Quality Glass on the A7s

[cpc]

I don't see that pre-70s difference in my tests (here) (the 90mm is not that greenish but the 180mm definitely is).
But your gray card test is much better than what I have (I was testing sharpness, and happened to set WB the same for all lenses).

Could be earlier Leica-M lenses then; my earliest Leica-R is from 1981. Lenses optimized for black and white often had yellow tint, sort of partial yellow filter for popping skin a little bit and darkening sky a little bit in B&W photos.

I have a set of Zeiss Contax too and use them on the A7s, the 100mm is wonderful on full frame.

But for stills i also shoot with voigtlander rangefinder lenses and i love them. I have the 12mm, 21mm, 35mm, 28mm (my fav) and about to grab the new 50mm. They work so well with the A7s in terms of size and being manual anyway the focusing is as you'd expect. Of course perhaps a bit fiddly on a set but as a set of compact lenses you can have in a small bag, they're wonderful.

They have such a nice drop off in DOF and a really natural organic look without being 'vintage'. The 35mm is unusual in that it's a modern lens but with a single coating option. It flares wonderfully although it's got quite a bit of distortion (redeemed by the tiny size and the fact that it's f1.4)

cheers
Paul

My 25mm Skopar is really bad in infinity shots with the A7S. Smearing all over the borders even at f11 and easily visible even at small sizes. I wouldn't bother shooting landscape with it, useable for street pics though. The aspherical wide RF lenses seem to handle the edges much better. The 50/1.5 Nokton is wonderful though. Been looking for an excuse to get one for ages. But it is a tough choice between the Nokton and the 50/1.5 ZM Sonnar.

 

[aly324]

I have a set of Zeiss Contax too and use them on the A7s, the 100mm is wonderful on full frame.

But for stills i also shoot with voigtlander rangefinder lenses and i love them...

Have you used the Voigtlander 35/1.2 ii? It's excellent in most ways for stills on my A7R, except the colors for me always come out really loud, all tending towards saturated primaries, high macrocontrast but not enough microcontrast. But when I look at the images at 100% they seem fine. It's confusing. I have used 2 copies and have never got a pleasing image from it like I do from the C/Y 35/1.4 or Leica R 35/1.4, both much bulkier of course.

And I agree with Samuel that Leica R's are great. I've almost fully migrated from Contax to Leica R. Leica Rs are notably more robustly built. The R 80/1.4 is breathtaking and my favorite lens to date. Too bad Leica R is missing a wider than 35, faster than f/2.8 lens.

 

[Kholi]

Have you used the Voigtlander 35/1.2 ii? It's excellent in most ways for stills on my A7R, except the colors for me always come out really loud, all tending towards saturated primaries, high macrocontrast but not enough microcontrast. But when I look at the images at 100% they seem fine. It's confusing. I have used 2 copies and have never got a pleasing image from it like I do from the C/Y 35/1.4 or Leica R 35/1.4, both much bulkier of course.

And I agree with Samuel that Leica R's are great. I've almost fully migrated from Contax to Leica R. Leica Rs are notably more robustly built. The R 80/1.4 is breathtaking and my favorite lens to date. Too bad Leica R is missing a wider than 35, faster than f/2.8 lens.

If only I could actually pull down a set of four fast Leica R copies. The money, though! Yikes!

The comment about the 35 Rokinon going yellow, I'm wondering just how consistent Rokinon samples are... I've used an entire set and definitely witnessed heavier color shifts from wide open (1.4-5) to optimal (4) on those primes, I wouldn't be surprised if they were a lot more yellow from 1.4 to 2.8~4 split. All-in-all, I've avoided Rokinons just because of wide open performance.

I think the exceptions are the 16/2 and 85? I can't remember.

 

[aly324]

If only I could actually pull down a set of four fast Leica R copies. The money, though! Yikes!

Well, I waited and hunted for fugly copies, so I didn't have to compete with the collectors...

Also the f/2 Summicrons are somewhat affordable. 35, 50, 90 pre-APO. The availability of an f/2 set is another plus over Contax.

