The GetDPI Photography Forum

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!

New 35 Lux announced

stevem8

New member
I have shot with the new Lux though only wide open, and I have seen MANY shots with it taken at all apertures.

My results have shown that it does indeed have the look of the newer lenses. VERY crisp at 1.4 with shockingly good detail and separation. One shot I snapped at 1.4 looks like a shot from the 24 Lux at 1.4 but sharper at my focus point. I see a difference between it and the old version and not sure if that is due to the focus being dead on or if there is another reason.

The old version, well, they all have focus shift. Some are calibrated for 1.4, some for F2. The samples above that daniel posted show that his is calibrated for F2, or maybe even 2.8 as that is what gets him the sharpest result. By F5.6 you see the focus is off a bit.

My past 35 Lux was set up for 1.4 and had slight softness due to shift at F2, F2.8. The new version will give you the reliability of the 50 Lux ASPH, and IMO will become the #1 seller for Leica, even over the 50 Lux ASPH.

At $5,000 it's tough to swallow but most of us here are used to these prices. We try to resist but it's almost impossible! BTW, the new hood is MUCH better than the old hood. Small, solid, and looks great. I'll have a pretty detailed and huge write up on this lens very soon on film and digital.

Steve
 

Paratom

Well-known member
....

the whole premise of the focus test is so funny and I mean o hilarious to me I just larf

lemme see know I use a tripod focus on a page with letters or a ruler with lines ( pity no one builds sloping brick walls for focus test huh) and then shoot the same shot @ various apertures..


then..pt files into computer and check m out @ 100% or 200% or whatever..and wala!

ahhahahhahahah

so funny..

versus my hand hold shoot at aperture that you wish to use given the varables and outcomes that you need to consider ..focus and click.

one thing has got somethign to do with photography - the other thing is just ..ummm

funny.

:ROTFL::ROTFL:
I also dont like focus tests but I also dont see why I would use a $3-5k lens if I accept slight unsharpness of the main subject caused by focus shift
I also dont like to get only 3 out of 10 good shots if I could get maybe 8 out of 10 if my lens would not have focus shift.
I also dont like to pay $3-5k for a lens which is either optimized for f1.4 or f2.8.
I also have a 50 Sonnar and find that it suffers less from focus shift than both the 35/1.4asph and the Noctilux f1.0.
Anyways- all what counts if one is happy with the results or not - but saying focus shift is something which is just a pixel peeper issue is not true.
In my case I explored focus issues in real world photography and focus test was only the "tool" to find out the reason.
 

PeterA

Well-known member
If making sure your ruler lines are in focus from a meter floats your boat - go ahead sailor!:bugeyes:

However - other people don't see the fatal flaws that pixel peepers see - pixel peepers might be right about pixel peeping issues - but their fetishes aren't the dominant paradigm regarding photo graphy..

If people arent happy with their focus :cry::cry:sell the lens and by a focus shift less version by all means
simple

but please don't confuse your audiences in forums like this with universal relevance.

Photography in the main has personal relevance - and idiosyncratic significance.

for example - I collect and buy photography and display it in my own gallery.

In my world - the last thing I look for in a photograph is the stuff that some of you pixel heads gnash your teeth and pull your hair over..

from your perspectives though - I can understand how ridiculous and obscene a view like mine may present on first or second blush and maybe third

one day though..one day..you might just wake up.

good luck with that.
:)
 

markowich

New member
Hi There
Well, I think that the initial reason for this release is to cure the focus shift - which is obviously a design issue - I'm still confused by claims that it varies from lens to lens.
jono, i am confused myself. apparently focus shift is a design issue, but it may be made better or worse depending on production tolerances...maybe. i have tried a black new 35mm CRON and a black new 35mm LUX and focus shift was apparent in even simple test shots. then i received and finally bought a used titanium 35mm LUX and i could not detect focus shift. maybe on an optical bench it will show but not in even accurately set up test series. very strange indeed, but also others have claimed that the silver and titanium versions of the 35mm LUX are less prone to exhibit focus shift. i do not understand enough of lens design and lens fabrication to be able to give a reasoning for this but i shall definitly skip the new 35mm LUX and stick to my beautiful old titanium one.
peter
 

jonoslack

Active member
but please don't confuse your audiences in forums like this with universal relevance.
I So do agree with this.
Photography in the main has personal relevance - and idiosyncratic significance.

for example - I collect and buy photography and display it in my own gallery.

In my world - the last thing I look for in a photograph is the stuff that some of you pixel heads gnash your teeth and pull your hair over..

from your perspectives though - I can understand how ridiculous and obscene a view like mine may present on first or second blush and maybe third

one day though..one day..you might just wake up.

good luck with that.
:)
Oh Peter - I completely agree with you about the priorities, but nobody is suggesting that ruler pictures are an end in themselves (are they?).

I don't see why a feeling for photography and pixel peeping are mutually exclusive.

Better tools does not make for better photography, but it may help to make better photographs (otherwise why bother to use Leica in the first place).

Tim Ashley's original investigation was prompted by a lot of ruined photographs from Venice - not as the result of a pixel peeping excercise. The fact that it doesn't impinge on your photographs doesn't mean that it isn't relevant . . . just that it isn't relevant to you.

all the best
 

Paratom

Well-known member
.....
If people arent happy with their focus :cry::cry:sell the lens and by a focus shift less version by all means
simple
....
Thats exactly what I did, use the 50/1.4asph instead of the Noctilux and the 35 Summarit instead of the 35/1.4asph.

.....
....but please don't confuse your audiences in forums like this with universal relevance.
....
Confusing the audience would be insisting that the effect can not be seen in real life photography. Now if it matters or not to someone or his type of photography is another story and everybody can decide on his own.
The 35luxasph is a beautiful lens, and while it might work well for many it might not work without flaws for others.
I believe it also depends on what subjects one uses the lens for.
 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
WTF does wanting to have your equipment perform in a consistent manner have to do with pixel peeping. Its fine to indicate that "focus shift" has little impact on your personal photography and quite another to suggest that "pixel peeping" is the end in itself. Thats damn insulting .

Focus shift is just one of many factors that can affect sharpness and IQ. What makes it particularly bothersome is that its hard for the photographer to adapt. This takes away getting into the flow and letting the photographer focus on the key elements in the photograph. Sure Jono can learn to adjust for the focus shift on his Zeiss sonnar but damn it better be a great lens to be fiddling with the focus point instead of seeing the photograph. (I believe he came to the same conclusion).

I don t start out testing every lens and body combination and I don t waste my time doing "stupid ruler tests" just for the hell of it. I look at the images . I keep track of the edits. Like it or not I loose otherwise excellent images because I missed the focus point needed to "make the photograph work". The goal is always to have adequate sharpness to make the image work as a photograph ....please don t imply otherwise by labeling my discussion as pixel peeping.

But lets not confuse any of the facts with a good hardy opinion based discussion of a new lens. Lets ignore the references to E Puts who has set the standard for lens testing for how many years? IMHO and thats all we have here since we know facts are not considered relevant....Puts did a good job showing the impact of focus shift on image quality . Or the tests that Sean Reid does where he shows that accurate focus (harder to do with focus shift) has more impact on lens performance that the difference between any of the current 35mm lenses from leica,zeiss or cv.

Or even Diglloyd.....he takes quite a lot of pride in his testing (so that you don t have to waste your time) . He isn t a rangefinder guy..his normal kit would be Nikon or Canon DSLR. I could see him struggle (like many on this forum) with the M9 . Lens tests ruined by misfocusing...results that just don t reflect any consensus on lens performance. (e.g.does anyone think that the 35 asph summicron is anything but very sharp?) Now after a dozen tests he is sending his M9 and the noctilux,21 and 24 summiluxes back to Leica for calibration. Sometimes it takes a while to understand what it takes with a particular system to create sharp images.

I spend a lot of time looking at great photographers and top rate image oriented websites(not reading MTF charts or shooting rulers) ...sharpness rarely makes the image (dried paint is dried paint) but lack of sharpness can kill an otherwise excellent photograph.
 

jonoslack

Active member
HI Roger

Sure Jono can learn to adjust for the focus shift on his Zeiss sonnar but damn it better be a great lens to be fiddling with the focus point instead of seeing the photograph. (I believe he came to the same conclusion).
Exactly I bought a 50 'lux - these days the sonnar is making an excellent fast portrait lens on my son's Pen.

I spend a lot of time looking at great photographers and top rate image oriented websites(not reading MTF charts or shooting rulers) ...sharpness rarely makes the image (dried paint is dried paint) but lack of sharpness can kill an otherwise excellent photograph.
So nicely Put.
 

D&A

Well-known member
Hi All,

I completely agree with Roger's assesment as to why it's important to observe and know your individual lenses and performance. Before the days of internet and info and word of mouth, every time I aquired a new lens (whether new or used)...I shot rolls of film testing out the focus and optical quailites of each lens...both in static and real world tests. Darn,

I have over a 100 boxes of these tests stored away and it cost a fortune. I'd examine the resulting images in great detail...getting to know the optical characteristics of each lens (or sample) and it's strenghts and weaknesses. Then each time I'd pick up and use that lens (especially when used on a paid job)...and I'd know exactly how to exploid the strenghts of that lens, and avoid or work around its weaknesses. Whether these weaknesses were focus shifts, lack of resolution in the corners at certain apatures and so on. This was important as there were no digital cameras and instant feedback to say for example, "oops, I have to move the focus a bit due to focus shift"...or say "darn, I didn't know corners would be unsharp at that distance or apature"..or any one of a number of critical parameters to be aware about. In essesence it was a form of pixel peeping but felt it was necessary in order to understand why a certain lens would or not would perform as expected under certain situations.

Which reminds me of a particular DSLR zoom that had tremendous resolving power when stopped down and was exeptional for landscapes. Yet my knowledge from testing it previously, warned me that the geometric distortion from this lens on the wide end was so horrific, that using it for group shots was a nightmare.

Once though after doing these intitial tests, I knew intuitively what to do and expect with a given lens once mounted on the camera and concentrated on imagery. I guess its no different than a person who races cars. He gets to know each car and what its characteristics are...can he push it in the corners, can he floor it, in order to pass without blowing a gasket etc. My appologies, I know nothing about racing cars, but I hope my point is understandable. Testing lenses is so you get top know them and their unique and desirable and undesirable characteristics..and once done, use them for your intended purposes.

Dave
 
Last edited:

ampguy

Member
Hi Thrice, Those are very nice shots, and you have a very nice lens. However, I do see focus shift. It's not that the focus isn't where you want it, it's just that your point of focus within your DOF range is moving. You can't control when you focus on an object, where in the DOF range for that given distance, and your selected aperture is. I hope this makes sense. Sean Reid's subscription articles give better examples, along with good 100% crops of examples.
 

ashrafazlan

New member
Focus shift or not, do let me know if any of you are looking to let go of your summilux. I've been drooling for one for weeks.
 

PeterA

Well-known member
WTF does wanting to have your equipment perform in a consistent manner have to do with pixel peeping. quite another to suggest that "pixel peeping" is the end in itself. Thats damn insulting .

Focus shift is just one of many factors that can affect sharpness and IQ. What makes it particularly bothersome is that its hard for the photographer to adapt. This takes away getting into the flow and letting the photographer focus on the key elements in the photograph. Sure Jono can learn to adjust for the focus shift on his Zeiss sonnar but damn it better be a great lens to be fiddling with the focus point instead of seeing the photograph. (I believe he came to the same conclusion).

I don t start out testing every lens and body combination and I don t waste my time doing "stupid ruler tests" just for the hell of it. I look at the images . I keep track of the edits. Like it or not I loose otherwise excellent images because I missed the focus point needed to "make the photograph work". The goal is always to have adequate sharpness to make the image work as a photograph ....please don t imply otherwise by labeling my discussion as pixel peeping.

But lets not confuse any of the facts with a good hardy opinion based discussion of a new lens. Lets ignore the references to E Puts who has set the standard for lens testing for how many years? IMHO and thats all we have here since we know facts are not considered relevant....Puts did a good job showing the impact of focus shift on image quality . Or the tests that Sean Reid does where he shows that accurate focus (harder to do with focus shift) has more impact on lens performance that the difference between any of the current 35mm lenses from leica,zeiss or cv.

