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

John Black

Active member
So if all of the successes come down to just 3 or 4 pictures per year, doesn't it seem silly to risk missing the shot(s) due to focus shift?
 

Paratom

Well-known member
Perhaps you might consider the possibility that my definition of what a 'keeper' is - may be different to yours..??
I was not talking about the definition what a keeper is but refering to you saying you get the same number of keepers whith each camer-lens-combination. And if this is the case I wondered why you would spend $2-3k for a Summilux lens if it doesnt make any difference at all for your images.
 

PeterA

Well-known member
I dont define 'success' by the number of photographs I decide to keep and print and hang. For me photography is an enjoyable thing to do, like playing the Piano taking a walk through nice gardens or a family sunday roast - doing it is what it is about.

As for photographs that dont work because of focus shift with my 35 lux - I dont have any examples to show - because not one photograph I have ever made using thi slens on my M3/MP/M8 or M9 failed because of focus shift. I have plenty of reasons why 99.9% fail for other reasons.

My reference to all cameras and lenses I use and number of keepers - was merely factual. My reference and link to LL on focus issues with MFD backs underlines the challenges every photographer has with optimising the potential in a digital world. I agree that ditgital sensors challenge mechanical operation more than film ever did.

I wont be buying a new 35lux as I dont have a need for its solution to a problem that is irrelevant to me. if that offends anyone - well I guess I will have to live with that.

Still waiting to see the examples of 1 meter 'great' shots that failed because of focus shift...waiting...waiting..waiting

so far the only poster has been a person who tried to show there was no issue..


waiting and waiting..-:)
 

Paratom

Well-known member
Peter,
I cant speak for others but in my regard it doesnt offend me at all if a lens works good for others which doesnt work 100% for me.
I do not even doubt that it works 100% for you - but you can believe me that focus shift in my sample in my photography influenced my images in a way that I sometimes had images where the eyes of a face were not 100% in focus even though I had focused on the eyes- and that bugged me.
I wont post any proove here since I do know it happened (in my case with my lens and my way of photography). Everybody can decide on his own if this is an issue or not for himself.
Happy shooting, Thomas
 

tjv

Active 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).
Not to beat a dead horse :deadhorse: but all of the photographers you've listed have famous iconic images, and a large quantity of them, that are either blurry or seriously technically flawed. For all of them, content was / is the most important element of a photographic image. Just another point of view to even out the technical talk. :) I know you're not talking about technical issues with regard to this list, but I thought it was an interesting point. Plus I love all of their work!

Personally, I owned and loved the 35mm Lux ASPH. I shed a tear when I had to sell it and the rest of my M gear for financial reasons. I never used it on digital but I consider it one of the most stunning lenses / pieces of gear I've ever owned. It may well of exhibited focus shift but because I predominantly shoot people hand held, well, who knows if any small focus errors were due to me or the lens. When I did nail focus though, man, it was incredibly sharp edge to edge, even wide open. I do believe though there is no doubt that focus shift does bother some people who shoot different subjects and / or have different technical requirements to me, especially on digital sensors. And to be honest, if I shelled out $6K plus the $4.5K for a M9 and single lens I'd expect it to focus where I want it. To that extent, I'm glad Leica now offer you lucky M users an updated, more reliable option for what I gather is roughly the same RRP. :thumbup:
 

PeterA

Well-known member
Not to beat a dead horse :deadhorse: but all of the photographers you've listed have famous iconic images, and a large quantity of them, that are either blurry or seriously technically flawed. For all of them, content was / is the most important element of a photographic image. ..... Plus I love all of their work!

\
Exactly so...
:salute:
 

Paratom

Well-known member
I always thought content wasnt important and images are all about sharpness and that gear was more important than the photographer ;)
 

gero

New member
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.
I think differently of photography:

I see a movie and all the frames that show secondary or blurred images that in themselves are not interesting stills; but in the hole, make for a very good visual experience.
 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
If you really buy into the argument that equipment doesn t matter ..then why participate in a forum focused on the craft ? We admire art but realize that most photographers don t create much thats worth seeing by others.

Its Ok to enjoy the process without creating anxiety about "keepers" . A photograph that works could be one that reminds me a great day or something that I can share with family and friends. The standards you set are yours .

As I indicated in my original post ....I typically review a small body of work around 1-2000 images during an edit. My goal is to find the best (my definition ) 50-100 that I may return to in the future. I have and would show these to really well respected photographers . I would for example show these to guy or jack seeking feedback. What works for you ..why? What doesn t and why? If you have the time I will show you my work. This is a topic in itself but I learn from both successes and mistakes.

So what ? this is a thread about a new Leica lens and yes the gear nut job in me wants to know ..whats better . In reviewing my captures with the M series ..the number one reason for skipping an image (what were you thinking ? nothing worth shooting? ) . But after that its always focus ..its hard to make a photograph of a person work if the eyes aren t sharp . So I look hard for sharpness in the critical areas and it does piss me off when I have an otherwise decent photograph ..but the photo doesn t work because of lack of sharpness. Its not the sharpness that makes the photo but the lack of it that might bother me.

This was a thread about a new lens . One of the promoted aspects of the new version of a world class lens the Leica 35/1.4 was minimizing focus shift. I have used the current 35/1.4asph
extensively ..I mean 000 s of captures . I enjoy it wide open where its optimized but I will use it at any aperture . Its just a pain to have to hedge a little if you use it at say f2.8 -f4 after that DOF is great enough .

Without a doubt ...my eyes and technique are much greater factors than focus shift. But I do know that when I have a really tight calibrated lens and body ...I don t have to subconsciously adjust . Its not the most important element in creating high levels of IQ but its enough to matter to me.

So I guess I must be a hack or a pixel peeper ....but thats not insulting is it?
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
I think differently of photography:

I see a movie and all the frames that show secondary or blurred images that in themselves are not interesting stills; but in the hole, make for a very good visual experience.
That's interesting. Personally I prefer to work through my images to produce a gallery of the keepers to show people. However, some of my family members prefer to view the body of shots straight from the camera like you mention for the context and whole movie strip of a trip. (I hate that btw :ROTFL:).

With respect to the new lens, I'm waiting expectantly to see how it holds up in real use in people's hands before taking the jump myself. I've not been hurt by the focus shift issues with my 35 'lux although that's almost certainly because I had DAG set it up for optimal wide open shooting and I typically use it at f/1.4 close up or f/5.6 or f/8 for more landscape/scenic use. However, it's clear that it focus shifts slightly at 1-2m between those apertures. Is that worth the cost of a new lens? Time will tell ... :eek:
 

gero

New member
Personally I prefer to work through my images to produce a gallery of the keepers to show people. However, some of my family members prefer to view the body of shots straight from the camera like you mention for the context and whole movie strip of a trip. (I hate that btw).
Graham, it is a good exercise to edit a group of photos with a different criteria on mind; I tried to see the pictures that reminded me of the sensation that the movie "Metropolis" gave me (of a family trip to N York) and the results where very surprising.

I am curious of this lens.
 

jonoslack

Active member
HI There
Well, on a more serious note, I suspect that most of us agree about most things, for instance, we all agree:

Peter doesn't find focus shift to be an issue for him

the only substantive point where we disagree is that

Peter doesn't think that focus shift should be an issue for anyone else

Seems to me that others should be able to consider it an issue without having to submit samples to the forum to prove it to Peter - not least as Leica have acknowledged that it is an issue.

I'm not in a position to judge, in that the whole issue stopped me from buying a 35 'lux about two years ago. Now I'm right up for this lens, but of course I won't be able to compare it to anything :eek:
 

jonoslack

Active member
Without a doubt ...my eyes and technique are much greater factors than focus shift. But I do know that when I have a really tight calibrated lens and body ...I don t have to subconsciously adjust . Its not the most important element in creating high levels of IQ but its enough to matter to me.
Couldn't agree more - I loved my 75 'cron with the M8 . . .gradually stopped using it with the M9 as I got fed up with a very small amount of front focus, until I had it calibrated with the body, now it's back to being a firm favorite again
 

PeterA

Well-known member
I hope that you guys all buy a new 35lux and use it to get sharp eyed portrait shots and are happy.

Use them in good health.
 

Paratom

Well-known member
I dont know yet- I am quite happy with the Summarit 35mm now (handling, IQ, weight and size and price) and have f1.4 in 50mm and 24mm lens.
If I get the chance I would like to shoot some images with the new 35 and see what I get. No hurry at all. and it is a lot of money.
 

turtle

New member
Ahem, the new lens will likely have better flare resistance too. That might be another good reason to own it over the old one.

My last new Leica lens did not so much have focus shift as did not #@**&$#**# well focus at all. Leica can charge a lot of money for incredible designs but lets hope they do not produce the same number of frankly shameful QC lapses with the new lens as has been the case over the last 12 months with well established ones. QC and reliable great performance used to be a reason to pay a premium but not any more it seems.
 

turtle

New member
I would add that while the greats have many out of focus shots that have become iconic, I cannot think of any that would have been worse off had they been in perfect focus ;) I also suspect they had many frames that did not make the cut because being out of focus did not work in each case. most would appear due to camera shake and zone focusing more than focus shift, but certainly some shot with old sonnars may well be due to focus shift.

Having a lens that focuses reliably where you want - assuming you do your bit - is never a bad place to start just as with any tool.

PS if a person is going to criticise another person's ability to comment on technical aspects to lenses (i.e that of Puts), they had better be able to take decent shots themselves. Glass houses and stones comes to mind...

I do a lot of shooting at 1-3m, mainly environmental portraits, and with enough causes of OOF shots I am not going to add focus shift to the repertoire of possible factors for failure. While I do select imperfectly sharp images for usage, I pick sharp ones more often.
 

Paratom

Well-known member
.....
My last new Leica lens did not so much have focus shift as did not #@**&$#**# well focus at all. Leica can charge a lot of money for incredible designs but lets hope they do not produce the same number of frankly shameful QC lapses with the new lens as has been the case over the last 12 months with well established ones. QC and reliable great performance used to be a reason to pay a premium but not any more it seems.
Well, if you have a lens which suffers from focus shift and is not calibrated correctly tha you have at least one f-stop where it would fine because the focus shift compensates the faulty calibration :confused:
 
Top