scott kirkpatrick
Well-known member
I disagree with #1, no comment on the rest of the "points" made. I don't always agree with the steps he follows, but he is explicit about what he is doing, he controls for things like illumination color temperature, and he is clearly careful enough so that his lens-to-lens comparisons have held up.
The MaggieO lab work on this lens (that was you, wasn't it? So long ago...) was quite sufficient to show that the CV35/1.4 offers curvature of field and focus shift, even though she didn't get the focus perfect at f/1.4 and I think used the same focus settings at the smaller apertures. That test got all four corners equally sharp, which indicates that the back of the camera was parallel to the target wall.
Read the Chris Weeks stream of consciousness review and I can see where the lens has appeal -- for dramatic effect that may not be for everyone. My M2 with its 1950s lenses (Canon 35/2 was the primary one) had the characteristic that any exposed light sources in the forward half sphere would contribute a lovely overall glow to the pictures. The CV35/1.4 instead gives impressive local flare and ghosting with intriguing shapes. So it is a step ahead of my Canon 35/2.0, but so would a pre-asph 35 Summilux have been. That is probably the proper comparison.
scott
PS -- In some of the comments after the Weeks blog article I detected a self-incriminating tone of dismissal that I haven't heard since high school -- jocks vs the college-bound geeks. And best ignored.
Last edited:
