About to buy a Nokton MC 1.4 but...

[Phil Holland]

I keep reading all the great observations and seeing nice images from the summarit 35mm 2.5.

The Nokton seems to make sense but my stupid brain keeps thinking of that cute little summarit.

Any comments from folks on the two at 2.5 and up or any comments on the nature of decisions like this?

Any help is appreciated.

*For my Pro work I shoot a D3S and have the amazing Nikon 35AFS 1.4.

I'll mainly be shooting my personal work with pushed BW film with the Nokton/Summarit on my Hexar RF.

Thanks!

 

[Riverman]

Hi Phil

I haven't shot the Summarit but I previously owned the Zeiss C-Biogon. The latter is a simply fantastic lens. I daresay that considered 'objectively' (not that I put any store in scientific lens tests and charts) it is the equal or surpasses the Summarit. However, often I found the f2.8 max aperture of the Biogon somewhat limiting so I sold it and have recently acquired a Nokton f1.4. For me, the extra speed was the most important consideration. If speed is important to you, I'd run with the Nokton.

 

[Phil Holland]

So I'm guessing focus shift is not an issue for you?

Thanks for replying!

 

[Freakscene]

The 40/1.4 Nokton can have a harsh rendering of in and out-of-focus areas:

but in general its a nice lens. If youre using "pushed film" that suggests low light. I'd want something faster than f2.5 for that.

Marty

 

[back alley]

small, fast or price...it's not just about the optics...

 

[Phil Holland]

The size and quality are big factors. I've got a big rig and great 35 1.4 in the nikon kit so I'm attracted to the smaller lenses.

 

[back alley]

small, sharp and mid priced is the zm c 35/2.8...a great lens.

 

[Tom A]

It depends what you are going to be shooting? Low light - the Nokton 35f1.4 or the 40f1.4 will do you well. I did try the Summitar 35f2.5 and, yes, it is a good lens - but not spectacular. If I had to choose between the C Biogon 35f2.8 and the Summarit 35f2.5 - I would go for the C Biogon 35 any day.
Considering what a Summarit would cost you - some careful checking on "Classifieds" here on RFf - you can probably pick up a 35f1.4 or 40f1.4 Nokton and a C Biogon 35f2.8 for what a Summarit 35f2.5 would cost you and you would have the best of both worlds - fast lens for low light and a tack sharp 35 for "normal" light.

 

[jsrockit]

I haven't shot the Summarit but I previously owned the Zeiss C-Biogon. The latter is a simply fantastic lens. I daresay that considered 'objectively' (not that I put any store in scientific lens tests and charts) it is the equal or surpasses the Summarit.

How do you know this if you've never used the Summarit?

 

[Dr Gaspar]

That's a pretty big price difference.

The Nokton, for what it's worth, is a great, small and fast lens.

 

[Riverman]

How do you know this if you've never used the Summarit?

I don't know. Rather, I 'daresay'. As in - I suppose or consider likely.

 

[agoglanian]

What about the Color-Skopar 35mm? The PII version is M-Mount, very very small, and (in my opinion) very acceptably sharp. It's also quick to focus which is nice and not expensive at all, even brand new.

Just a thought.

 

[Phil Holland]

Thank you all so much for your thoughtful replies.

I ended up finding a Summarit for a great price. I figured it put it through its paces and go from there. If it's lacking I can get my $ back well enough.

I'll probably pick up a 1.4 Nokton at some point to have a different usage 35.