35f1.2 vs 35f2.8 Only Lens on MP240

[ktmrider]

I posted a few days ago about an upcoming round the world trip and I was looking for advice on a backup camera for my MP240. Now, I am looking for advice on the 35f1.2 vs the 35f2.8 as the 35mm of choice.

I normally travel with the 35f2.8 C Biogon and 90 Tele Elmarit M as two focal lengths give lots of flexibility and both are super small lenses. I am thinking of traveling with only one lens on the MP240 and the focal length of choice is 35mm. A few years ago I was in Central America and carried the first version of the Fuji X100 and did not feel it's fixed lens was a limitation.

Now I own both the 35f1.2 Nokton (first version) and the 35f2.8 C Biogon. Both are great lenses and I like each. The 35f2.8 may be the sharpest 35 made while the 35f1.2 is of course the fastest. I normally prefer traveling with the smaller lens but if I am not taking other lenses then the size of the Nokton becomes a non issue.

So, any issues with the Nokton vs the Biogon I am not aware of? Which would you take? Thanks!

 

[jordan.dickinson]

I'm one of those people that prefers my lenses as small as possible that meet my requirements. I'm not sure if you think you'll be needing that f1.2 very often, but for me, I know I could get away with just the 35mm f2.8. I'd be prioritizing the small size and sharpness over the larger Voigtlander 35mm f1.2. It's not an easy task to pick, and I'm often mulling these issues over before traveling. Over the years though, I realize that I almost ALWAYS over pack gear and have recently gotten better with carrying 1 body and 2 lenses on my travels instead of every lens I "might" need in every condition. Traveling light with camera gear can really be a blessing. I hope that helps, but it's most likely gonna be your own needs being expressed in which lens you end up taking.

 

[Deleted member 65559]

Like slantface, I'd go with the 2.8. It's the standard lens on my old M4. (if i'm really concerned, i bring a couple of rolls of Delta 3200)....but i've never been stopped cold & i love the character of my Summaron.

 

[ktmrider]

In a moment of weakness, I would be very tempted to throw the 90 Tele Elmarit M into the bag if I end up taking the C Biogon. Or, I could leave the Leica at home and purchase a X100F. God, I am such an equipment whore!

 

[jordan.dickinson]

I'm pretty sure most of us here on RFF have the problems you're having KTM. Not to worry...

 

[ktmrider]

I have always enjoyed the 35f2.8 C Biogon. Reid Reviews has stated it may be the sharpest 35 lens he has tested. However, I have never had any complaints on the 35f1.2 Nokton and have recently read somewhere an article claiming it is as good as the Biogon.

Does anyone have any experience with the Nokton not being as good? If I am only going to carry one lens, I think I would like the faster of the two even though it is larger.

 

[Huss]

Take the 1.2. It will give u a larger creative envelope as well as the extra speed if needed.
Who cares if it is bigger if u are only carrying one camera and one lens?

 

[Emile de Leon]

I'd bring as fast as possible..as when you run out of speed in dark areas..its all...over..
I carry the extra weight of the Noctilux..and 1.4 35mm..and always come out with the shot..

 

[retinax]

Do you usually shoot at dusk/dawn/night/indoors? Do you like thin DOF? There are your answers. Unless you're hiking and the weight is usually critical for you, that isn't a major concern if it's just the one lens, or even two.

Overthinking what to take is a big part of the fun in traveling, I know! But once I'm underway, I've never stressed about whatever I had decided on taking. Constraints are good, so I applaud your idea of only one lens.

 

[Erik van Straten]

To take only one lens with you is the best you can do. When traveling, it is very annoying always have to choose. This works on your nerves so you'll miss good shots.

The 50mm is a great "stand alone" lens, better than a 35mm. A 35mm is too wide, there will be too much unimportant things on your shots.
Do not forget that watching a lot of photos taken with a 35mm lens in a row is boring. That is less the case if the photos are taken with a 50mm.