Or even Diglloyd.....he takes quite a lot of pride in his testing (so that you don t have to waste your time) . He isn t a rangefinder guy..his normal kit would be Nikon or Canon DSLR. I could see him struggle (like many on this forum) with the M9 . Lens tests ruined by misfocusing...results that just don t reflect any consensus on lens performance. (e.g.does anyone think that the 35 asph summicron is anything but very sharp?) Now after a dozen tests he is sending his M9 and the noctilux,21 and 24 summiluxes back to Leica for calibration. Sometimes it takes a while to understand what it takes with a particular system to create sharp images.

I spend a lot of time looking at great photographers and top rate image oriented websites(not reading MTF charts or shooting rulers) ...sharpness rarely makes the image (dried paint is dried paint) but lack of sharpness can kill an otherwise excellent photograph.
Spare me your expletives but just for fun I will respond to your macho question/statements

1. sharpness / adequate sharpness ( pick your adjectival qualifier ) is over rated by hack shooters and geek heads
2.a different point of view is not an insult
3. like I said regarding your ruler tests and anyone else's- very funny
4. leaving aside your references to authority totem figures who I don't care about and wouldn't waste any time reading any more than I already have - because they are irrelevant to me - Putsky is 9/10ths BS and worse- he cant shoot so I dont care what he has to say about anything cos I cant get over the fact that he just cant shoot
5. I don't get your angst fella - calm down ..shouting isn't going to make your lenses any sharper
6. Show me a shot that matters - which is made at a meter distance using a 35 lux and focus shift stuffed it up..give me an example prove your point..
7. I get the same number of keepers per annum using any lens on any camera system - about 3 or 4 in a good year.
and finally
nice examples of the various apertures above - but obvious that that they aren't all made from the same exact position..they prove nothing to me except what I already know - focus shift is irrelevant to me.just more internet noise.
 

harmsr

Workshop Member
I went through several 35 Lux Asph lenses with the M8 and they all focus shifted sufficiently to bother my photos. I used the 35 Lux alot in the 1-3 meter range and in the f2.0 to 5.6 aperture range. Mine all had in the photo noticeable shift. One of my lenses even went back to Germany where they calibrated it to almost be front focused at 1.4. It was better at the 2.0-5.6 range but still an issue for me.

I loved the rendering of the Lux much more than the Cron, but just couldn't deal with the focus shift issues. I switched to a Cron that was calibrated to be close to front focus at 2.0, which worked at all apertures. The Cron was never my favorite rendering a little to "punchy".

I'm ecstatic to be able to get my 35 Lux type rendering and the extra stop back without any of the close range sharpness or aperture based focus shift.

My M9 is eagerly awaiting it's new lens.

Good job Leica.
 

Paratom

Well-known member
......
7. I get the same number of keepers per annum using any lens on any camera system - about 3 or 4 in a good year.
.....
if this is the case -why would you spend so much money for Leica gear? this is even more funny than a ruler test IMO
 

PeterA

Well-known member
Perhaps you might consider the possibility that my definition of what a 'keeper' is - may be different to yours..??
 

jonoslack

Active member
Perhaps you might consider the possibility that my definition of what a 'keeper' is - may be different to yours..??
Aren't you muddling up 'keepers' with 'successes'. I have lots of keepers every month, whether it's because it's pretty / interesting / fixes a memory, or just that it's too close to being a success to be able to throw it in the trash.

What I really wish was that I had the strength of character to delete ALL the ones which are not even 'keepers'.

But I'd be most happy to get 3 or 4 'successes' a year.

all the best
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
It's interesting to consider the difference between keepers, successes and I suppose marque images. You could argue that even the likes of Ansel Adams, HCB, Elliot Erwitt, William Eggleston etc really only have a relatively small handful of truly memorable images from their careers, although built upon a body of successes and a pretty large pool of hidden away keepers (not to mention a veritable mass of so-so material).
 
Top