• #397
    Al Tanabe

    Today, I found unobtanium, 35 Summilux Asph vII, 35 Summarit S, 120 Summarit S. A trifecta! Of course, none were for sale but at least I got to handle and shoot with them so nowthe true lust begins. What I found interesting was the performance of the 35 Summarit vs 40 CF FLE Zeiss. The Summarit was sharper but only when pixel peeped. It did firm up my decision to get the 180 and skip the 120. The 70 is a great lens and shoots close so I will skip over the 120 in favor of the 180. The 35, is a great lens, no doubt, but I will wait to see if there are any announcements about new offerings like the 30-90 zoom.

  • #398
    David Farkas

    Atanabe;69 wrote: Today, I found unobtanium, 35 Summilux Asph vII, 35 Summarit S, 120 Summarit S. A trifecta! Of course, none were for sale but at least I got to handle and shoot with them so nowthe true lust begins. What I found interesting was the performance of the 35 Summarit vs 40 CF FLE Zeiss. The Summarit was sharper but only when pixel peeped. It did firm up my decision to get the 180 and skip the 120. The 70 is a great lens and shoots close so I will skip over the 120 in favor of the 180. The 35, is a great lens, no doubt, but I will wait to see if there are any announcements about new offerings like the 30-90 zoom.

    Hey Al,

    First, welcome to Red Dot.

    How did the 40mm CF or 120mm CF Makro do at f/2.5? πŸ˜‰ If you primarily use your lenses stopped down for maximum DOF there won't be as much difference than if you tend to shoot more wide-open. I think this is an obvious advantage for the S lenses. Wide-open, the 120 S is especially killer. And, the 35 S is no slouch, either.

    Keep in mind with the 30-90 that in order to keep its proportions portable, Leica opted to make it a variable aperture lens. It will most likely be f/3.5-5.6. So, about 1 stop slower on the wide end than the 35 S.

    Glad you decided to get the 180, though. The 180 probably offers the most “perfect” imaging performance with almost no change from f/3.5 to f/8.

    David

  • #399
    Al Tanabe

    David Farkas;70 wrote: Hey Al,

    First, welcome to Red Dot.

    How did the 40mm CF or 120mm CF Makro do at f/2.5? πŸ˜‰ If you primarily use your lenses stopped down for maximum DOF there won't be as much difference than if you tend to shoot more wide-open. I think this is an obvious advantage for the S lenses. Wide-open, the 120 S is especially killer. And, the 35 S is no slouch, either.

    Keep in mind with the 30-90 that in order to keep its proportions portable, Leica opted to make it a variable aperture lens. It will most likely be f/3.5-5.6. So, about 1 stop slower on the wide end than the 35 S.

    Glad you decided to get the 180, though. The 180 probably offers the most “perfect” imaging performance with almost no change from f/3.5 to f/8.

    David

    Okay David, you know better, the Hassey lenses are f4 max aperture. That aside, I shot at max aperture for all lenses and yes the Leica wins but not by much.

    Yes, the 120 is a killer lens but so is the 70 and it shoots reasonably close so it will be my macro for now.

  • #400
    David Farkas

    Atanabe;71 wrote: Okay David, you know better, the Hassey lenses are f4 max aperture. That aside, I shot at max aperture for all lenses and yes the Leica wins but not by much.

    Yes, the 120 is a killer lens but so is the 70 and it shoots reasonably close so it will be my macro for now.

    There's no doubt that the 40 FLE and 120 CF Makro are both very, very good lenses. I was just pointing out that the S equivalents offer 1.5 stops faster max aperture. In fact, if you are shooting static objects for macro, there is absolutely nothing wrong with using the Hasselblad version. Much of macro work is done using manual focus anyway. This is where alternative lenses can really help fill in the gaps where you don't need an S lens.

    I agree with you on the 70mm. It offers really good close-focus ability, and is a great all around and flexible performer. It is my most used lens, by far.

    David

  • #402
    Al Tanabe

    David Farkas;72 wrote: There's no doubt that the 40 FLE and 120 CF Makro are both very, very good lenses. I was just pointing out that the S equivalents offer 1.5 stops faster max aperture. In fact, if you are shooting static objects for macro, there is absolutely nothing wrong with using the Hasselblad version. Much of macro work is done using manual focus anyway. This is where alternative lenses can really help fill in the gaps where you don't need an S lens.

    I agree with you on the 70mm. It offers really good close-focus ability, and is a great all around and flexible performer. It is my most used lens, by far.

    David

    I guess part of the problem in deciding on what lens to get is not being able to see one.

  • #403
    David Farkas

    Atanabe;74 wrote: I guess part of the problem in deciding on what lens to get is not being able to see one.

    We've had all four lenses for quite some time and even offer them for remote Test Drive for this very reason.

    Leica S2 Professional Rental | Dale Photo & Digital

    Tell you what, Al…. buy me a ticket to Seattle and I'll bring everything out to you in person at no charge. It's the least I could do. πŸ˜€

  • #404
    Al Tanabe

    Thanks David, I may take you up on it, beware.

  • #430
    David K

    Hey Al… David didn't say what kind of ticket. I think Greyhound goes from Ft. Lauderdale… only takes 3 days, 14 hours and 55 mins.

  • #649
    fotografz

    IMO, there is no way the 40 FLE matches the S35 out to the edges. The Zeiss 40IF may come closer or match the S35, but that improved edge-to-edge performance came at the price of increased distortion over the 40FLE. The Hasselblad HC 35-90 is almost as good as the 40IF @ the 40mm mark, and it's a zoom.

    So far the S35 is the best MFD wide angle I've used. I skipped waiting for a 30mm because I want something wider like the promised 24mm … 30 to 70mm is to wide a gap in the focal length jump for me, and 30mm is a bit to wide to shoot groups of people. Not interested in a 35-90 zoom …. it'll be too big and for sure it won't be fast. I have the HC 35-90 for my H4D/60, and it is a monster.

    (I've owned and used all the above, plus the Contax 35 for the 645 (which also exhibited distortion).

    But, it is really convenient to now be able to use other lenses for specialized work. The Zeiss 120 macro isn't optically as good as the S120 or the Contax 120, or the HC/120 … but compared to the S120/2.5, it stops down more to gain DOF … and you can use tubes to get a 1:1 ratio.

    -Marc

  • #650
    Al Tanabe

    Marc,
    I agree with your observations that the S series of lenses are by far the best out there. The ability to use other brands of lenses opens up the possibilities for specialty lenses and lower cost alternatives till one can save up the funds to purchase one of those gems. While the Hassey 120 is not as crisp as the 120 S, it does put up a good fight and the cost of mine was $300 or one S hood and lens cap :). The 35 S is scary sharp, in the comparison with the Hassey 40 FLE, what I first thought was noise artifact in the shot actually was the texture of the plastic. That was pixel peeping, at normal display settings, they did not appear that different. Each image held it's own ground, but side by side you could tell the difference.

    In the end, it is nice to be able to entertain other options while I wait for the supply chain to open up for S lenses. Sort of like the Zeiss and CV lenses for the M9, lower cost and a steady supply give users a lot more options.

  • #866
    Nick Rains

    fotografz;371 wrote: Not interested in a 35-90 zoom …. it'll be too big and for sure it won't be fast. I have the HC 35-90 for my H4D/60, and it is a monster.
    -Marc

    From what I have been told by the Leica guys, the zoom will be actually much smaller than expected as there will be no CS version. I suspect it will be an f3.5 design but don't know for sure.

  • #868
    David Farkas

    Nick Rains;612 wrote: From what I have been told by the Leica guys, the zoom will be actually much smaller than expected as there will be no CS version. I suspect it will be an f3.5 design but don't know for sure.

    From my conversations with Stephan Shulz, the 30-90 should actually be roughly the same dimensions as the 35 f/2.5. The aperture range will be f/3.5-5.6. While a constant aperture f/3.5 was the original goal, it was decided that this would have resulted in a lens that was too large, too heavy and too costly. The variable aperture design is fine by me as I see it mainly as a flexible landscape lens where I'm shooting most everything at f/11 anyway for greater DOF.

  • #875
    Stuart Richardson

    Sounds nice. The 28-90mm f/2.8-4.5 ASPH for the R system was a fantastic lens — variable aperture is not the most convenient when shooting manual, but it is not much of a problem with AE. The 28-90 was a very useful lens and the performance was beyond question. If they can do something similar with the 30-90, I imagine that it would serve photographers quite well, especially those looking to have a fairly compact kit in the field.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.