Yucky 35mm G lens

[nickchew]

I'm really quite disappointed with the 35mm anything less than f5.6.
Vignetting is quite obvious.

45mm and 90mm are the best lenses I think.

Here is the
"underbelly of the London Eye"
G2 35mm f8

[SolaresLarrave]

I don't see vignetting here...

My Planar works reasonably well... However, upon studying with a loupe some slides I found that it's sharpness doesn't extend all the way to the edges. It's a decent performer, but not as good as the 45mm.

Now... how did you manage to center a photo like this? Or is it a post-production cropping?

[Stu :)]

I think I can see some (note the darker corners) , but I'll have to see the negs before I say "yay" or "nay".

Tried the G's 28mm yet?

Stu :)

[nickchew]

Yeah

I have the 28 and the 21 too. I find both of them better.
This photo doesn't show the vig too well coz the background's so white.

cropping? yes and no. This was focussed at infinity so the parallax error between viewer and lens was not too noticeable. My problem was actually rotation. the "horizon" was not on the spot. I had to rotate it by 1.5degrees CCW on photoshop.

How about this for vignetting? The eye again.



Nick

[nickchew]

yikes! the vignetting disappeared again! I wonder if it is the digital file or my computer? it looked different on my computer screen.

Thanks anyway.

Nick

[SolaresLarrave]

Nickchew, methinks you're just stirring the waters to make us believe that your standards are so hight and so we'll repeat constantly that your photos are just small masterpieces and they're just great and add that if this is what you do with a lousy G lens we wonder what you'd be able to achieve with a super-dooper 16mm lens.

Right? ;)

Just kidding! :) :) :)

What film did you use? I've never noticed any vignetting in my slides, but maybe I should look at them more carefully.

[Doug]

Nick, welcome to RFF! I do see a small amount of corner fall-off in your two shots, but ask yourself, "Is the fall-off unattractive?" For some pictorial purposes, it's been traditional in the darkroom to deliberately burn-in the corners of the print to be darker. It helps concentrate viewer attention to the important stuff near the middle. So think of it as a desirable attribute!

[RML]

Nick, though I do see some vignetting I don't find it disturbing, annoying or that it detracts from the shot. Maybe you're focussing a bit too much on the fact there is some vignetting and have lost sight of the overall appearance of the shot. It's good to step back from time to time.

[nickchew]

SolaresLarrave, The film's kodak professional "what-u-ma-call-it" C41 B/W. Coz I was travelling and it was easier to get C41 processing. U are too kind...I think....I'm not sure...I think....Is the 16mm really that good?

I guess RML and Doug are right. Vignetting may be there but it may not necessarily be a pain in the #$@&! Lomo's sell afterall! (It's just that I've always been somewhat of a techy-buff and those nagging obessions do get in the way of enjoyment.)

Thanks for all your comments

nick

[SolaresLarrave]

You're welcome, Nick. I just like the geometric nature of the images. To me, at a given moment, vignetting in landscapish shots isn't so terribly bad as it kinda mimics the human eye: we don't have sharp, corner-to-corner vision, do we?

I've heard only good things about the 16mm, but it's way too wide for my taste.

Have a nice day!

[Huck Finn]

Nickchew, where is that shot taken? It's an interesting location - as well as some really nice photography.

[Socke]

I haven't tried a 35mm g lens myself, yet :-)

But from what I've heard it is not up to Planar 45 or Biogon 28 edge sharpness and it's color rendition is a bit different.

It seems to be made to match typical 35mm lenses from the 50s to 60s in this regard.

Vigneting may be caused by the wrong lens hood. Don't have my manual with me, but as far as I recall it should be used with the GG-1.
I have very very VERY slight vignetting with my Planar 45 + B+W Filter + GG-2 so I use a GG-1 on my 45mm with filters

[nickchew]

Huck finn,
It was at the London Eye.
Terribly expensive place. Winter, wind blowing, terribly cold, kids grouchy, didn't enjoy it..... ,but hey, at least I got a photo.

Nick

[Thomas]

I cant see any vignetting, if you doo it is because of the thick steel poles giving shade or you got a UV or POL filter wich does it.
My 35mm and 45mm lense does not vignet at all.
The 35mm G lense is as good as the 45mm.

[jdos2]

Wanna sell it? (*wink*)

[Magnus]

I agree with you that the 35mm is the least lens of the lot, It is a pity though because 35mm is such a good lenght to make pics with.

[jlw]

I haven't tried a 35mm g lens myself, yet :-)

But from what I've heard it is not up to Planar 45 or Biogon 28 edge sharpness...


