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!
Hi Daniel,
I'll just add a bit to my previous postings in this thread (above). I too never experienced any issues of flair with the 35mm cron asph...in fact it was extremely flair resistant (I always used the hood). The primary and often big differences in rendering many experience between the previous 35mm Lux asph and the new FLE version is as you say, partly due to focus shift when the previous 35mm Lux asph is a version focus optimized for f1.4. Yet when you obtain a copy of the previous 35mm Lux where it's focus been adjusted (optimized) for approx f2 (or thereabouts), as Roger (and myself) described whereby it very slightly front focuses wide open and then for the remainder of apertures, the subject generally stays within the depth of field, differences in rendering between older and new 35mm Lux asph FLE become more narrower. It was this type of adjusted 35mm Lux asph (previous version) that I compared with the new 35mm Lux asph FLE, and although rendering was closer, still noticable and real differences existed as described "above".
On LUF there was a discussion regarding these two lenses and one of the most prominat differences readly seen was how highlights in the OOF were rendered, when identical shots were compared with both lenses shot at all compariable f-stops. Differences in the shape and the way these highlights were drawn was quite evident and results were easily repeatable. It would be easy to pick out which lens was responsible for each shot in a double blind test and often the older version appeared to be more pleasing to most who judged. With all this said, the newer FLE though has many optical advantages I believe over the older version and although focus shift is slight, it doesn't get in the way, even surpassing the best adjusted previous 35mm Lux version. Additonally field curvature appears less so in the FLE, so that when wide open images are compared between old and new 35mm Lux lenses, sharpness torwards the sides and edges of the frame appear superior in the latest FLE version. The FLE is a more precise and exacting lens and appears to have less noticable aberations and leans to the more proficient technical side of things, much like the 50mm Lux asph.
I realize your question concerned the 35mm Cron asph and specifically flair. I think in most shooting situations, you're safe in this regard and the lens has high contrast and punch as others have pointed out. At F2 (wide open), it outperforms even the best samples along the sides and edges of the older previous 35mm Lux asph (possibly due to the older Lux having considerable field curvature), and the 35mm Cron asph in this way is more like the newer 35mm Lux asph FLE...although the FLE and 35mm Con asph do draw differently. All three lenses are superb and diffferences seen become in some situations a personal choice more than anything else.
Of course knowing how much you like silver-chrome versions, the 35mm cron asph in silver-chrome will no doubt easily outperform all versions of the various 35mm focal length lenses discussed in this thread
Dave (D&A)
I'll just add a bit to my previous postings in this thread (above). I too never experienced any issues of flair with the 35mm cron asph...in fact it was extremely flair resistant (I always used the hood). The primary and often big differences in rendering many experience between the previous 35mm Lux asph and the new FLE version is as you say, partly due to focus shift when the previous 35mm Lux asph is a version focus optimized for f1.4. Yet when you obtain a copy of the previous 35mm Lux where it's focus been adjusted (optimized) for approx f2 (or thereabouts), as Roger (and myself) described whereby it very slightly front focuses wide open and then for the remainder of apertures, the subject generally stays within the depth of field, differences in rendering between older and new 35mm Lux asph FLE become more narrower. It was this type of adjusted 35mm Lux asph (previous version) that I compared with the new 35mm Lux asph FLE, and although rendering was closer, still noticable and real differences existed as described "above".
On LUF there was a discussion regarding these two lenses and one of the most prominat differences readly seen was how highlights in the OOF were rendered, when identical shots were compared with both lenses shot at all compariable f-stops. Differences in the shape and the way these highlights were drawn was quite evident and results were easily repeatable. It would be easy to pick out which lens was responsible for each shot in a double blind test and often the older version appeared to be more pleasing to most who judged. With all this said, the newer FLE though has many optical advantages I believe over the older version and although focus shift is slight, it doesn't get in the way, even surpassing the best adjusted previous 35mm Lux version. Additonally field curvature appears less so in the FLE, so that when wide open images are compared between old and new 35mm Lux lenses, sharpness torwards the sides and edges of the frame appear superior in the latest FLE version. The FLE is a more precise and exacting lens and appears to have less noticable aberations and leans to the more proficient technical side of things, much like the 50mm Lux asph.