 

[paulcurtis]

My 25mm Skopar is really bad in infinity shots with the A7S. Smearing all over the borders even at f11 and easily visible even at small sizes. I wouldn't bother shooting landscape with it, useable for street pics though. The aspherical wide RF lenses seem to handle the edges much better. The 50/1.5 Nokton is wonderful though. Been looking for an excuse to get one for ages. But it is a tough choice between the Nokton and the 50/1.5 ZM Sonnar.

That's unfortunate. I was a bit wary of the A7 series and my existing lenses because the other models have all had major issues, however i see no major issues with the set i have. Even the 12mm doesn't colour cast very much at all. Either sony tweaked the sensor or just having a lower resolution sensor seems to make a difference. Not that i pixel peep much but a 12mm is going to look odd in the corners anyway. I've not used the 21mm much which is also a skopar. Do you have an example? Maybe i'll break it out and try. I used to like the 21mm on APS-C but not so much full frame.

Have you used the Voigtlander 35/1.2 ii? It's excellent in most ways for stills on my A7R, except the colors for me always come out really loud, all tending towards saturated primaries, high macrocontrast but not enough microcontrast. But when I look at the images at 100% they seem fine. It's confusing. I have used 2 copies and have never got a pleasing image from it like I do from the C/Y 35/1.4 or Leica R 35/1.4, both much bulkier of course.

And I agree with Samuel that Leica R's are great. I've almost fully migrated from Contax to Leica R. Leica Rs are notably more robustly built. The R 80/1.4 is breathtaking and my favorite lens to date. Too bad Leica R is missing a wider than 35, faster than f/2.8 lens.

I've not had the 35mm f1.2, i had the Nokton f1.1 for a while though but not on full frame. I thought the f1.2 had quite a lot of issues wide open on various cameras but to be honest that extra bit of light is offset by the size of it. That 50mm 1.5 looks lovely though. I've canon 50mm f1.2 on ebay right now towards the cost (the rangefinder one).

I was torn over Leica R vs Contax for a long term, but i never really found any good sources of Leica R and the ones i tried were a bit meh. There is that 24-85? f2.8 though... Now that would be nice..

cheers
Paul

 

[Kholi]

Well, I waited and hunted for fugly copies, so I didn't have to compete with the collectors...

Also the f/2 Summicrons are somewhat affordable. 35, 50, 90 pre-APO. The availability of an f/2 set is another plus over Contax.

Then you just think "Man if they were only R!" haha.

Thankfully, I have FINALLY found (or have been turned onto) a set of primes that I absolutely love and can afford. It's been really annoying to find glass that has the right kind of character for my tastes. Having gone through the fastest Contax set you can buy (the 28/2 and 135/2 were so nice, the day they were stolen from me was a very hard... hard day), flopped around with Tokina and Tamron--both of which are actually really nice when you've access to less compressed data to really fine-tune color, and Sigma as well... it's very refreshing to be on the hunt for old school flare.

Now that the conversation about Rokinon's opened up, I'd be really interested in seeing what you guys are getting out of them paired with the A7s.

 

[aly324]

I've not had the 35mm f1.2, i had the Nokton f1.1 for a while though but not on full frame. I thought the f1.2 had quite a lot of issues wide open on various cameras but to be honest that extra bit of light is offset by the size of it. That 50mm 1.5 looks lovely though. I've canon 50mm f1.2 on ebay right now towards the cost (the rangefinder one).

I was torn over Leica R vs Contax for a long term, but i never really found any good sources of Leica R and the ones i tried were a bit meh. There is that 24-85? f2.8 though...

The f/1.2 on the Nokton 35 is a gimmick. On my A7R, it lets just a slither more light in as you go from 1.4 to 1.2, and then only at the center, maybe 1/4 of a stop. The corners don't brighten at least up to f/2.8. Tried it briefly on my A7S and seemed the same. I think it's just the optics and not the sensor pairing.

The reasons to get the Nokton 35/1.2 v2 over a 35/1.4 are heft, ergonomics, and the useful 0.5m MFD, unique for a RF 35mm lens.

