So what's the verdict on the CV 35mm f1.4?

[ampguy]

I won't call Matt's examples "bad bokeh" but I would call the bokeh unnatural highlights in out of focus areas.

In other words, when the eye focuses on a subject, the periphery generally does not include bright circles or bright double lines but more of a muted fuzziness. Heck, even the Noctilux knows to make them oval 😀

If folks do like these bright cirlces, it's fine, it's art, but it's not my subjective preference for good looking photos. I'd use it as at f2 or smaller only from what I've seen. Same with the 40/1.4. Great f2 lens, maybe as good as the Rokkor. Weird non natural OOF specles and lines at 1.4.

Now where are the 35/1.2 close up backlit sample photos?? Those can sometimes be pretty smooth from what I've seen here an on flickr.

 

[ZebGoesZeiss]

To me, discussions like this is good - if only to realize that there are different opinions out there. I had this lens on my short list the minute I heard about it, since I already have (and love some of the CV lenses). But... Someone raised the issue of "small samples", and not being able to judge a lens from 600x800 and smaller shots. I used to agree on that, I had to get a lens, shoot with it, print - and examine the print to tell if I "liked" it or not.

The thing about this lens is: It is the first time I've actually seen 400x600 samples and thought: "What the fu**?!?". I know some of the people here don't care about "bokeh", but like some others, to my eyes this lens is showing stuff that is seriously distracting to my eyes. I'm not sure I'm talking about Bokeh either, part of me is thinking (hoping?) that it's some kind of malfunction.

Here is a sample, that's been linked to earlier in the tread as well:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/paulhu/2298896774/sizes/l/in/pool-643276@N21/

The lower part of the image is OK, the colours are very much to my liking. But the upper part? It's like a bottle of "Fanta Ultra Aiai-Caramba SugarFree LowFat Party Aaaaaarrrrribbbbaaaa" has just been opened. Bokeh-smokeh whatever, but this is just silly.

Yes, this lens is not as expensive as a Leica, but at $600 it is not a Canon kit lens either. To me, $600 is a nice lump of money. Or to put in another way, you could pretty much pick up a CV 35mm Ultron and 50mm Nokton for that kind of money.

It certainly isn't a pre-ASPH Summilux, which is what a lot of people where hoping for. For those of you who don't see it, or care about it - I can't really understand how it is possible to miss, but I value your comments. To me, I guess it's just one of those things you can't "unsee" 🙂

 

[ampguy]

Here's an example in the same photo with this lens, where it is handled on the right half, but loses control to the bright circular dots on the left:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sotome/2319303653/

 

[Doug]

ampguy, agreed. Zeb, agreed; the bokeh wide open looks unsettled at the least. Your posted sample looks schizophrenic, like something Van Gogh would do. But like the 40 Nokton it might well settle down nicely at f2.

 

[Platinum RF]

I don't like this one. No foliage.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/paulhu/2298896774/sizes/l/in/pool-643276@N21/
And this is foliage, but not backlit:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sotome/2277805018/in/pool-nokton35f14
Sometimes it looks like the OOF part comes in front of the foreground.
Still, I think it's a very good lens, in most cases.

These photos have the same signature of Voigtlander 40/1.4, nothing to match the old Summicron 35/2 first version or the old rigid/DR Summicron 50/2.

We need more sample at different light condition to seen how this lens perform against SUmmicron and V-C' 40/1.4. I sold v-c 40/1.4 because it auwful OOF areas, and lousy build quality, the focus ring is very tight.

When a car dealer who run a car talk forum and a review writer get free car from manufacture, their reviews may be bias or marketing purpose. Use your common sense.

 

[Palaeoboy]

Actually, in all the examples, at f2 the bokeh seems to be at least as good
as with pre-asph 35/2 and the different 40/2 variants. One should not
compare 35/1.4 bokeh wide open with bokeh at f2 of other lenses. People
have loved to do that with the 40 Nokton and here we go again.

Regarding the 35/1.4 pre-asph bokeh - I wish somebody who really owns
both the new Nokton and has owned the old Leica lens would comment.

I really agree. People seem to go out of their way to find those horrid bokeh shots with the 40mm Nokton and now they seem to be doing the same thing with the 35. Any lens can be made to produce horrid swirls or double lines in certain circumstances but these are the only shots ever put up to the detractors.

No one ever post the very same shot taken with the 35mm pre-ASPH lux to show that it doesnt produce the same. I have only ever seen this comparison done once with the 40mm Nokton and Lux together and they werent very different at all, it could be argued that the blokeh was softer in the Lux but the 40mm was better corrected and plain sharper. The worse bokeh shot I have ever seen was taken with a 35mm Summicron ASPH and really that lens doesnt have bad bokeh by any standards.

I remain perplexed as to the reason for the negative comments for the 40mm and 35mm Nokton, some where saying how bad its Bokeh was even before it was even released! The 40mm Nokton vs Summicron/Rokkors comparisons show that at f2 the bokeh are very similar and its reputation at f1.4 is a case of slander as only the bad bokeh shots with this lens are ever posted or highlighted. Until side by side identical shots are supplied in a situation that produces bad bokeh for one and not the other, I cant really agree with "bad bokeh" tag.

 

[back alley]

cv 35/1.4 = about 500 bucks

leica 35/1.4 = about 3500 bucks

i might want the cv lens to bomb if i had the lux...

 

[foto_fool]

i might want the cv lens to bomb if i had the lux...

I sure didn't pay that much for my 'lux and I might be one of the least brand-loyal humans born in the last century, so I have no dog in that fight 🙂.

Brand and cost considerations aside, the comparison I did last week (and posted over in Lenses & Optics) showed me the CV 35/1.4 is a fine performer next to the modern Summilux. There may be quantifiable objective differences between these two lenses that are real-world important to some. But by my own subjective criteria the two lenses are just different, and I like them both.

I think comparing these faster lenses with optics designed with max apertures of 2.0, 2.8 or 3.5 does a disservice to all of them. There are compromises that have to be made to produce a fast lens, period. On the other hand, for all their brilliance IMO the Summicrons et al. simply aren't fast enough.

I really would like to see a direct comparison between the new Nokton, each of the four generations of 35mm Summilux, and the Canon 35/1.5. What else is there? The 35/1.2 Nokton is in a class by itself, and everything else is, well, too slow.

 

[back alley]

sorry john, if you thought my comment was directed at you.

my thinking was/is that some folks might get upset if a much cheaper lens did almost as well as their very expensive lens.

for me, as a complete and relatively poor amateur i have little choice as to budget and feel pretty good getting a new fast lens for an affordable price.
and i honestly pay little attention to bokeh unlike some who make it such an over riding element in their lens choice.

i feel lucky having a fast 35 and a 50 that i consider a 'speciality' lens in my stable.

 

[jky]

Joe, aside from a brief stint with a Leitz 50mm f3.5, I've never extensively used (nor have ever owned) any Leica lenses... I'm very happy with the VC's. Never a problem with build, feel, quality, but I speak for my own uses only. I've always fancied over a 35mm summilux, but just never came up with the $ for it - or rather when I did have the cash, it was spent on something that was needed at the time...
When I heard this fast 35 was coming out - one that is easier to save up for, I got all excited... although I already have a 40mm Nokton, it just wasn't a 35...(though I like it very much). So... I'll be saving my loonies from now on...

 

[gdi]

Regarding the comparison with the Noctilux...

Of the shots posted, I find the CV twig portraits to be just as appealing as the linked Noctilux twig portraits. :bang: It should be on every twig photographer's short list!

 

[darkprints]

I sold v-c 40/1.4 because it auwful OOF areas....

I kept the VC 40/1.4 SC because of the quality of the IN focus areas....

 

[back alley]

I kept the VC 40/1.4 SC because of the quality of the IN focus areas....

what a novel concept!
😉

 

[back alley]

Regarding the comparison with the Noctilux...

Of the shots posted, I find the CV twig portraits to be just as appealing as the linked Noctilux twig portraits. :bang: It should be on every twig photographer's short list!

twig photographers unite!!

 

[ZebGoesZeiss]

my thinking was/is that some folks might get upset if a much cheaper lens did almost as well as their very expensive lens.

Or: Buyers who are trying to convince themselves that this lens is even in the same ballpark as the Summilux ASPH.

 

[back alley]

Or: Buyers who are trying to convince themselves that this lens is even in the same ballpark as the Summilux ASPH.

i have no argument with that statement.
though i'm not one of those people.

i am quite happy with my zeiss lenses which for me represent the best quality at a price i am willing to pay.
the cv glass is just icing on the cake in terms of great fun.

 

[Damaso]

More photos is what this thread needs!