jonoslack
Active member
Hi Stuart - thanks for this - you're in a better position to judge than I am, not having the previous version myself. The LFI article suggests better flare resistance (baffling and anti-internal-reflection), better contrast at close range and slightly sharper edges and corners - not something I've been able to test for. The MTF charts show this - but they are remarkably similar.Great shots Jono! You really do a nice job with this.
I will note that I do not think that there is any difference in bokeh whatsoever compared to the 35/1.4 ASPH version I. It has been my most used lens for five or six years now, and I have seen the bokeh look extremely similar to your photos in lots of different pictures. Bokeh is a interplay of optics, focused distance and background, so it is always possible to make a lens that generally looks good look bad, and the opposite. From looking at Jono's generous sample, I would say it looks identical to the lens I own. This is of course perfectly in line with logic, since they are the same optical formula.
I will also say that I use the 35/1.4 ASPH on the M9 all the time, and I have not had many real world problems with focus shift. It DOES exist -- I can provoke it myself with my lens in tests, but it does not usually show up in my photos. But I think it is great that Leica has addressed the problem in the version II, while having the sense to not mess too much with a good thing. It makes perfect sense to me that you have embraced the lens -- it is one of those few lenses where I just have not had any real complaints -- it is very sharp, nice bokeh, extremely useful focal length and speed, nice ergonomics, fairly compact and light. It just ticks all the boxes.
I'm inclined to agree with you though - to all intents and purposes the lenses are very similar.
all the best