35mm lens for Hexar RF

[ReeRay]

I'm looking at a 35mm lens to compliment the 50 and 90 Hexanons and would appreciate your views on the CV 35 f1.4 or Color Skoptar f2.5 PII. One is twice the price of the other but is it worth it?

Interested in distortion, vignette and any other issues. Obviously sharpness and rendition also.

Main activity is daylight street but I do tend to wander into dimly lit indoor markets and the like.

Thanks for info.

 

[FrankS]

I'm looking at a 35mm lens to compliment the 50 and 90 Hexanons and would appreciate your views on the CV 35 f1.4 or Color Skoptar f2.5 PII. One is twice the price of the other but is it worth it?

Interested in distortion, vignette and any other issues. Obviously sharpness and rendition also.

Main activity is daylight street but I do tend to wander into dimly lit indoor markets and the like.

Thanks for info.

I think you just answered your own question, if this is important to you.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

With such a great fast shutter, the CV 1.2 -and its really beautiful rendering- comes to mind... And for a more discrete look, the CV 2.5, or even flatter (and better) the CV 28 3.5...

Cheers,

Juan

 

[flip]

Or like me - pair 35s. 1.2 CV and uc hexanon 32/2.

 

[Lflex]

I think you just answered your own question, if this is important to you.

+1
The 35/1.4 is the obvious choice given your own statement. It is a fine lens.

 

[ReeRay]

Thanks for the advice all. I believe the 35mm f1.4 is for me. I find 28mm a little too wide for my taste but thanks for the suggestion.

Now to source the lens of course!

 

[umcelinho]

35/1.4 Nokton should suit your needs better than the 2.5!

BUT in case you find one, go for a 35/1.7 Ultron.
it's not much longer than the 1.4, won't focus down to .7m and is a tad darker, which may sound like it's not as good as the 1.4, but between the two it's the Ultron that I'm keeping.

the Ultron is sharper wide open vs the 1.4 at 1.7, out of focus areas are smoother, I prefer the ergonomics and the Ultron is much more resistant to flare than the Nokton, which can show some circular reflexes depending on the angle that light sources hit the front element. it's a feature some like and some don't, and i'm in the 2nd group, I prefer a lens that is more reliable in the sense that the shots will come out as I want/expect them to. the Ultron is so flareproof that I never use the hood and never get any flare issues. also, it can be DIY modified to focus down to .7m, I bought mine already modified and it really was a great move.

 

[PatrickCheung]

I have the 35/2.5 Color Skopar...

Compared to my 40/1.4 nokton (which, I've been lead to believe, seems to be quite similar to the 35/1.4), I find the skopar much more reliable for spot-on focusing and tack sharp shots. I've shot them both indoors with an M8 before. Yeah, the extra stops of light the 1.4 lens offers is great, but I've done well with just the 35/2.5.

Here's an indoors shot at ISO 640 at f2.5 with the color skopar. The room isn't as brightly lit as it looks in the photo (pushed it a bit brighter in lightroom)

another shot taken in the room was properly exposed at 1/60th, f2.5 @ 1250ISO

 

[raid]

The 35/1.4 sounds like a good choice here.
I use a pre-asph Summilux 35mm/1.4. It costs more than the CV 35/1.4, but I prefer such a lens for what it does.

 

[PatrickCheung]

Oh I should also mention that my main lens on my Hexar RF is the 35/2.5 :]

 

[keytarjunkie]

I think you should try to get a 35/1.2 (either version) if you can afford it, based on the hundreds of photos I've seen from it it's a very special lens.

The 35/1.4 Nokton is okay, not wonderful but just pretty good. I had one on a M2 for a while, it was a good combo.

 

[magicianhisoka]

So many nice 35mms floating around. Another vote from me if you can be happy with the 35mm 1.2's weight

 

[ReeRay]

Ironically I've been been offered a first version of the 35mm f1.2 and am awaiting a final price. If it comes in as I expect then I'll take it.

As an aside issue, could someone explain the relevance or advantage in focusing down to .7 please. I see reference to this often and am a little confused as to it's relevance. Sorry if this is a dumb question but i'm new to RF shooting.

Thank you

 

[raid]

Some people like to take photos from very close. A 0.7m min focusing distance is sometimes what is needed for a tight shot.

 

[umcelinho]

also, if you focus in a closer spot you'll likely get more perspective distortion and out of focus areas will be even more out of focus.

for street photography, it shouldnt make a lot of difference, but of course it's better to have the option of focusing closer - sometimes you want to take a picture of a person across the table or in a subway train or in the bus, i dont know, and it's quite close, as Raid said, it comes in handy. i feel more comfortable using a lens that will focus down to the minimum, but in daily use it's rare that i will focus below 1m.

the 1.2 is a fantastic lens, in all aspects, but its size/weight make me only use it when i'm leaving to shoot at night and I know I'll need the speed, a specialty lens. otherwise it's too bulky, I prefer a lighter and tiny 35mm, feels much better. i think the 1.4 has a better speed/size/weight/performance ratio. for a few months I had a 35/1.4 on the Hex RF as my daily camera, with 800 iso film it's a wonderfully versatile combo that can work with any light condition.

 

[raid]

I have only used the 35/1.2 in a lens comparison project in which RFF members mailed me lenses. It is too large for my RF needs. I favor the 35/1.4 pre-asph Summilux.

 

[micromoogman]

How about Canon 35/2? I torn between this and the Summaron M 35/2.8. I want a vintage look but still pretty sharp.