I realize your question concerned the 35mm Cron asph and specifically flair. I think in most shooting situations, you're safe in this regard and the lens has high contrast and punch as others have pointed out. At F2 (wide open), it outperforms even the best samples along the sides and edges of the older previous 35mm Lux asph (possibly due to the older Lux having considerable field curvature), and the 35mm Cron asph in this way is more like the newer 35mm Lux asph FLE...although the FLE and 35mm Con asph do draw differently. All three lenses are superb and diffferences seen become in some situations a personal choice more than anything else.
Of course knowing how much you like silver-chrome versions, the 35mm cron asph in silver-chrome will no doubt easily outperform all versions of the various 35mm focal length lenses discussed in this thread
Dave (D&A)
Last edited:
Chuck Jones
Subscriber Member
Hi Daniel!
For what it's worth, I sold my 35 pre ASPH 'Lux a couple years ago, due to many of the issues others have covered in depth above. I kept my 35 pre ASPH 'Cron though, as it has none of the problems nor is it as "clinical" as the newer ASPH versions are. It's got plenty of contrast, no flare problems I've ever experienced, yet still has the sharpness along with that magical "glow" wide open. Won't cost you an arm and a leg either....
For what it's worth, I sold my 35 pre ASPH 'Lux a couple years ago, due to many of the issues others have covered in depth above. I kept my 35 pre ASPH 'Cron though, as it has none of the problems nor is it as "clinical" as the newer ASPH versions are. It's got plenty of contrast, no flare problems I've ever experienced, yet still has the sharpness along with that magical "glow" wide open. Won't cost you an arm and a leg either....
F
FrankJ
Guest
Hi everyone, my first post here... Since this discussion is very interesting, I would like to join.
It is surprising to see that in Per's example flare is really absent. It is also confusing that others here confirm the flare resistance while at the LUF it is discussed that the Cron Asph. would flare easily.
While I will definitely keep my Cron V4 for street and people, I am also interested in alternatives for landscape work where flare resistance is important for my type of pictures.
If you mean with "pre ASPH 'Cron" the Cron V4, I agree that this is a wonderful lens. I have used mine extensively during the past 15 month. Wide open it has a special signature that I like very much. On the M8 it was great for slightly wider portraits and on the M9 it is my main lens for street. However, during a recent trip I used it mainly for landscape shots and had problems with flare! Whenever the sun was close to the edge of the frame (just in the frame or outside) the flare was annoying. Below is an example with some magenta blotches that are difficult to remove.
It is surprising to see that in Per's example flare is really absent. It is also confusing that others here confirm the flare resistance while at the LUF it is discussed that the Cron Asph. would flare easily.
While I will definitely keep my Cron V4 for street and people, I am also interested in alternatives for landscape work where flare resistance is important for my type of pictures.
thrice
Active member
Thanks Dave, Chuck and Baudolino, all very interesting points. The shot baudolino shared is very insightful.
Frank, thanks for further insight into the v4, since I shoot a lot of landscape, and have even managed to get the 35/2.8 C-Biogon to flare (meant to be almost impervious to flare) I might have to stick with the more clinical ASPH version.
Great image!
Frank, thanks for further insight into the v4, since I shoot a lot of landscape, and have even managed to get the 35/2.8 C-Biogon to flare (meant to be almost impervious to flare) I might have to stick with the more clinical ASPH version.
Great image!
Peter Klein
New member
Daniel, having seen a lot of your work, I think you would be happiest with the Summicron ASPH. It is the least vulnerable to flare, and the one that will give you exactly what you feed it without changing things. I've seen you do a lot of things with light control and motion blur of water, and I think that's where your images get their "character."
That said, here's what I use. The v.4 Summicron is my regular "daylight" lens and the v.1 'Lux ASPH is my indoors and after dark lens. Of course, I have an M8, so they're my "normals." Another thought is that the v.1 Voigtlander Nokton 35/1.2 is a wonderful people-shooting available light lens, and it does not focus shift. It's also got the nicest combination of aspheric sharpness and classical smoothness of any lens I've seen. Downsides: It weighs a ton and it will purple-fringe in extreme contrast edges (leaves backlit by full sun, etc.). But you could buy an ASPH cron and pick up a used Nokton for less than a 35 Lux FLE.