There's a Leica R 28-90 f/2.8-4.5, but it's over 6k on Ebay. Again a collector's item. Even if I were rich enough to afford it I'd feel ethically compromised using such a thing and annoyed to have to pamper it like a work of art. It'd take all pleasure out of photography.

That's why my lenses are all fugly.

But really, everyone should try the Summilux-R 80/1.4. It's really something else. Luminous in every sense. It's the only lens I have that I actually enjoy even fondling, weird.

 

[draculr]

I just picked up a new Voigtlander 35mm 1.2. I used to use this bad boy on my Leica M8 back in the day and it seems to work lovely on the A7S. The reasons I picked it up over the other M lenses I was looking at:
- Focus ring is perfect for video, very smooth with a good throw.
- It's the right size and weight, I couldn't handhold and focus pull with the smaller lenses very well at all. I don't like the focus tab when it comes to video.
- BOKEH!! It's not just the amount but the way it renders the OOF areas, it's so damn buttery smooth. Even when you step down (no doubt helped by the 12 aperture blades).

I think my video lens set will basically be this guy alongside my Nikon 85mm 1.8g and 70-200mm VRii for tripod shots. The 14-24mm f2.8 would be fantastic but alas you can't throw filters onto it.

I'm going to do some tests with the voigt 35mm in crop video mode too. If it's sharp then I'll rarely need to change out lenses!

 

[Samuel H]

If only I could actually pull down a set of four fast Leica R copies. The money, though! Yikes!

I have the full set (24+35+40tiny+50+60macro+90+135+180), but except for a couple of them I went for the slower but cheaper Elmarit-R f/2.8 line. That's fast enough for me with a full frame camera (DoF already plenty shallow) that can easily go up to ISO 25K.
The good thing is: in general, these slower lenses are actually sharper (particularly: the Summicron-R 35mm f/2 and 90mm f/2 are clearly softer than their Elmarit-R f/2.8 counterparts). The only exception is the 50mm, where you want to go for the Summilux f/1.4, which is sharper and has better bokeh than the Summicron f/2.0 (which is already pretty good in any case).
Mine were around $300 to $600 each ($800 for the 50mm summilux), all from the 60s and 70s (so, not APO). At least 3 of them needed some simple repairing because they were wrongly assembled, which made them soft and with worse bokeh, and in some cases also unable to focus to infinity (here).
They are not the sharpest lenses ever wide open (here), but they are great from f/3.5 onwards (f/2.8 for the summilux) and the image is very, very nice (among other things, great bokeh, tests here).


When I don't want to spend a lot of time looking for a particularly good deal, I just go to LeicaShop. Similar rate of badly-assembled lenses as ebay in my experience, and prices are about average, but the information on the lens condition is pretty accurate (I usually buy B grade, but personally I don't have a problem buying C grade if it's clearly cheaper: "some dust inside, light cleaning marks"; your standards may be higher than mine, though), and it's just much easier than hunting in ebay for months, which would usually save me maybe $100 per lens, tops.


My research before buying my lenses:

some Leica-R lenses ordered by weighted MTF sharpness at f/2.8 (and at f/4), best to worse:
0.81 (0.86) - ElmaritR 90mm
0.81 (0.84) - SummiluxR 50mm
0.79 (0.87) - SummicronR 50mm
0.78 (0.81) - ElmaritR 35mm
0.75 (0.78) - SummicronR 35mm
0.74 (0.80) - ElmaritR 180mm
0.74 (0.79) - ElmaritR 28mm
0.73 (0.78) - PC Super AngulonR 28mm
0.71 (0.75) - ElmaritR 24mm


all that info is coming from here:
http://www.photodo.com/lens/Leica-ElmaritR-90mm-f28-944
http://www.photodo.com/lens/Leica-SummiluxR-50mm-f14-941
http://www.photodo.com/lens/Leica-SummicronR-50mm-f2-940
http://www.photodo.com/lens/Leica-ElmaritR-35mm-f28-937
http://www.photodo.com/lens/Leica-SummicronR-35mm-f2-938
http://www.photodo.com/lens/Leica-ElmaritR-180mm-f28-952
http://www.photodo.com/lens/Leica-ElmaritR-28mm-f28-935
http://www.photodo.com/lens/Leica-PC-Super-AngulonR-28mm-f28-936
http://www.photodo.com/lens/Leica-ElmaritR-24mm-f28-934

I think the exceptions are the 16/2 and 85? I can't remember.