I had one which I used a lot, until I sold my G2 outfit recently (to fund my R-D1 purchase), and I would have to disagree with this. Its corner sharpness at f/2 was merely OK, but in the center and at all other apertures mine gave excellent results.

[nickchew]

Thanks for all the replies.
I tried this shot to see how badly the lens flare would be on the 35mm.
I was very surprised that there was no visible flare.

Nick

[jdos2]

One of my very favorite family qualities of the G2 lenses, rather unmatched my my Summicron 50, 35 (ASPH), and Elmar 90 Leica experience.

[Bob Michaels]

I find I shoot more with the 35mm Planar than with the 45, 28, 21 & 90. It's just my favorite focal length. After almost 1,000 rolls, I'd say the 35mm is at least 98% as good, if not just as good, as the other G lenses and still in the top 100 lenses ever made. I think I could list 20 factors that have more influence on technical quality than that lens vs. the others.

Bob Michaels

[Bob Michaels]

FWIW, I use the 45mm hood on both the 35mm and the 28mm biogon and never see any vignetting. (Yes, the 45mm hood on the 28mm biogon)

But I almost never use a filter.

Bob Michaels

[Doug]

First roll out of my "new" 35mm Planar, Ilford XP-2 Super, with a UV filter holding the GG-2 hood further from the lens... and note this is the hood intended for the 45mm Planar and is longer than the GG-1 specified for the 35! Seems not to cause any vignetting though.

First shot at about f/5.6 I think, a grab-shot of a bit of horsing around in the Cingular Wireless store. Second is at f/2.8 in a library, at very close distance to the subject and displaying some pleasant bokeh! Third is muted daylight at about f/11 I think, in a motel being demolished.

I don't see any sign of the softness that this lens has been criticized for; it has nice tonality, nice bokeh, no noticeable corner fall-off in my shots, and in the full-size 2000x3000 scans the sharpness looks excellent, with the lady in the library impressively crisp. A winner!

[dagata]

If you look at David Alan Harvey's "Cuba" book, you'll see a shot or two where the 35 1.4 Summicron vignettes. I find the 35/2 Planar almost equally as good as the 45--except at f/2. Vignetting isn't the issue as much as the sharpness, but it's a stupendous lens nevertheless.

[Doug]

Welcome, dagata, and thanks for your comments. I may not have been clear about the vignetting, and that word has been misused too, leading to misunderstanding. Vignetting, as opposed to cosine-squared-law falloff, is caused by a physical shading at the extremities of the angle of view. Such as from a too long or too small-diameter lens hood (and all lenses vignette at the limits of their circles of illumination). My used 35 Planar came with the longer hood from the 45 Planar, and there's a UV filter extending it even longer... So that's why I would not have been surprised to see some vignetting, and it's perhaps a little remarkable that there isn't. :)

Good to hear your opinion, then, that the 35 is a stupendous lens, if slightly less stupendous than the 45... !

[Socke]

I'm waiting for one to arrive, then I know first hand :-)

[furcafe]

FWIW, I've also had nothing but positive experiences w/the 35/2 Planar & have never understood why it has such a (relatively) poor reputation. For about a year, I also had the 35/2 Summicron-M ASPH & was able to compare the 2 lenses (still have the Planar), & didn't find the 'cron to be that overwhelmingly better (especially considering it cost about $1000 more!). I've never noticed any light fall-off w/the Planar. Per jlw's post, mine doesn't appear to be as sharp @ f/2-f/2.8 in the corners as my 35/1.4 Summilux-M ASPH (or the ASPH 'cron that preceded it), but corner sharpness is not a big deal for me; in that regard, I agree w/Socke's observation that the 35/2 Planar resembles older lenses from the '60s (don't know if it was deliberately designed that way like the 35/2 Hexanon on the Hexar AF).


I don't see any sign of the softness that this lens has been criticized for; it has nice tonality, nice bokeh, no noticeable corner fall-off in my shots, and in the full-size 2000x3000 scans the sharpness looks excellent, with the lady in the library impressively crisp. A winner!

[geoset]

I agree with Bob. I also use the full range of G lenses (except the 16mm) and find little or no quality difference between the 35mm and the others in B&W enlargements up to 11x14". Personally I prefer the 45mm focal length and when travelling usually couple it with a 28mmm. I find the 21mm has its use occasionally but most of the time is too wide for my taste.

[jaap]

The Contax G planar 35mm is a wondelfull lens I think. Already at f4.0 it's a it best. Except for the extreem corners. Thank you