For some good examples of the Lux Asph v.1 in varying conditions, have a look at my Israel folder (if the EXIF says 35mm, it's the Lux). Mine is optimized for spot on at f/1.4, I've just learned to compensate.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/24844563@N04/sets/72157625331595331/
--Peter
That said, here's what I use. The v.4 Summicron is my regular "daylight" lens and the v.1 'Lux ASPH is my indoors and after dark lens. Of course, I have an M8, so they're my "normals." Another thought is that the v.1 Voigtlander Nokton 35/1.2 is a wonderful people-shooting available light lens, and it does not focus shift. It's also got the nicest combination of aspheric sharpness and classical smoothness of any lens I've seen. Downsides: It weighs a ton and it will purple-fringe in extreme contrast edges (leaves backlit by full sun, etc.). But you could buy an ASPH cron and pick up a used Nokton for less than a 35 Lux FLE.
For some good examples of the Lux Asph v.1 in varying conditions, have a look at my Israel folder (if the EXIF says 35mm, it's the Lux). Mine is optimized for spot on at f/1.4, I've just learned to compensate.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/24844563@N04/sets/72157625331595331/
--Peter
thrice
Active member
Thanks Peter! I've also owned the 35/1.2 Nokton, and the size was a problem for me. Hence why I'm so keen on the cron
I looked at your Israel shots and it makes me want the 35 Lux ASPH again But I guess if I want low light or shallow DOF I can use the 50 Lux ASPH and take 3 steps back (if there's room).
I looked at your Israel shots and it makes me want the 35 Lux ASPH again
But I guess if I want low light or shallow DOF I can use the 50 Lux ASPH and take 3 steps back (if there's room).Daniel,
I'm glad you restarted this thread. It hits right at my consideration of the new Lux 35 asph or Cron 35 asph (for the upcoming year, when I transition to FF). I am torn. I love the size and basic feel of the Cron, but also like the speed and dreamier rendering of the Lux at 1.4. I have been looking online at lots of photos taken with these two lenses with the M9--and it seems I change my mind every few days. I plan to downsize to one of these two 35s, plus my Rollei 80 2.8. So there may be a logic to getting the Lux, so I'd have one really fast lens. Well, that's what I think at the moment ...
R
I'm glad you restarted this thread. It hits right at my consideration of the new Lux 35 asph or Cron 35 asph (for the upcoming year, when I transition to FF). I am torn. I love the size and basic feel of the Cron, but also like the speed and dreamier rendering of the Lux at 1.4. I have been looking online at lots of photos taken with these two lenses with the M9--and it seems I change my mind every few days. I plan to downsize to one of these two 35s, plus my Rollei 80 2.8. So there may be a logic to getting the Lux, so I'd have one really fast lens. Well, that's what I think at the moment ...
R
Arne Hvaring
Well-known member
Having recently aquired a new Summilux 35, I might add a few observations.
1. Don't put any confidence in out of box focus calibration. It's a joke. Mine was heavily back-focusing. One has to calibrate body/lens.
2. This lens still has a serious focus-shift when stopped down. After careful testing I have found a focus shift of about 12 cm when stopping down from 1,4 to 2,8 and slightly more at f4. This at a camera to subject distance of 1,3 meters. A rather unsettling amount and beyond DOF until f8.
3. The focus shift is not limited to near distances. At infinity the Lux is sharp over the whole field at 1,4, even to the very edge of the image, a feat I've not seen in any lens up to the present, including the 50mm Lux of which I've had two (and returned both btw.). Quite stunning and the reason I decided to keep this sample of the 35 Lux in spite of other weakneses. Howewer, when stopping down the lens, a relatively small circular part in the center of the image gets more and more blurry, until at between f8 and f11 DOF catches up and renders this part of the image sharp. The rest of the field remains sharp when stopping down, so it seems that focus shift is limited to the center of the image, at least at infinity. By focusing slightly short of the infinity mark and stopping down to f5,6 one can achieve quite good sharpness across the field.
4 I've mailed Leica regarding this findings and asked if they can correct/reduce the focus shift by adjusting/finetuning the lens, but as of writing (11 days) I have not received an answer.
5 So far , I have adjusted the focuspoint to be slightly behind at f1,4 and f2, which also means slightly in front at f2,8 and smaller. As this is a lens I will use a lot, keeping this in mind is not too difficult.
Of course all this begs the question, at the price should one really have to accept this kind of compromise, particularly given Leica's obvious competence in lens design?
6 Somewhat off topic, but it so happened that about the same time I got the 35Lux, I also received the new Nikkor 1,4/35mm. The comparision was rather interesting. The Nikon lens is also very sharp wide open, in the center of the image, but falls of gradually towards the edges in a classical fashion. The outer field sharpens up nicely when stopping down, and importantly, no discernable focus shift. With the new nano coating microcontrast and colour seems very good. Again focus (AF) out of the box was way off, but +15 on the AF fine-tune took care of that.
1. Don't put any confidence in out of box focus calibration. It's a joke. Mine was heavily back-focusing. One has to calibrate body/lens.
2. This lens still has a serious focus-shift when stopped down. After careful testing I have found a focus shift of about 12 cm when stopping down from 1,4 to 2,8 and slightly more at f4. This at a camera to subject distance of 1,3 meters. A rather unsettling amount and beyond DOF until f8.
3. The focus shift is not limited to near distances. At infinity the Lux is sharp over the whole field at 1,4, even to the very edge of the image, a feat I've not seen in any lens up to the present, including the 50mm Lux of which I've had two (and returned both btw.). Quite stunning and the reason I decided to keep this sample of the 35 Lux in spite of other weakneses. Howewer, when stopping down the lens, a relatively small circular part in the center of the image gets more and more blurry, until at between f8 and f11 DOF catches up and renders this part of the image sharp. The rest of the field remains sharp when stopping down, so it seems that focus shift is limited to the center of the image, at least at infinity. By focusing slightly short of the infinity mark and stopping down to f5,6 one can achieve quite good sharpness across the field.
4 I've mailed Leica regarding this findings and asked if they can correct/reduce the focus shift by adjusting/finetuning the lens, but as of writing (11 days) I have not received an answer.
5 So far , I have adjusted the focuspoint to be slightly behind at f1,4 and f2, which also means slightly in front at f2,8 and smaller. As this is a lens I will use a lot, keeping this in mind is not too difficult.
Of course all this begs the question, at the price should one really have to accept this kind of compromise, particularly given Leica's obvious competence in lens design?
6 Somewhat off topic, but it so happened that about the same time I got the 35Lux, I also received the new Nikkor 1,4/35mm. The comparision was rather interesting. The Nikon lens is also very sharp wide open, in the center of the image, but falls of gradually towards the edges in a classical fashion. The outer field sharpens up nicely when stopping down, and importantly, no discernable focus shift. With the new nano coating microcontrast and colour seems very good. Again focus (AF) out of the box was way off, but +15 on the AF fine-tune took care of that.
Arne Hvaring
Well-known member
Rereading the above, I realize that I have inadvertedly exaggerated the focus shift by reading directly off the chart. The chart however isn't printed at 1:1, so compensating for this and mesuring along the optical axis, I find a net focus shift between f1,4 and f4 of about 7 cm. Still quite significant at 1,3m and easily visible in actual photographs.
I have also tested the Summicron IV at infinity, and it exhibits the same behaviour, with a central zone going out of focus (actually focusing beyond infinity) as the lens is stopped down.
FWIW, my third 35mm lens for the M9 is the Zeiss Biogon 2/35. No focus shift to speak of and well behaved at infinity.
Conclusions to the OP: if you can live with the primadonna nature of the Lux, it will give outstanding results, but the Cron is lighter on the nerves, wallet and shoulder and gives excellent images.
I have also tested the Summicron IV at infinity, and it exhibits the same behaviour, with a central zone going out of focus (actually focusing beyond infinity) as the lens is stopped down.
FWIW, my third 35mm lens for the M9 is the Zeiss Biogon 2/35. No focus shift to speak of and well behaved at infinity.
Conclusions to the OP: if you can live with the primadonna nature of the Lux, it will give outstanding results, but the Cron is lighter on the nerves, wallet and shoulder and gives excellent images.
Hi,
I also have the new 35/1.4asph and while I can confirm that in the past I often had to send lenses for calibration to Leica (even new lenses) I can not confirm such big focus shift with the new version of this lens (my sample).
While I never really managed the previous version I dont find focus shift to be a problem with the new version.
I think something is wrong with your lens and I woulde definatly send it to Leica.
I also have the new 35/1.4asph and while I can confirm that in the past I often had to send lenses for calibration to Leica (even new lenses) I can not confirm such big focus shift with the new version of this lens (my sample).
While I never really managed the previous version I dont find focus shift to be a problem with the new version.
I think something is wrong with your lens and I woulde definatly send it to Leica.
Arne Hvaring
Well-known member
I've been thinking along the same lines. My understanding is that one of the goals for introducing a new version of the Lux was to implement a significant improvement re. focus shift. So I bought it on that assumption.
I e-mailed Andrea Frankl on Aug.23 with test images, but so far no response. Do you happen to know if she is still in the Customers Relation department? I had som excellent service from her a few years back relating to a 180mm Apo-Summicron.
helenhill
Senior Member
35 asph cron for Moi ...though I only shoot Film
and do not 'see' this Cinical tag thrown on the 35 asph cron
[/url] warrior dude claims His Rock... by helenhill@flickr, on Flickr[/IMG]
and do not 'see' this Cinical tag thrown on the 35 asph cron
helenhill
Senior Member
have had the 35 pre asph lux in the past...lovely lens but a tad too soft at 1.4
the cron asph has won my Heart
[/url] E by helenhill@flickr, on Flickr[/IMG]
[/url] "She's the Boss" says 'archangelse' by helenhill@flickr, on Flickr[/IMG]
the cron asph has won my Heart
Last edited:
Stuart Richardson
Active member
I am with you Helen -- I never found anything "clinical" about any of the Leica lenses, actually! I think it is like the discussion in the Leica "glow" thread, it is a term everyone uses but which has a different meaning for each person. Personally, I use the 35/1.4 ASPH version 1, and have for years. I do see the focus shift in testing, but with a bit of care in use, I find it not to be a problem in actual use. I don't do things to provoke it (such as shoot at f/2 to f/3.5 at .7 to 1.5m), and it serves me well. In practice, I am mostly at 1.4 for shooting in dark situations (mine is spot on at f/1.4) or for shallow depth of field, and at f/5.6 to f/11 for daylight shots where depth of field is less important than sharpness. I would be interested to try the FLE, but it is simply too hard to find and too expensive at the moment.
As for the summicrons, if you can live with f/2, I would say it is a no-brainer. Smaller, cheaper, no focus shift...For that matter, why not the 35/2 Biogon? By all accounts it is an outstanding lens...no bigger than the 'lux asph, very reasonably priced, extremely resistant to flare and no focus shift. If I did not go with the 'lux, I would probably give the biogon a try.
Here are some of mine with the Summilux ASPH v.1. I have been told it is unfocusable and clinical, but I make do.
As for the summicrons, if you can live with f/2, I would say it is a no-brainer. Smaller, cheaper, no focus shift...For that matter, why not the 35/2 Biogon? By all accounts it is an outstanding lens...no bigger than the 'lux asph, very reasonably priced, extremely resistant to flare and no focus shift. If I did not go with the 'lux, I would probably give the biogon a try.
Here are some of mine with the Summilux ASPH v.1. I have been told it is unfocusable and clinical, but I make do.
Arne-I dont know her so I cant tell you. If you are not lucky with getting feedback then pm me (I am not related to Leica)
Arne Hvaring
Well-known member
OK, thanks! Actually I'm in two minds about sending the lens to Leica. Presently it has better resolution in the outer fields of the image than any lens I have seen in this FL. Who knows what might happen if they start finetuning to reduce focus shift
Arne Hvaring
Well-known member
Stuart: by and large I agree with your observations. I can also confirm the quality of the 35mm Biogon, although it should be mentioned that the lens suffers from moderate softness near the edges at larger apertures, it needs to be stopped down to at least 5,6 for sharpness across the field. At least mine does.
Nice shots with the Lux!
Nice shots with the Lux!