Warroo
Member
Talking in terms of quality, what lens is to be prefered in your opinion?
Have strong feelings, although I already have a 28 'cron and did buy myself a VC 35/1.2 to get the chrome 35/2 before the price increase. Good choice?
Have strong feelings, although I already have a 28 'cron and did buy myself a VC 35/1.2 to get the chrome 35/2 before the price increase. Good choice?
Last edited:
I would go with the 35 lux instead of having two lenses. I really like the images I have see that are taken with this lens. It seems to be an excellent one lens solution for low light and general photography. Of course, I am saying this as your alternative is to have 2 lenses to replace the one really really expensive one.
Welcome to RFF, Warroo! Not sure if I understand you correctly... did you already get a 35 Nokton, and are now considering a 35 Summicron? Or are you wondering which 35 to get?Warroo said:
The 35mm f/1.2 Nokton is said to have a very pleasant character, though not as sharp at wide apertures as the Summilux ASPH. There's certainly reason to have more than one lens of the same focal length, one reason being the "character" issue; the different ways two lenses can render the same scene.
I echo rover's suggestion about the Summilux ASPH; that really looks like an outstanding "do everything" choice, but of course expensive. I do have the first 35 Summicron, quite different in character.
What do you think of your 28 Summicron?
saxshooter
Well-known
I have both the 35 Summilux ASPH and the 35 Summicron pre-ASPH. Both are excellent lenses. But there is a big size difference. The 'cron is about half the size, much more discreet. You can wear the camera quite discretely under a jacket with that lens. If I know I won't need 1.4 I'll bring the 'cron.
The CV 35 Nokton is HUGE!
The CV 35 Nokton is HUGE!