The exceptions are the 35 and 85, and you already found the 35 too soft for your test, so, unless it was a lemon...

 

[paulcurtis]

The reasons to get the Nokton 35/1.2 v2 over a 35/1.4 are heft, ergonomics, and the useful 0.5m MFD, unique for a RF 35mm lens.

There's a Leica R 28-90 f/2.8-4.5, but it's over 6k on Ebay. Again a collector's item. Even if I were rich enough to afford it I'd feel ethically compromised using such a thing and annoyed to have to pamper it like a work of art. It'd take all pleasure out of photography.

That's why my lenses are all fugly.

But really, everyone should try the Summilux-R 80/1.4. It's really something else. Luminous in every sense. It's the only lens I have that I actually enjoy even fondling, weird.

Yes, the Ultron 28 f1.9 is a proper focus throw, as is the 50mm. Do you have one of the voightlander close focus adapters? I have the hawks one from ebay (i emailed the manufacturers long before asking whether it was possible, so perhaps i even helped it happen - i was jury rigging my own attempts)

The Leica i'm thinking about is the 28-70 f2.8 APSH, which would be an ideal zoom for most work. Sadly they only made 200, so you can guess how much but it is stunning.

I just picked up a new Voigtlander 35mm 1.2. I used to use this bad boy on my Leica M8 back in the day and it seems to work lovely on the A7S. The reasons I picked it up over the other M lenses I was looking at:
- Focus ring is perfect for video, very smooth with a good throw.
- It's the right size and weight, I couldn't handhold and focus pull with the smaller lenses very well at all. I don't like the focus tab when it comes to video.
- BOKEH!! It's not just the amount but the way it renders the OOF areas, it's so damn buttery smooth. Even when you step down (no doubt helped by the 12 aperture blades).

I never liked the Nokton 50 f1.1 Bokeh, it got really odd in places. Would love to see some results from this combination!

I have the full set (24+35+40tiny+50+60macro+90+135+180), but except for a couple of them I went for the slower but cheaper Elmarit-R f/2.8 line. That's fast enough for me with a full frame camera (DoF already plenty shallow) that can easily go up to ISO 25K.
The good thing is: in general, these slower lenses are actually sharper (particularly: the Summicron-R 35mm f/2 and 90mm f/2 are clearly softer than their Elmarit-R f/2.8 counterparts). The only exception is the 50mm, where you want to go for the Summilux f/1.4, which is sharper and has better bokeh than the Summicron f/2.0 (which is already pretty good in any case).

That's some great information. Oh no, i feel Leica lust coming back on after years of repressing it...

The problem with the Leicas is that the zooms are not to the same standard, quite often OEM'd. I find that in a lot of cases when running from set up to set up i end up using a zoom more than primes. I find myself falling back on the Sony ZA 16-35 and 24-70 most often on the FS700.

You're right about the stop though, f2.8 is plenty for video, especially full frame - f4 more likely...

cheers
Paul

 

[cpc]

That's unfortunate. I was a bit wary of the A7 series and my existing lenses because the other models have all had major issues, however i see no major issues with the set i have. Even the 12mm doesn't colour cast very much at all. Either sony tweaked the sensor or just having a lower resolution sensor seems to make a difference. Not that i pixel peep much but a 12mm is going to look odd in the corners anyway. I've not used the 21mm much which is also a skopar. Do you have an example? Maybe i'll break it out and try. I used to like the 21mm on APS-C but not so much full frame.

Here is a quick sample, top left corner at f11:
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-MYNtWfNaOqk/U-slx7WnQDI/AAAAAAAAB8I/nkO0JZepm04/s0/DSC00044.png
This is focused for center, it is possible that there is some field curvature in play, I haven't really investigated this possibility. My Contax G 28 (which is also bad on the A7s, but better than this) definitely has some field curvature. Also note the cyan cast in the corners. Cyan seems to have replaced purple that was appearing on the a7/a7r, although on the a7s the color vignette is less pronounced.
I'd expect the 21mm Skopar to be about similar.

But really, everyone should try the Summilux-R 80/1.4. It's really something else. Luminous in every sense. It's the only lens I have that I actually enjoy even fondling, weird.

Got mine a few years ago. A sample from 1982 but new unopened in box. This lens is so beautiful that I almost never use it for video, and mostly for stills where I can take better care of it. For video I generally go for the Summicron 90 instead.
The Summilux 80 is really two lenses in a single body: up to around 2-2.4 it is a softish Leica-glow portrait lens. From 2.8 onwards it is a biting sharp 3d pop monster. A lot of magic in the way it goes from focus to defocus.

- BOKEH!! It's not just the amount but the way it renders the OOF areas, it's so damn buttery smooth. Even when you step down (no doubt helped by the 12 aperture blades).

It should be noted that most lenses have their smoothest bokeh stopped down at least a stop. It is staggering how many people shoot wide open thinking faster aperture = better bokeh. Wide open almost always (there are exceptions) equals outlined OOF highlights/lght sources of one kind or another.

 

[Samuel H]

^ The wisdom is strong in this one -.-

Confusing bokeh quality with quantity is very common. Which one trumps the other usually depends on the background you're trying to dissolve away: if it has lots of specular highlights, you probably will want to go for quality; if it doesn't quantity will often look better.

Another common mistake: thinking bokeh only depends on the number of blades. In can matter, but only when you stop down the lens. And in any case, optical design usually matters a lot more than number of blades. I have tested a 15-blades Pentacon 200mm and it had nicely round but really awful bokeh (probably a damaged lens):

 

[Samuel H]

The problem with the Leicas is that the zooms are not to the same standard, quite often OEM'd. I find that in a lot of cases when running from set up to set up i end up using a zoom more than primes. I find myself falling back on the Sony ZA 16-35 and 24-70 most often on the FS700.

Not an issue for me because I'm not a zoom shooter, but that's a problem common to nearly all vintage lenses: zooms are not great. The reason is that zooms are usually pretty complex lenses and they benefitted a lot by computer-assisted design, so modern designs are a lot closer to the performance of primes than what was possible a few decades back.

 

[draculr]

I never liked the Nokton 50 f1.1 Bokeh, it got really odd in places. Would love to see some results from this combination!

Here's a still from the Voigtlander 35mm 1.2 @ f2.0 on the A7S. I dunno I just love how it's handled that foliage which is pretty much the most difficult kind of OOF area to deal with. It's very creamy to my eyes and the opposite to what my Sigma 35mm 1.4 would do.

 

[aly324]

Yes, the Ultron 28 f1.9 is a proper focus throw, as is the 50mm. Do you have one of the voightlander close focus adapters? I have the hawks one from ebay (i emailed the manufacturers long before asking whether it was possible, so perhaps i even helped it happen - i was jury rigging my own attempts)

I have a Hawk's v3 and v4 (the one with the adjustable infinity stop). I've tried the Voigtlander VM-E close focus at a store only, but it seemed clearly superior to the Hawk's except for the lack of adjustable infinity and apparently 1mm less travel. The Voigt was much smoother to turn than either v4 and v3 (which is itself less robust and more toyish than v4). Also the Hawk's ones have sharp lens release buttons that regularly scratch my finger.

For people wanting to shoot with M mount lenses I think it's wise to spend up for the VM-E.

 

[aly324]

Got mine a few years ago. A sample from 1982 but new unopened in box. This lens is so beautiful that I almost never use it for video, and mostly for stills where I can take better care of it. For video I generally go for the Summicron 90 instead.
The Summilux 80 is really two lenses in a single body: up to around 2-2.4 it is a softish Leica-glow portrait lens. From 2.8 onwards it is a biting sharp 3d pop monster. A lot of magic in the way it goes from focus to defocus.

