rlouzan
Well-known
In terms of Light falloff, resolution, distortion, coma, color signature, bokeh, ... Which is best opticaly? Give Us Your Opinions!!!
40mm Nokton vs 35mm Nokton F1.4
- Thread starter rlouzan
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 26
- Views 5K
free2move
Established
Who needs opinions when pictures tell you everything? 😛
Nokton 40mm Classic SC, Ilford HP5
Nokton 40mm Classic SC, Ilford HP5
Last edited:
noimmunity
scratch my niche
Either way you can't lose
Either way you can't lose
Nice photos and nice signature phrase from free2move.
The choice between these two lenses was easy for me: with all the interest in the 35, prices on the 40 have gone down, sometimes quite dramatically. I got my 40 MC for about US$200 in mint condition.
Pop star Yang Naiwen on Fuji Natura
Neopan Super Presto
Lucky 100
I think there is less (if any?) barrel distortion with the 40. The general signature of the two lenses seems similar to me from what I have seen. I cannot speak for differences of build quality and feel. Some people argue the 35 has a more classic look. I think FL will probably be the determining criteria for most people.
I still find the look of both the 35 and 40 somewhat vexing in certain rare situations, but don't have any examples to show (naturally didn't upload them).
I prefer the big Nokton 35 (or the biogons). But the 40 is discrete and I like having a fast lens that didn't cost me a lot that I can kick around with. Plus I have an R3A for my 75. But if I could have got the 35/1.4 for a similar price, I would have taken that.
Either way, you can't lose.
Either way you can't lose
Nice photos and nice signature phrase from free2move.
The choice between these two lenses was easy for me: with all the interest in the 35, prices on the 40 have gone down, sometimes quite dramatically. I got my 40 MC for about US$200 in mint condition.
Pop star Yang Naiwen on Fuji Natura
Neopan Super Presto
Lucky 100
I think there is less (if any?) barrel distortion with the 40. The general signature of the two lenses seems similar to me from what I have seen. I cannot speak for differences of build quality and feel. Some people argue the 35 has a more classic look. I think FL will probably be the determining criteria for most people.
I still find the look of both the 35 and 40 somewhat vexing in certain rare situations, but don't have any examples to show (naturally didn't upload them).
I prefer the big Nokton 35 (or the biogons). But the 40 is discrete and I like having a fast lens that didn't cost me a lot that I can kick around with. Plus I have an R3A for my 75. But if I could have got the 35/1.4 for a similar price, I would have taken that.
Either way, you can't lose.
Last edited:
photo4ls
Well-known
Noimmunity,
That Lucky 100 shot looks good from here, been tempted to try it myself.
It seems that the 40mm and Lucky 100 worked well for you.
Does this stuff come in 400? (Sorry for the off topic question OP)
That Lucky 100 shot looks good from here, been tempted to try it myself.
It seems that the 40mm and Lucky 100 worked well for you.
Does this stuff come in 400? (Sorry for the off topic question OP)
noimmunity
scratch my niche
Lucky comes in 100. If you look closely you can see a trace of double lining created by the 40, but it's no big deal.
I don't use Lucky that much now that I have Eastman Double X 5222 film stock. They work to out to about the same price for me. Both have a very classic look, but Double X has greater tonal range (at least in the hands of my professional developer). If you develop it yourself, the story may be different. Check around for other threads in the film development part of the forum.
free2move
Established
Some more samples of the Nokton 40mm, with Tri-X 🙂
jmkelly
rangefinder user
I have the 40mm MC and had the 35mm SC, but never got around to shooting a direct comparison before I sold the 35. Opinions? The 35mm had about the same corner light falloff as the 40mm. The 35mm had a bit more pleasing OOF, but a bit more barrel distortion. I kept the 40mm for a banal reason - it matches the frameline on the R3A. I sold the 35mm only because I needed the cash for a Nikon S.
Lilserenity
Well-known
Wow these photos are superb. This pretty much seals the deal, I really do want to get an R3a and 40mm Nokton. I have the money saved up but I'm just wondering if I should hang on a little while longer what with the current economic climate!
But those photos... can't.... resist!
But those photos... can't.... resist!
MikeTinsley
Mike Tinsley
I'm really interested in getting a 40mm Nokton. What I don't know is whether to go for SC or MC - mostly shooting black and white. It seems a lot easier to find a secndhand MC version here in the uk. Does anyone have any advice/experience of both, and is there really much difference at all?
jmkelly
rangefinder user
Mike T: Perhaps pose the SC vs MC question to Tom A in a new thread. IMVHO the differences are small and show up more in color images than in B/W.
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
Mike T: You are not going to see much of a difference between the MC and the SC in black/white ( a bit more detail in shadows mainly - but also a bit more flare with the SC). In color you have a softer, pastel hue with the SC.
The 40 mm focal length is one of those almost perfect single body/single lens set ups. It can substitute for a 35 or a 50 (about a step forward or backward).
The 35mm focal length is also a good "day to day" lens, but somewhere down the road you will develop this urge for either something wider (35/28) and something longer (50).
In these uncertain economical times, it makes complete sense to buy a R3 and a 40 and a large stock of film. Being broke is more fun when you can take pictures, rather than sitting around watching boring news about the economy on the "tube".
The 40 mm focal length is one of those almost perfect single body/single lens set ups. It can substitute for a 35 or a 50 (about a step forward or backward).
The 35mm focal length is also a good "day to day" lens, but somewhere down the road you will develop this urge for either something wider (35/28) and something longer (50).
In these uncertain economical times, it makes complete sense to buy a R3 and a 40 and a large stock of film. Being broke is more fun when you can take pictures, rather than sitting around watching boring news about the economy on the "tube".
tedwin
Established
People say now is a great time to buy most things. Due to lack of consumer confidence no one is shopping so sellers offering great discounts, interest rates are tumbling etc. I would add to that. Depends where you live. Purchasing from over seas is getting expensive - quickly - from here in NZ. Things I bought recently from the states would now be out of reach.
I went through the dilemma. But went with the other poster. If I lose my job, having a cupboard full of film, chemicals and paper will make the experience a lot more bearable. Maybe even productive.
Anyway fingers crossed in 6 mnonths we will all be wondering what all the fuss was about (?)
Back on topic. I have the 40mm SC, but am unable to shed light on your query as I haven't tried the 35.
Wide open you can get distracting yuck in the out of focus areas, but stop down to f2 and its all but gone.
The only thing I HATE about the lens. Tabbed focussing. I would use it a lot more if it had a normal focus ring.
Ted.
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
Ted. tabbed focusing mounts is a matter of personal opinion I think. I like them on shorter lenses (50 and below) as I use them for hyperfocal shooting. You quickly figure out were the tab should be for a certain distance. You could probably remove the tab from your 40. You would have to take it apart and then "break" if off and fill the holes left with "blind screws" or filler. Any competent technician could do it for you.
The less sophisticated approach would be a pair pliers and some brute force!
The less sophisticated approach would be a pair pliers and some brute force!
tedwin
Established
Ouch. Maybe I'll leave that! Thanks for the advice though. I had thought of modification, but decided getting grips ground into the ring would be essential, and not feasible.
R
rpsawin
Guest
My current favorite set up for street shooting is the 40mm SC on my MP. I'll throw in my 75mm Heliar into my bag and it takes care of 95% of my shooting needs. For me the 40mm is just about perfect.
Best regards & Happy Holidays,
Bob
Best regards & Happy Holidays,
Bob
gilpen123
Gil
Only thing I hat with the 40 1.4 is the hood as it shows bigtime on the VF.
MikeTinsley
Mike Tinsley
Thanks Tom! Oddly, I just found and bought a secondhand SC in mint condition. It seemed like a good idea to do that as a) it offers an opportunity for a look that's a little different and b) they seem harder to find and therefore may be worth a little more if I decide to sell it at some point! Interestingly, I used to shoot mostly in 10x8 and 5x4 for a few years and the vast majority of my photos were shot on 240mm and 120mm lenses respectively, which are almost direct equivalents of 40mm on 35mm and the lens on a Fuji 645 that I really liked - so, I guess that makes me a 40mm fan in advance!!!
free2move
Established
For those who wished to see how the Nokton 40mm SC performs with color, heres some shots from my roll of Portra 400 VC. Most of the shots were shot wide open 🙂
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
There is a bit of edge fall off on your 40mm f1.4 SC! Are you using a filter or non 40mm hood with it? I haven't noticed that on any of my 40's.
free2move
Established
Hi Tom, thanks for the notification. Currently I'm using my Nokton 40mm without a filter or hood.
The edge fall off you're referring to is at the top and bottom corners at the right side right? Sorry, but being relatively new to photography, could you further elaborate what is "edge fall off", and the remedies for it? Thanks for your help 🙂
Similar threads
