Going Back to the 35/1.4, Am I Gonna Regret This?

With lenses, it's "Fast, Good, Cheap—pick any two." It sounds to me like you're leaning towards "Fast and Good," in which case you should just bite the bullet, sell some gear, and get a Summilux.

If you sold the 1.2 and Biogon, you'd be well on your way to affording a used Summilux...
 
ferider said:
Note that the 35/1.2 has as much distortion as the 35/1.4. Just saying.
Roland.
Click to expand...

santela said:
The 1.2 is great except the size, the Biogon is great except the speed, and the 1.4 is mediocore with good compactness. Tough call. I can see myself banging my head to the wall for selling two fantastic lenses though...
Click to expand...

I never understood why the 35/1.4 is considered 'mediocre' by so many. Given it's size, cost, and speed it should be at least 'good'. Especially when it some describe it as behaving like a pre-asph Lux....
 
Clovis said:
I never understood why the 35/1.4 is considered 'mediocre' by so many. Given it's size, cost, and speed it should be at least 'good'. Especially when it some describe it as behaving like a pre-asph Lux....
Click to expand...
It's not that it's mediocre, it's just that it has a very distinct signature. It's under-corrected ("classic"), with plenty of distortion and coma, so the images tend to have a slight "swirly bokeh" effect. Some people seek that out, while others aren't into it. Reading between the lines, it sounds like the OP wants something better-corrected.
 
Clovis said:
I never understood why the 35/1.4 is considered 'mediocre' by so many. Given it's size, cost, and speed it should be at least 'good'. Especially when it some describe it as behaving like a pre-asph Lux....
Click to expand...

Mediocore is probably not the correct word, decent or good is more like it. I guess there are better lenses out there that fit my taste a bit more...
 
bensyverson said:
With lenses, it's "Fast, Good, Cheap—pick any two." It sounds to me like you're leaning towards "Fast and Good," in which case you should just bite the bullet, sell some gear, and get a Summilux.

If you sold the 1.2 and Biogon, you'd be well on your way to affording a used Summilux...
Click to expand...

Ohh let's not go there... the summilux would be just perfect, great performance, the right filter size, and acceptable size/weight... but the price is just too outrageous for me.
 
I can understand this. I sold two M7s before finally "bonding" with the third one. Third time's a charm, you know.
 
Pay attention to your choice of words. Why would you want a lens that is "good enough" or "mediocre"? I wouldn't use money on something I was not excited about.
Anyway; I love my 35/1.4 SC and don't share your asessment of this lens.
 
to be fair, the 35/1.4 sc was probably the lens i've used the most, ever. its sharpness wide open i never cared much about, but the real deal breaker to me is the circular reflex that also the pre-asph lux has in certain angles of light hitting the front element... not common, but happened in certain conditions... and i would get too pissed off about having an undesired reflex on some photos. a few times it'd work well with the image, but mostly it didn't, was just an annoyance. by f2 it was gone, but then i'd just use and f2 lens. for an all around purpose lens, that circular reflex really bugged me out. i even bought some plastic hoods that would make it flareproof, but then it'd be the size of the 1.2 and blog the same area on the vf... so not very worth it. the 1.2 might be heavy and long, but it's pretty much flareproof, feels much better, has f22 (which is useful if you're shooting a higher iso and will use the same film on daylight)..

i have a love/hate relationship with the 35/1.4, really.
 
It's reasonable. I can't remember how many times I sold/bought a M-Rokkor40mm. Maybe 5 or 6. And maybe 7 CV21 I bought/sold.

I just sold my 5th M-Rokkor. The reason? because I will use the new purchased chrome CV28/50 on the R-D1 more. I used to own the black versions of CV28/50 but sold them long ago.

..............
don't want to add more stories into the mess.
 
Disclaimer: I own the CV 35/1.2 version 1, the Zeiss 35/2.8, the CV 35/1.4 ... and of all these, the CV 35/1.2 is the lens I feel offers the most bang for the buck.

The CV 35/1.4 is a well-constructed lens, and I liked the 'feel' of it in the hand and mounted on the camera. But in heavy use, I didn't like the OOF blur, the annoying chromatic aberrations at wide apertures, the busy bokeh when shot wide open. But that's just me. Other people love this lens, and there's many reasons to enjoy using it.

The CV 35/1.2 is big lens for a rangefinder, yes, but not nearly as big as an SLR lens. It mounts nicely on my Leica M7 and away I go. The versatility it gives me is astounding -- I can shoot in extremely low light, and get fabulous images. In bright light, it holds its own against the Zeiss or whatever -- sharp, good colour, nice rendering all-around. I love this lens.

The Zeiss C-biogon 35/2.8 I haven't warmed up to yet -- it has a very strict, somewhat clinical look to the images. Technically, it blows many other 35mm primes out of the water -- but personality-wise, I'm not sure I like it. Not yet.

Anyway, I'll be selling my CV 35/1.4 MC lens in the next few weeks. I haven't used it for months, and I'd rather it go to a good home.
 
It's true, I don't get excited about the 1.4, but it's easy to use. The 1.2 is exciting, but I don't like dragging it around... So Lflex, I guess you are right, I shouldn't spend money on a lens I'm not excited about...

Bobby, I have a M7 as well, it does balance alright with this lens... but then on the other hand I also have a C-Sonnar 50/1.5 that lives on my Zeiss Ikon, which is a much lighter combination.

Maybe I should just man up and deal with the weight...
 
santela said:
Thanks guys, a lotta good suggestions! But I'm probably not closer to making up my mind. My goal is to slim down my gear and have only one 35 lens.
Click to expand...
The CV 35/1.4 is not the answer then. I have one and like it so much I am seriously thinking about getting another one, so I can use one on a digital and the other one on a film body at the same time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom