The 35mm f/1.4 is my personal favorite lens for my Nikon SLRs, my Leica M6 35mm, and my Leica M10 digital. I have never performed a comparison test on their images.
Glad you reviewed this, having seen your other 35mm M mount reviews. I still remember being so amazed by my friend's 35 Biogon when I used it on his Ricoh GXR over 10 years ago, and it's also why my first lens after getting an M240 was the 50/2 Planar. I was curious on your thoughts about it for the longest time as well compared to the other 35 crons, as I was planning to upgrade to it from my 7art 35/2 Sonnar. Funny enough, I recently got good deals on both the Voigtlander 35/2.5 Color-Skopar C AND the 35/1.2 Nokton III just shortly before this came out, so I guess a third 35mm would already be a little superfluous lol
good job , and cannot praise enough your beautiful cozy set up . I mean the room youre in . lovely vibrant foliage with chestnut accent of window panels . pleasant to watch video . cheers
Something that wasn’t mentioned in your review was the shape of the apertures of both lenses. Because some of these lenses have very rounded apertures where others have straight blades, which makes them hexagonal in their out of focus highlights which can be really distracting. Can say here how they compare? Nice review by the way, it’s nice to see actual comparisons from lens to lens instead of just commenting on which is nicer or better according to your opinion. By the way, nice Rollei 2.8F I had the 3.5F for many years and I just sold it. But I loved owning it for all those years and I still have some great pictures from it.Regards Gerry
More than a decade ago, I tried the Biogon but ended up with the Cron ASPH v1. The size and handling of the Biogon just wasn’t as good to me. I also don’t like the chrome hood mounting rings on the Cosina lenses, and the silver ZM lenses look weird on silver M cameras. Another personal factor was the 43mm filter size; already having the 50 Cron with 39mm size, I didn’t want to buy another set of polarizer and ND filters.
I haven’t yet tried Zeiss lenses on my M film and digital cameras. I recently bought the recent version of the APO-Summicron-M 35 mm f/2 and have had the Summilux-M 35 mm f/1.4 FLE (v. 1). They’re both killer lenses (they render different,y, even at f/2) and I won’t sell them.
Your cron35 asph appears to be a 11673 v2 asph. It's slightly refreshed optics compared to the 11879 v1 cron. It's sharper in the corners and slightly sharper overall compared to the V1.
just a friendly reminder, Jimmy, you don't have to put English subtitles, and if you're considering your Chinese audiences, you can input the Chinese subtitles into the cc. Too much text on the screen
@@whataboutart Funny I found the opposite to be true. When contrast is high and you shoot contrasty scenes, details in the shadows and highlights are lost when you lower contrast. But increase contrast always works in the post.
had both 35mm biogons and I prefer the 2.8. the 2.0 actually more or less has ruined shots wide open for me in the past with the oof rendering. usually, people dont notice, but yeah had some family shots where it was dark and I was on tri-x pushed only one stop and had comments about how ugly a shot or two with the f2.0 biogon were 😬
@@TCMx3 wow that’s odd. I had the polar opposite experience where I hated the 35 2.8 over contrasty shots but loved the f2 for its rendering. I guess it really comes down to personal preference
@@JimmyCheng on most fronts I preferred the 2.0. It's just that if you lose an important shot to a lens it ruins it for you. I would say this occurred very rarely, but it did. never seen any behavior like that from the summicron.
