35/1.4 vs 40/1.4 Nokton ?

JPS

JPS

Member
Local time
12:08 AM
Joined
May 23, 2008
Messages
40
Location
Geneva, Switzerland
View My Gallery
Hi !

I'm on the verge to get a Bessa R3A (or M), and I would like to have your opinion to decide WHICH of these two lenses is best: the 35/1.4 or 40/1.4 Nokton ?!?! ...and which type to choose: the "single-coated" or the "multi-coated" ? ...and how about flare and distortion ???

Anybody has both ?

Just had a second thought: how about the 35/2.5 Color Scopar ???

TIA for your help !

Regards,
J-P.
 
Last edited:
For a Bessa R3x, I would go with the CV 40 as it fits the framelines. But many don't care about that and use a 35 anyway. About coating? Typical wisdom is that MC is for color shooters and SC is for B&W. Others may differ on this.
 
as stated above, the 40/1.4 is a natural fit for the R3A. I have the MC which I use for colour and B&W with great results. I have seen some colour shots on the SC and they seem just as good. Try searching flickr for examples of both lenses.

One thing I would point out about the CV40/1.4 MC (can't speak for the SC) is the OOF blur can be distracting at 1.4 (see below, specifically the lights above the subject). Regardless of this, I love the lens.

117876191_aXV2n-M.jpg
 
Last edited:
for me, the R3a and 40/1.4 is one of the all-time great combinations of camera and lens - both complement each other perfectly. If you want 35mm then get the R2A.
 
Thanks guys for the answers !!!

Michel, you're right... I had noticed the strange -some call it terrible- BOKEH !!! ...but, from images I saw shot with the 35/1.4, the BOKEH is about the same !

Cheers,
J-P.
 
It would be very interesting to see a bokeh comparsion between the two. From what I've seen, the 35 isn't as sharp wide open, but might have a little smoother bokeh instead.
 
Something else I'm interested to see is the respective DISTORTION of both the 35/1.4 and 40/1.4...

Could someonse shoot a "brick-wall" with these lens, to see the "shape" of that distortion... so to know if it's easely "curable" in Photoshop or with PTLens ?

TIA,

Regards,
J-P.
 
Thanks Jon !

What I was affraid of was that the distortion of both the 40/1.4 and 35/1.4 Nokton could be of the "moustache" type, which is very difficult to get rid of... but as long as it's a "typical" barrel or cushion" kind, I guess PTLens (or Photoshop) can take care of it rather easely...

:=)
J-P.
 
Last edited:
My favorite RF lens is the CV 40 1.4 MC. It is fast, easy to focus, and I have not noticed any significant barrel distortion. The bokeh issue is rarely a problem either. Other lenses I have spent time with were the ZM 35 Biogon, ZM 28 Biogon, CV 35 2.5 PII. The CV 40 1.4 is still my most used lens. Hope that helps. (I don't have a scanner, shoot mostly print film, and don't have time to post. I just learn from everyone else.)
 
I have a couple of the 35f1.4 (SC) and 40f1.4 (MC/SC). They are all excellent lenses - there is a bit more distorsion with the 35 - but not enough to worry me. I dont do architectural buildings or interiors. For "street" work it is a very good lens. Sharpness at f1.4 is the same for the 35f1,4 and the 40f1.4 - at least as far as I can tell.
I tend to use the 40 on a M2 as a "one lens/one camera" set up as it can do double duty as a 50 too. The 35 is usually paired with a 50 or longer lens.
Check the Flickr sites for either lens and there is a lot of samples and though not ideal for "resolution" - you can discern variations in "bokeh" and distorsion even at low res images there.
 
Tom A

Do you have the same trouble with focusing with a Bessa close up with a fast lens (i.e. CV 40) that Roger Hicks referred to in a different thread?

For your M2 + CV 40 combo: do you primarily use the 50 frameline for the 40 Nokton as the question above? Do you use the 35 frameline at all with the 40?

Thanks
 
I use the 40's as "long" 35's so they are filed down to give the 35 frame in the M2's. I wear glasses and even with the 0.72 finder of a M2 it is a tight fit with seeing all four frames at the same time. The 40f1.4's give me roughly what I see when I put the camera up to my eye - without any "hunting" of frame lines. Rangefinder cameras are not "precise" in their framing as focus distance changes the coverage of the lens. I am more concerned with having what I see on the negative and I rather have a bit more and crop out edges - than loosing things due to overtight frames.
I have really not found any problems related to the R-Bessas as to focusing with the shorter range finder base.
I have even used the Noctilux/Nokton 50's with my R4's 50 frames. It is not ideal - but in pinch it works. I use my R3M/A's with my 75's - particularly with the 75f1.4 (when I had it) as the shorter base was less of a problem than the confounding 50/75 lines of the M's! Never had a problem with the 75f1.4 even close up and @ 1.4. Any fast lens (1.4 or faster) does require careful focussing anyway. The R3M also works extremely well with the 75f2 Summicron. Dont think I have used it on any M's since i got the R3's.
 
Thanks for your help/comments/opinions, guys !

Eventually, I went for a (ex+) Leica M6 plus a (new) Nokton 40mm. f/1.4 and an (ex+) Hexanon 90mm. f/2.8 ! I guess with these 2 lenses, I've got about it all !?! ...errrrr..... maybe a 21 or 25mm. after all ???

...now, all I need is going out and SHOOT !!!

Cheers,
J-P.
 
Last edited:
That's it ! I finally found some time to go out and try 2 different B&W films...

These 4 images have been shot with HP5 !

medium.jpg


medium.jpg


medium.jpg


medium.jpg


...and the following 4 with XP-2 !

medium.jpg


medium.jpg


medium.jpg


medium.jpg


I think that I don't like the XP-2, as it's a lot harsher than the HP5... It seems not to retain details in shadows and highlights as well as the HP5 !

I guess I'll try some other ISO 400 films, like TRI-X for example, and decide which I prefer, at least for this kind of PJ shooting !

What's your prefered B&W ISO 400 film, and WHY ???

Cheers,
J-P.

PS. I can't get used to show such SMALL images... I've been used for years -in other forums- to upload 1000x665 or 1200x800 pixels !!!
 
Last edited:
If you don't NEED 1.4, i highly suggest checking out the 40mm f2.0 M-Rokkor lenses... that is, if you like the 40mm thing. The M-Rokkor is essentially a 40mm version 4 'Cron, and it goes for 200-400 quite often.
 
stupid leica said:
If you don't NEED 1.4, i highly suggest checking out the 40mm f2.0 M-Rokkor lenses... that is, if you like the 40mm thing. The M-Rokkor is essentially a 40mm version 4 'Cron, and it goes for 200-400 quite often.
Click to expand...
Why should I exchange me CV for a Rokkor ?

...the CV 40 f/1.4 is known to be a sharp lens up to the corners... from the few shots I took with it, it looks very contrasty... Of course, I haven't sot COLOR film with it -where one could see other "defects", but I will not shoot COLOR with the Leica: I've got plenty of good Nikon material for that !

😉
J-P.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom