I love the 35/1.4G

andrew_broadfoot wrote: Have any of my shots inspired anyone into the 35/f1.5G market?

Not only your shots. I have been toying with the idea of buying a f/1.4 wide angle for some time. 35mm is not my preferred angle of view, but very fast wide angles give a unique picture style. Fast telephotos as well, but one sees that style everywhere, it is the combination of limited depth of field and wide angle perspective which is uncommon. That, and the particular contrast rendition given by these lenses (which is actually the result of spherical aberration, which is very difficult to correct for fast wide angle lenses).

I am convinced that this combination is most of the secret behind the "Leica look". Leica M users use mainly fast wide angles, and Leica is one of the few makers catering for that need (with a incredible choice of 21!, 24 and 35 f/1.4... at a price, unfortunately). Canon has a 24mm f/1.4 which is stellar (used by astronomers with praise) and a 35mm f/1.4 which isn't better than the Minolta, Nikon (in AF) stopped producing the 28mm f/1.4 long ago (and it sells at collector's prices) and just issued a 24mm f/1.4. That, and Nikon did not have full frame DSLRs for a long time.

So it is a look which is uncommon, because the tools are rare. Sure, you can find old 35mm f/1.4 for old film bodies at a decent price, but few people do that nowadays and these old design suffer from coma, which can easily ruin your pictures if you have punctual lights in the frame. Coma can only be corrected with aspherics.

If I had to describe the special look I associate with these lenses, I would say it is a combination of a dreamy atmosphere and open space. I usually associate it with street photography and intimacy (keep in mind that street photography is about intimacy, actually). If you need a reminder about the Leica look, look at the pictures Maik Scharfscheer shot for the official M9 campaign, I'll include two for your convenience:





In the end, the Minolta 35mm f/1.4 is one of the few available lenses to give that particular look. Personally, I would have preferred a 24mm f/1.4, but that lens won't be made.

andrew_broadfoot wrote: Have any of my shots inspired anyone into the 35/f1.5G market?

I enjoyed your examples very much.
I am the lucky owner of a Minolta 35/1.4G.
Here's a picture I took with it at my nephews wedding.

Cheers,

1/125s f6.3 at 35mm iso200

Your link is broken because you have a space after the opening [url]

steem21 wrote: This is a very interesting discussion about the qualities of this amazing lens. I've had to sell my copy to fund my rather expensive forage into Leica territory! During my research into Leica lenses, I remembered reading a post a few years ago about the shared qualities of Leica lenses and Minolta lenses. Here's the post: http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/topic26624_post277639.html I've bought a Leica lens (50/1.4 Pre-asph) that a lot of users have said that it is "soft" wide open (like the 35/1.4) whereas a sharper version (50/1.4 ASPH) seemed to be more desirable (like the 35/2). However, the way in which the 35/1.4G draws images is much more artistic than images I got from the 35/2. The out-of-focus areas is also rendered in a smoother and more pleasing manner than the 35/2. I am saddened that I don't have this lens anymore, but I had to re-evaluate how I use my A900. So more zooms and less primes... Enjoy the lens Alphaman! Steve

Linky doesn't work...I think you left some numbers off.

Anyways, I owned the 35 f1.4 and 35 f2 and compared them for a bit before choosing the f1.4. 35 f2 images looked similar to my KM 28-75, but sharper. The f1.4 added more of a different look.

ihlbcn wrote: Well, there is too many people that complains about the lack of sharpness of this lens.

I agree, I think these people think the lower contrast wide open is actually softness.

It is a common complaint in the forum lens reviews. My copy is sharp wide open, but lower contrast that at f2, giving the impression of softness.

This lens gives better contrast and sharpness at f2 with the option of a more "painterly" effect at 1.4 (while still being sharp enough).

Another possible cause of suspecting softness at f1.4 is because of focusing errors in combination with the lower depth of field.

It could also be said that this lens is better suited to/appreciated by the more experienced photographer.

Edited by AlphaMan - 27 February 2010 at 11:00

andrew_broadfoot wrote: g^2 wrote: ihlbcn wrote: Sharpness is overrated. Don't expect sharpness with this fine lens @ 1.4. This lens has never been rated as razor sharp wide open! But then again, who would buy this lens for sharpness?

Well, there is too many people that complains about the lack of sharpness of this lens.

The lens is not really soft wide open, it has a low contrast, which is a bit different and may even be considered advantageous for portraits. It is an effect of the under-corrected spherical aberrations.