Chrisrw
photomonkey
Having just received a beautiful yet slow heliar 50/3.5, I am debating trading in my 35/2.5 color skopar for a faster nokton 35/1.4 lens. Are there significant image quality differences between these two 35 lenses that I ought to consider. The fastest lens I have now is my Jupiter 8 @ f/2. Seattle does to lend itself to many sunny days now and I wonder if it's worth a trade in fir the extra stops. Any suggestions would be appreciated. Or a link to a similar discussion, although I couldn't find a satisfactory debate. I want to keep the price down, close to an even trade for the skopar if I can.
Thank you all in advance.
Thank you all in advance.
Chrisrw
photomonkey
I am also considering using my lenses on a digital 4/3 or Sony Nex in the near future if that makes a difference.
Bingley
Veteran
There's little to no distortion with Skopar. A debate has raged over distortion on the 35/1.4, and whether it's worse than on other fast 35s.
Two more considerations: are you shooting a film or digital camera where you can adjust the iso setting? And do you need shallow dof for aesthetic reasons?
Two more considerations: are you shooting a film or digital camera where you can adjust the iso setting? And do you need shallow dof for aesthetic reasons?
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
When you need a fast lens, there is no substitute for the speed. You should know that the 35/1.4 does have a little focus shift as you stop down to f:5.6. It is nothing you can't work around, but it is real - I have seen it through an EVF while stopping the lens down. I would also have a look at the Canon RF lenses.
Brian Legge
Veteran
I've found the distortion with the 35/1.5 noticeable. Most of the time its straight lines in backgrounds - or lines that should obviously be straight. Nothing that wrecks the shot but I do need to be aware be careful not to compose in a way that focuses on it.
I usually use it over the 2.5 for speed. I've been tempted to try the 35/2.5 + 35/1.2 route but I often shoot until I run out of light so if the goal was to take only 1 35mm lens with me when I go out... that doesn't work. Maybe I should just stick with 50s when I need speed.
I usually use it over the 2.5 for speed. I've been tempted to try the 35/2.5 + 35/1.2 route but I often shoot until I run out of light so if the goal was to take only 1 35mm lens with me when I go out... that doesn't work. Maybe I should just stick with 50s when I need speed.
kxl
Social Documentary
Since your need seems to be low light rather than shallow DOF, I'd say keep the 35/2.5, get the NEX6 and bump up the ISO.
I've owned both and while they are both decent lenses, I preferred the 35/2.5 especially with both film and digital. While I liked the 35/1.4 SC for B&W film, I did not care too much for its image aesthetics with digital. That's my personal opinion - YMMV.
I've owned both and while they are both decent lenses, I preferred the 35/2.5 especially with both film and digital. While I liked the 35/1.4 SC for B&W film, I did not care too much for its image aesthetics with digital. That's my personal opinion - YMMV.
maddoc
... likes film again.
The Color-Skopar 35/2.5 PII was my first RF lens but I later replaced it with a 35mm Summilux pre-ASPH (which I still have a like). Recently I got the itch to add a 35/2.0 Summicron but since prices are ridiculous I remembered the Color-Skopar and bought one again. It is a fabulous lens, renders similar to my 50 Summicron (vs 4, tabbed) and uses same E39 filters. Also, the Color-Skopar does not show any (noticeable to me ) distortion and is not prone to flare when having strong light sources just outside the frame. 
Chrisrw
photomonkey
Thank you all for the feedback. Since I am fairly new to film photography and can get carried away with all the different stuff out there, I may keep what I have, shoot as much as I can to get a better sense of how it helps me to achieve what I want out of film. If I find that I need more speed out of a lens, then I'll go from there. I've heard too many great things about the cv color skopar to give it up just yet.
RFluhver
Well-known
I really regret not picking up a 35/2 Asph from Mapcamera 18 months ago when the average prices there then was about 180k yen. But anyway, for practical purposes, I don't need it. I also have the 35/2.5 Skopar and that is a truly outstanding lens.
ayazdani
Member
I have both lenses and enjoy them equally, but for different reasons.
The 35/2.5 produces higher IQ and microcontrast. It may be a bit soft in the corners, but nothing that most folks would pick up on. It is compact and a great daylight lens. My main gripe with this lens is how easy the aperture ring can be moved. My 35/2.5 focus ring is quite stiff as well.
I've grown to appreciate the 35/1.4 and find myself using this lens 80% of the time. Yes, distortion is noticeable (if you're shooting architecture or brick walls). I find the focus throw and aperture ring stiffness to be just right for me. It's sharp enough and looks quite nice wide open.
The 35/2.5 produces higher IQ and microcontrast. It may be a bit soft in the corners, but nothing that most folks would pick up on. It is compact and a great daylight lens. My main gripe with this lens is how easy the aperture ring can be moved. My 35/2.5 focus ring is quite stiff as well.
I've grown to appreciate the 35/1.4 and find myself using this lens 80% of the time. Yes, distortion is noticeable (if you're shooting architecture or brick walls). I find the focus throw and aperture ring stiffness to be just right for me. It's sharp enough and looks quite nice wide open.
I've made this trade (skopar for the nokton) a few times... and always go back to the skopar. The nokton shifts too damn much on digital Ms for it to be useful as an all around lens. Too bad, because I want to love it. These days I just use a Leica Summaron 2.8.
Lss
Well-known
That's exactly how I use it, though.