Don't you think the Lux 80 is magical? It was my first Leica R, and converted me to the series. I love not just the image (which is as you describe) but also the build, the heft, the girth )), the 0.78m MFD. Back when I thought I was going to switch to all M mount, I tried its optical equivalent the Lux M 75, but it just didn't feel the same--too narrow, rings too narrow and cramped.

It should be noted that most lenses have their smoothest bokeh stopped down at least a stop. It is staggering how many people shoot wide open thinking faster aperture = better bokeh. Wide open almost always (there are exceptions) equals outlined OOF highlights/lght sources of one kind or another.

My 1983 Lux 80 though has a slight ninja star aperture opening at from f/1.7 to f/2.5 inclusive. Not full-on ninja like Contax AEG's, but more wishywashy ninja. Some people on the interwebs seem to report theirs don't ninja.

My 1983 Summilux-R 35 also ninjas from 1.7 to 2.5, so maybe it depends on production date.

As Samuel has said, Leica R's are also very easy to declick and hard to mess up, unlike Contax's, which require you to unscrew many easy-to-strip and often glued tight screws and deal with a fiddly multipiece bayonet assembly and (in the case of AE type) aperture actuation mechanism.

I am very impressed that Samuel "reassembled" his Leica R's. I haven't dared to venture beyond declicking and infinity adjustment into the optical block.

 

[robfilms]

very enjoyable thread.

thank you to those who have shared.

how would these "classic" lenses which have been discussed above compare to the current zeiss compact prime offerings?

(and i ask not as a knowledgable user but rather someone who occasionally still uses pentax and minolta lenses from the 70s/80s on a fs100!

...now no snickering, please !!!)

be well.

rob
smalltalk productions/nyc

 

[Samuel H]

I am very impressed that Samuel "reassembled" his Leica R's. I haven't dared to venture beyond declicking and infinity adjustment into the optical block.

Don't be: you and me did exactly the same, declicking and infinity adjustment. The difference is that I also did it in lenses that have two blocks of elements, like the 180mm f/2.8, and on these lenses this procedure had a big effect for both sharpness and bokeh. But the procedure is basically the same that you did!
I wouldn't dare disassembling any of the optical blocks, I'm sure you'd need very expensive equipment to get everything back in place.
(btw, that 180mm is one difficult lens to reassemble)

Edit: I also shaved some of these lenses so I could use them with a speedbooster:
http://www.similaar.com/foto/leicashave/leicashave.html

 

[Kholi]

I have the full set (24+35+40tiny+50+60macro+90+135+180), but except for a couple of them I went for the slower but cheaper Elmarit-R f/2.8 line. That's fast enough for me with a full frame camera (DoF already plenty shallow) that can easily go up to ISO 25K.
The good thing is: in general, these slower lenses are actually sharper (particularly: the Summicron-R 35mm f/2 and 90mm f/2 are clearly softer than their Elmarit-R f/2.8 counterparts). The only exception is the 50mm, where you want to go for the Summilux f/1.4, which is sharper and has better bokeh than the Summicron f/2.0 (which is already pretty good in any case).
Mine were around $300 to $600 each ($800 for the 50mm summilux), all from the 60s and 70s (so, not APO). At least 3 of them needed some simple repairing because they were wrongly assembled, which made them soft and with worse bokeh, and in some cases also unable to focus to infinity (here).
They are not the sharpest lenses ever wide open (here), but they are great from f/3.5 onwards (f/2.8 for the summilux) and the image is very, very nice (among other things, great bokeh, tests here).


When I don't want to spend a lot of time looking for a particularly good deal, I just go to LeicaShop. Similar rate of badly-assembled lenses as ebay in my experience, and prices are about average, but the information on the lens condition is pretty accurate (I usually buy B grade, but personally I don't have a problem buying C grade if it's clearly cheaper: "some dust inside, light cleaning marks"; your standards may be higher than mine, though), and it's just much easier than hunting in ebay for months, which would usually save me maybe $100 per lens, tops.