Erik.

 

[Ccoppola82]

I tend to agree with Erik regarding the 50. I actually came to this conclusion after shooting a friends wedding with a 35. I found myself cropping almost every shot to about the FOV of the 50. So, I now typically shoot with a 50mm.

That being said, if I was choosing solely between 35mm, I would likely take the biogon because Of the size. The M240 will push to 3200 if needed, so 2.8 should be sufficient in most situations.

 

[Deleted member 65559]

Erik & Coppola, you bring up a very interesting point. I also use a 35mm lens as a standard lens in 35mm cameras. I believe you get accustomed to where you physically see images from. My synapses fire from the 35mm distance. I find when using a 50mm I constantly have to keep backing away in order to frame.

 

[E.M]

I like fast lenses and 35 is my favourite focal length , but like Erik says only 35 is boring . I once stayed for 4 months in Taiwan and only used a 35 and the photos looked all the same , sort of . My set-up would be a digital M and a film M and 2 lenses .

 

[Deleted member 65559]

Just to play the devil's advocate...How come one can take 'non-boring' with fixed lens cameras like the Rolleiflex, or point & shoots...?

 

[CharlesDAMorgan]

I adore the 35mm f2.8 Biogon, exquisite sharpness and colour rendering.

I normally use 35mm lenses but with the arrival of the Leica III I have been using 50mm a lot more, and originally found I needed a different viewpoint or to be further back to use it. Having just bought a 35mm Elmar, I now find it less instinctive to use than I recall.

I would normally take a 50mm and a 35mm with me but your mileage may vary. Given I do a lot of close up work that a 35mm lens (not a rangefinder) on an SLR my most used lens.

 

[raid]

I would take the Biogon 35/2.8 for a cool and lighter set. Enjoy the traveling and don't get burdened by large and heavy lenses. When needed, crank up the ISO on your M240. It is easy to do.

 

[Huss]

I would take the Biogon 35/2.8 for a cool and lighter set. Enjoy the traveling and don't get burdened by large and heavy lenses. When needed, crank up the ISO on your M240. It is easy to do.

Cranking up the iso does not give u the option of shallow dof.
It’s not just about lens speed but also the ability to have subject isolation when desired.

 

[Benjamin Marks]

I guess the question is "which lens 'speaks to you'"?

I have both those lenses, and others too, including a 35 Summicron Asph. I always drift back to the 35/1.2 v.1. If you are used to, or prefer the rendering of, the 2.8, then take it and enjoy!

If you recall being stymied for speed or DOF on your last trip (or on any trip), take the 1.2.

I generally lose the argument with my wiser self, and wind up over-packing. The only upside is that I get to play with my toys. The downside? Oh, my aching back.

On my last trip I took a 15, 24, 28, 35, 50 for one camera, and a 24-70, 30, and 77 for the other. Whew. Lens I used the most? A 24/2.8 Asph. I really could have left the rest (and the second camera) at home.

 

[ktmrider]

My problem is neither is really a "bad" lens. I like and usually use both equally with perhaps the 35f2.8 getting just a bit more use when I don't need the speed of the Nokton.

And on the 35 vs 50 debate, I go back and forth. It should be noted that the 35 and 50 focal lengths are the only ones in which I have more then one lens for the Leica. On a trip a few years ago motorcycling in Laos, I carried the M9 and 50 Summicron. Two years ago, I carried a Fuji X70 while hiking across England. It has a fixed 28 equivalent. And a few years before that, I carried a X100 through Nepal and Peru. I do not recall feeling limited by the gear I carried on any of these trips.

Maybe I will let a flip of the coin decide!

 

[ka7197]

Rather than using a digital Leica M with only a 35 mm lens, you might also consider the new Leica Q2. This one has a built-in 28 mm lens which is not too far away from a 35 mm lens. And given the 47 MP image size, you can always crop the pictures to a 35-mm-equivalent field-of-view which would still have 30 MP.