2/35 ZM vs 1,4/35 Nokton for M6

the_jim said:
PF?

I must be out of touch with the lingo, 'cause I was worried you were referencing the first two initials in the name of an absurdly mediocre chain chinese restaurant. Purple Fringing I take it?

Chromatic abberations will generally be more apparent on digital as the sensor lacks depth. Film doesn't render all the chroma at a singular point as there is an actual physical thickness to it. Viva film (until digital RFs develop better in-camera software work-arounds, as the big SLR players have)!
Click to expand...

Fortunately, I find the SC Nokton to lack both mediocre chinese food (is it really Chinese food, or just food made by people from China) and chromatic aberration.

But yeah, purple fringe. (I forgot that people here use big people words for various aberrations.) I wonder if I'm just lucky that my lens doesn't do it enough for me to notice.
 
andredossantos said:
The Nokton is a lens that lots of people seem to love to bash. Yes, it has a lot of "character" but it seems to me a lens like the pre-asph Summilux has the same sorts of aberrations yet few would dare bash it. Another common thing said is that it has horrible bokeh (honestly, I never noticed that).
Click to expand...

I think most bash it for its focus shift... which after using the Zeiss C-Sonnar, seems very minimal to me. I agree on the "lux" part... I'm liking my second round with this lens. The bokeh can be ugly too... distratcing I guess. No big deal unless you are concentrating on bokeh. Unfortunately, it will not be my main 35mm since I was finally able to grab a 35mm summicron. However, I will keep it and use it. The Biogon? I'm not so sure that will be staying.
 
I have not had the pleasure of trying the 35 ZM but I have the CV 35 Nokton and I love it, and I have never noticed any focus shift.
I even did a test roll where I shot a test subject at different apertures and it was always spot-on.
 
the_jim said:
Agreed. The test was just for funsies and hardly scientific. I like both lenses for different reasons, but end up using the lil' nokton more just because of it's handling and it's unique (read: flarey, barrel-distorted, crappy/strange out-of-focus, unpredictable) characteristics. Not everyone wants this though.
Click to expand...

Not sure how out of focus can get any better than in your photo. SC version (flare) ?
 
ferider said:
Not sure how out of focus can get any better than in your photo. SC version (flare) ?
Click to expand...

Thanks! Both the Nokton and the Biogon have great OOF rendering when stopped down a little. That shot was at f/2.8. Yeah, I have the SC version (waited an extra 3 months to receive it) because I like how flarey and unpredictable it is. Case in point:

@f/2.8, straight into the January sun

josh by jamesfischer, on Flickr

Many would lament this flare as being a flaw or unwanted...but I like it.
 
I have the CV 35/1.4 MC for my M6 ... sometimes I love this lens, sometimes I really dislike it. The low-light capabilities are nice, and the build quality is really good (I find this lens really pleasant to use) but the nervous bokeh and wonky flaring / sharpness / distortion is either a blessing or a curse.

I agree with previous posters + threads that this CAN be a great lens, as long as you understand and accept its faults.

Here's a sample with my M6, using the CV 35/1.4 and Kodak 400UC. The lighting in this restaurant was very low ... but the dim lighting was no match for the wide-open power of the CV 35/1.4! :)

5207300570_5662d89b0f.jpg
 
Never had a problem with my CV 1.5/50. Never had any with my Planar or my Biogon, except for the wobble on the 2/35, but the image quality is sensitively different : I was disappointed with CV because I like to print big and often shoot wide open, which is a huge no no with CV and some of the old Leicas (the Rigid for instance)...
 
i have absolutely nothing to complain about with the Nokton, it was a wonderful lens. Only sold it when i went to a LTM-based setup.
 
Currenlty, I own both, and with regards to finish and built quality, I find the Zeiss better (better dampened stops, smoother focusing ring).

However, in terms of performance, I'd be hard pressed to pick one over the other.

BTW, I use both with my M5 bodies (CV with Mulder, Zeiss with Scully).
 
You could rent a Nokton and compare them side by side. I'm unsure but I think they're really inexpensive to rent.

I wish I could rent a pre asph to compare to the Nokton. I'm planning to try this with the 50 asph compared to my summicron DR, I know there's a lot of years of development between the two but my DR is nothing short of spectacularly amazing but maybe the 50 asph is better? I'll never know until I shoot them back to back.

Click
 
I could live with the wobble but I dislike the fact, that the Biogon puts the M6's RF beyond infinity. I've read some stuff about tightening a retaining ring but I don't have a wrench so tried it with wooden sticks - no success so far
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom