35/1.4 or the 40 1.4?

[pettit]

hey guys, i am about to pull the trigger on a RM3 and cannot decide between the 35 1.4 or the 40mm 1.4 lens... i have read the debate on the 35's flare and distortion...but i have not heard much in regard to the 40mm classic nocton 1.4
any feedback? typically i shoot wider angle lenses and would consider this 35 or 40 to be pretty much a "normal" lens.

thanks in advance

 

[back alley]

there is a small difference between a 35 and a 40...but i prefer a 40.

the cv 40 is cheaper than the cv 35 but it also has a different look to the images you can make with it.

maybe check out some flickr groups for both lenses and check if you can see the difference.

i have had both but eventually wound up with the rollei 40 sonnar...nice and sharp but again with a look all it's own.

 

[acetonic]

The camera has frame lines for 40mm. That's the main reason the 40/1.4 is my choice.

 

[Leigh Youdale]

The R3x doesn't have framelines for wider than 40mm. You say you normally shoot wider, so it may be the wrong camera for you - and don't think you will be able to see the 35mm FOV around the 40mm framelines. Not so. You'll need a separate VF for anything wider than 40mm.
The R4x frames from 21mm to 50mm which might suit you better, but it goes 21/25/28/35/50, so you'd be guessing the FOV for the 40mm lens. I have the 35/1.4 and the 40/1.4. I use a lens hood and if there's any distortion with the 35 I'm not seeing it. I think some people are getting excessively 'picky' about technical aspects of gear when they should be out shooting. By the way, the 35/2.5 and the 50/2.5 lenses are very good. Just not as fast, but small and excellent results.

 

[bobby_novatron]

I have the 35/1.4 with my R3A. Although the framelines on the R3A only support a 40, I have no issues with using a 35. Framing a shot is the same -- if anything, the 35 gives you a bit more flexibility due to the (slightly) wider field of view.

Generally I have been extremely happy with the 35/1.4 -- I took it to Europe recently and had a great time shooting with it. It probably has some distortion (as most lenses do) but I'm not seeing it either. Chromatic aberrations are well-controlled and the lens is quite sharp. Not Leica-sharp or Carl Zeiss-sharp, but still a great product for the money.

I have many 35/1.4 shots on my Flickr stream if you're interested. Here's one from August when I was in Italy. More can be found at:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/bobby_novatron/sets/72157624642966568/

 

[tomalophicon]

I use the 40 and was thinking I could easily use the 35 and just use the actual edges of the viewfinder.

 

[kshapero]

I have had both on the R3x. To me it makes no difference because since I wear glasses I can not see the edges on either lens. I would go with the 40 just because it is less money which no one has explained to me why the price difference.

 

[pagpow]

I bought the Nokton 40 before the 35 1.4 came out. Love it. Have done additional research since then, which shows it better in the wide stops than either the Leica 40 Summi-C or the Rokkor M 40/2 and it gives me an extra stop to boot. Use it as my preferred lens.

This is the multicoated version. I have heard/read mixed comments re the Classic v. multi-coated differences.

I have 25s, not the 35/4, and I can't say that the extra 5mm (real 8mm) are immediately noticeable, tho some swear they can tell the difference.

I came for the price; stayed for the quality and flexibility (the 40 substitutes for both a 35 and a 50 for me).

 

[Krosya]

I have CV 40/1.4. I like it's signature better, plus no worries about distortion and focus shift that 35/1.4 is reported to have. And the fact that 40mm lens cost less is just an extra topping on a cake!