40/1.4 Nokton or 35/2.5 Color Skopar "C"? What a dilema

Expatinprogress

Expatinprogress

Well-known
Local time
5:44 AM
Joined
Nov 4, 2009
Messages
227
Location
Bangkok, Thailand
View My Gallery
I'm going to buy my first lens for RD-1s and I'm really doubting among the 40/1.4 Nokton and 35/2.5 Color Skopar "C".

I think the Nokton is smaller and very useful in all conditions , a good chose for everyday lens but, I don't know, I was about to buy the 35/2.5 but those monkeys made me feel I can't be wrong. And the price is almost the same.

Any advise?
 
How much low light shooting do you do? Do you like to take very shallow dof shots? If your answer to those questions is "not much," then I'd by the 35 skopar, keeping in mind the crop factor as Mukul says.
 
My most used lens is the 28/1.9 ultron. It is seldomly very wrong, no matter the situation. I don't have the 40 Nokton, nor the 35 CS, but have the 35/1.4 Nokton and 50/2.5 CS. The latter sees more use than the former, but that's because of the 28. Had I not had that lens, I'd have gone for the 35 every time.
 
Last edited:
payasam said:
The "crop factor" might make the Nokton's equivalent focal length too great (angle of view too narrow) for many kinds of work.
Click to expand...

On the other hand, I really like portraits and is the most I like to shoot with my Canon 400D with Sigma 18-200. Then, don't you thing the 40/1.4 is a good option, unless not being so tele neither a wide angel?
 
The 28, 35 and 40mm are all good allround options. The 28 better for city and landscapes. Indoor party shooting too. The 40 better at portraits and close up work. The crop factor is the same as on your dslr, giving these lenses a field of view equivalent to 42, 53 and 60mm. In a one lens setup I'd go for a 35(52)mm. In a two lens setup a 21, 25 or a 28mm, and a 40 or 50mm. In a three lens setup, a 15 or a 21 and a 35 and a 50mm
 
I have both. I'd say the 35/2.5 is the smaller of the two. The 40mm is just right to match the framelines of my Leica bodies, owing to their undersized framelines; but you are buying for the R-D1. Since I've not seen any complaints about the R-D1's35mm frame being undersized, I don't think that would be the issue. I find both lenses sharp and contrasty. So it seems to me that if you don't need the extra speed of the 40/1.4, the 35/2.5 would be a fine choice.
 
Ezzie said:
The 28, 35 and 40mm are all good allround options. The 28 better for city and landscapes. Indoor party shooting too. The 40 better at portraits and close up work. The crop factor is the same as on your dslr, giving these lenses a field of view equivalent to 42, 53 and 60mm. In a one lens setup I'd go for a 35(52)mm. In a two lens setup a 21, 25 or a 28mm, and a 40 or 50mm. In a three lens setup, a 15 or a 21 and a 35 and a 50mm
Click to expand...

Thank you,

I think I'm going to start with the single lens: 35mm is the winner!!!
For further setups, maybe I go for wider lens as 15 or 21

Cheers
 
Rob-F said:
...The 40mm is just right to match the framelines of my Leica bodies, owing to their undersized framelines; but you are buying for the R-D1. Since I've not seen any complaints about the R-D1's 35mm frame being undersized, I don't think that would be the issue...
Click to expand...
Both Leica and Epson framelines are accurate at about 1 or 2 meters hence inaccurate at longer distances which gives the feeling that 40mm lenses match better the 35mm frames. It is true at long to medium distance but not for close-ups.
 
LCT said:
Both Leica and Epson framelines are accurate at about 1 or 2 meters hence inaccurate at longer distances which gives the feeling that 40mm lenses match better the 35mm frames. It is true at long to medium distance but not for close-ups.
Click to expand...

Right. I generally don't use the rangefinder for extreme closeups. How many of us do? I generally shoot in the 2 meter to infinity range. I like the way the frames are set up in my M2. Never had a problem with it! The 50mm frame in the M6, M7, and MP are just too damn small no matter how you explain it. At a distance of 15 feet, they cover exactly the same as my 60mm Elmarit-R. To be fair, the 28mm frame seems very good as it is. I have never seen a good explanation for why they undesized the 50mm frame so badly. I use the 40mm Nokton with the 35mm frame as a substitute for the 50.
 
Sure, i've filed the flange of my 'cron 40 to bring up 35mm instead of 50mm Leica frame lines for that same reason. I just wanted to make clear that Leica, Epson, Zeiss or Voigtlander frame lines are not inaccurate per se. They are (more or less) accurate at close distance hence inaccurate farther. The issue if any lies in the choice of the accurate distance so to speak: 2 meters for the M8.2, about one meter for other M bodies (including the M9) and i guess one meter for the R-D1 as well but i'm not sure of that.
 
The monkeys did a number on me too - my GAS is in overtime over that 40mm 1.4.

But - I already bought a 15mm due to Back Alley's thread, and can't really justify another lens purchase based on monkeys. (although the monkeys do look completely awesome!)

Long and short of it is, go with the 35mm then pick up a 15mm later on if needed. 😎
 
Sorry for the 'monkey' shots and causing so much GAS 🙂

I find the 40/1.4 the perfect portrait lens for the R-D1. I have a 21/4 when I need something a little wider. Having said that, the 40mm on the R-D1 'seems wider than the 60mm eqiv. it should be. Don't ask me why? And the 35mm frame lines are just about right.

For low light, wide open at 800 iso it seems made for the R-D1 and I quite like the bokeh. If I was buying again it would be my first choice.

p726523024.jpg


Chhers John
 
Last edited:
35!

35!

Hi got the same question when purchased mine, first got an ultron 35 1.7, great lens, then i wanted some shallower dof and better frame acuracy, got the 40 1.4, after selling the 35 1,7.
Must say that 60 mm fov is sometimes too narrow and 35 mm despite being "7 mm" broader is much usefull when shooting in the city!

bye.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom