 Summaron 35/3.5.Gosh, me too. It's onther lens I have never tried on the MM. So far, my fav 50 on the MM has been the 50 mm Rigid Summicron (V2), followed closely by the C-Sonnar 50 for more character ....
I did not like the 50 lux pre-asph (v2, E43), as I couldn't reliably acheive focus, and for some reason, bokeh looked a bit wonky to me... The 50 lux v1 is a bit harder to get in nice condition, but I bet it'd be great...
argh, shush!Then the ASPHERICAL, very interesting and for me amazing. This lens has a depth and weight that is special. The tones for B&W are sublime and colours rich but cool, less 'pink' of modern glass and with slightly warmer classic tones. The bokeh is looser and less tidy than the APSH, but is has movement and interest. the sharpness is every bit as good as the FLE and I simply love it. The Vignetting is quite high. But this lens is everything I look for, it has a magic to the image depth, the in focus has the ability to look like you have stopped time and the bokeh compliments this with some movement and character with a superb transition from in to out of focus.
I ended up keeping the aspherical, I just couldn't sell it. I bought it at a price I knew I could sell on and not lose. But I just couldn't part with it......
If I only had one lens, this would be it. Leica make some special glass, this for me is the pinnacle of 35's.