My research before buying my lenses:

some Leica-R lenses ordered by weighted MTF sharpness at f/2.8 (and at f/4), best to worse:
0.81 (0.86) - ElmaritR 90mm
0.81 (0.84) - SummiluxR 50mm
0.79 (0.87) - SummicronR 50mm
0.78 (0.81) - ElmaritR 35mm
0.75 (0.78) - SummicronR 35mm
0.74 (0.80) - ElmaritR 180mm
0.74 (0.79) - ElmaritR 28mm
0.73 (0.78) - PC Super AngulonR 28mm
0.71 (0.75) - ElmaritR 24mm


all that info is coming from here:
http://www.photodo.com/lens/Leica-ElmaritR-90mm-f28-944
http://www.photodo.com/lens/Leica-SummiluxR-50mm-f14-941
http://www.photodo.com/lens/Leica-SummicronR-50mm-f2-940
http://www.photodo.com/lens/Leica-ElmaritR-35mm-f28-937
http://www.photodo.com/lens/Leica-SummicronR-35mm-f2-938
http://www.photodo.com/lens/Leica-ElmaritR-180mm-f28-952
http://www.photodo.com/lens/Leica-ElmaritR-28mm-f28-935
http://www.photodo.com/lens/Leica-PC-Super-AngulonR-28mm-f28-936
http://www.photodo.com/lens/Leica-ElmaritR-24mm-f28-934




The exceptions are the 35 and 85, and you already found the 35 too soft for your test, so, unless it was a lemon...

Wild! Thanks for the info.

I think the sharp thing becomes pretty arbitrary when we're dealing with cameras what resolve so much detail already, and two, full frame. I'm the one that's stuck on smaller than S35 sensors, that's where it matters. I'm sure if I were on something like the A7S then wide open performance becomes far less critical. Still the same for S35...

And sharpness in general, I just want "sharp enough", it doesn't have to be razor sharp: I owned the Sigma 50a for about a week or two, and that thing was TOO SHARP for me. Like, I could cut my eyes on some of the images I pulled down with 4K DNG RAW. Likewise, as much as I liked the tamron 24-70 VC, wide open at 2.8 it was freakin' razor.

I may end up with both of those again some day, though.

 

[cpc]

Don't you think the Lux 80 is magical? It was my first Leica R, and converted me to the series. I love not just the image (which is as you describe) but also the build, the heft, the girth )), the 0.78m MFD. Back when I thought I was going to switch to all M mount, I tried its optical equivalent the Lux M 75, but it just didn't feel the same--too narrow, rings too narrow and cramped.



My 1983 Lux 80 though has a slight ninja star aperture opening at from f/1.7 to f/2.5 inclusive. Not full-on ninja like Contax AEG's, but more wishywashy ninja. Some people on the interwebs seem to report theirs don't ninja.

My 1983 Summilux-R 35 also ninjas from 1.7 to 2.5, so maybe it depends on production date.

As Samuel has said, Leica R's are also very easy to declick and hard to mess up, unlike Contax's, which require you to unscrew many easy-to-strip and often glued tight screws and deal with a fiddly multipiece bayonet assembly and (in the case of AE type) aperture actuation mechanism.

I am very impressed that Samuel "reassembled" his Leica R's. I haven't dared to venture beyond declicking and infinity adjustment into the optical block.

I looked at the M 75 a few times but it just seemed too big for an M (well, the price didn't help steer me to buying either .
FWIW, my 1982 doesn't seem to manifest anything ninja star-like at the aperture range you mention.
What adapter are you using to mount the heavier R lenses (like the 80) on E-mount? I wouldn't trust my cheap Chinese R-to-E adapter with the 80; it isn't solid enough and has some play. I used to use a Leitax for it on Canon, but Leitax is not really an option as these days I mostly have it sitting on my R5 camera so I can't use a semi-permanent interchangeable mount.