800$ -35 Cron Pre-Asph or Zeiss 35 Biogon or VC 35 1.2??

800$ -35 Cron Pre-Asph or Zeiss 35 Biogon or VC 35 1.2??

  • Total voters
    177
Sorry, Todd is right, the CV 40/1.4. Only thing I do not like about the lens is that it brings up a 50mm frame line on a Leica. This is easy to fix either your self or sending it to DAG. It is a great lens at a very good price.

B2 (;->
 
I am considering the 40 1.4 as well but that's a 61.2 Focal length on the R-D1. I am also considering the 28 1.9 Ultron to go with my 50 summicron. The 28 is a 43 on the R-D1? any thoughts..
 
The 40mm Summicron C is an absolute bargain, and fits the 35mm framelines on thje R-D1 much more accurately than the (overpriced, and I have one) 35mm Summicron. You should be able to pick one up for $300 and have enough left for the $450 VC 28/1.9, which I note Sean Reid rates highly on the R-D1.
 
just to confuse things a bit - i recently sold off my 35/1.4 pre ASPH to raise cash to purchase the V4 35/2 and the Nokton 35/1.2. I think both are unique in their own right hence the reason i own both - the V4 i find easier to handle than the 35/1.4 pre ASPH in that it's rectangular hood doesn't rotate when you need the change the aperture. The Nokton is heavy but balances well with the Photoequip ML grip.
 
It's surprising how poorly this "legendary" Summicron is doing in this poll with almost 75 people responding at this point. :confused:
 
this is a strange question.
Do you need f/1.2 vs f/2? pretty big difference i would say!
AND do you mind a triple size?

If Yes/No then go for CV 35/1.2
 
ErikFive said:
Could you tell a little more about the performance of the two lenses. I was planing on getting the 35 1.2, but I got an great offer on a 35 2 v4.
Click to expand...

Like i said i purchased them for their own unique qualities - there are some projects i'm working on which require F1.2 or 1.4 and nothing else. So that rules out the v4 35/2

However the 35/1.2 with the vented hood mounted is large (not unlike the Noctilux although i no longer have the latter to compare side by side). For me this means it's a lens for specific needs not a carry round every day lens - so for me the v4 35/2 scores well because of its diminutive size (very much like the 35/1.4 pre ASPH lux i had) including the rectangular hood. I prefer this at apertures F4-8.



Both very different. For me. And not always used on the same projects.

When i've more time and my projects are more complete i will post some of the images and note the lens used to make them.
i do not view them competitively in terms of performance. Both deliver the goods it's more a question of the amount of available light when i shoot and their size when used alongside other lens when i travel. I simply can't take every lens and camera to every destination where my projects are.

I'm not sure if this answers your original question or not but these are my user views.
 
ErikFive said:
I was thinking more of sharpness and contrast. I like taking pics in dim light and at night and thats why im thinking about the 1.2. I also hear great things about the v4 and its bokeh. I cant afford both. That is the problem.
Click to expand...

You might want to check this thread out amongst others as this topic comes up here quite often.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=32974


also RFF member x-ray has a great deal of experience with both these lenses.
 
I own the VC 35mm f1.2 and Leica 35mm f2s (pre-Asph and Asph). Given your choices, I can strongly recommend the VC f1.2 lens. Its optical signature is very similar to the Leica pre-Asph 35mm lenses, but you get f1.2 and f1.4 apertures which are very very useful in low light situations. The size of the lens does not bother me, although it is an issue with some Leica M users.
 
Hmm I own the 35 2 4th, and I think the lens is a bit overrated, now since I'd like to get a faster lens, I could either get the VC 1.2 (big and bulky) and keep the 35 2 4th as a normal walk around lens, or sell the 35 4th and get a pre-asph 35 lux (can't afford the ASPH one), which is pretty compact anyway.
is the performance of the VC 1.2 so much better than a pre-asph 35 lux?
 
All three great lenses. The Summicron is by far the smallest, and the Nokton is the biggest.

I recommend not to buy the Nokton for the "low light" capabilities. On a digital camera,
the additional half stop you get, say over a Nokton 40/1.4 is practically irrelevant.
If you buy it, buy it for the shallow DOF - it has an excellent signature.

Check out the M-mount forum on flckr, you can see sample shots of the three lenses and
also of the Ultron.

Best,

Roland.
 
fgianni said:
Hmm I own the 35 2 4th, and I think the lens is a bit overrated, now since I'd like to get a faster lens, I could either get the VC 1.2 (big and bulky) and keep the 35 2 4th as a normal walk around lens, or sell the 35 4th and get a pre-asph 35 lux (can't afford the ASPH one), which is pretty compact anyway.
is the performance of the VC 1.2 so much better than a pre-asph 35 lux?
Click to expand...
Psst. Wanna trade for a practically-new black ZM 35mm Biogon? :)
 
Leica's pre-ASPH lux is a an absolute dog of a lens. There are numerous posts and tests linked to this forum which reveal its significant defects compared to later lenses, not least of which the nokton. You get far more lens for your money with the 35 summicron (in any version, don't listen to people who swear by the 4th as it's the same optical formula as the rest but with inferior build quality). But then, the summicron is way overpriced at the moment IMHO. Better value seems to be the Zeiss biogon. If speed is your concern, definitely go for the Nokton (or save up for a user ASPH summilux).

fgianni said:
Hmm I own the 35 2 4th, and I think the lens is a bit overrated, now since I'd like to get a faster lens, I could either get the VC 1.2 (big and bulky) and keep the 35 2 4th as a normal walk around lens, or sell the 35 4th and get a pre-asph 35 lux (can't afford the ASPH one), which is pretty compact anyway.
is the performance of the VC 1.2 so much better than a pre-asph 35 lux?
Click to expand...
 
get both the VC 35/1.2 for the late afternoon/evenings and the biogon 28/2.8 for the street. you won't be unhappy with the results!
 
I agree with all your points, photorat, but for the statement that the 4th version Summicron is optically identical to its predecessors.It has 7 elements, I believe, compared to the 6 element versions 2 and 3. But I doubt that there's a huge difference in optical performance.
 
photorat said:
Leica's pre-ASPH lux is a an absolute dog of a lens...
Click to expand...

I have to agree. I have had two 35mm pre-asph Summilux' and both were worthless below about f/5.6.

I also agree that the choices you have listed here are all good. You can't go wrong with any of them. Value for the dollar should steer you to the Zeiss. But, while the Leica would be the best investment of the three, I have the Nokton f/1.2 and have been very impressed (and surprised) by it. Its size is no distraction for me, the color saturation has a Leica signature, and it is plenty sharp.

Close your eyes and point! And buy the one your finger lands on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom