Advice on the 35/2

[Kim Coxon]

I know exactly what you mean. I have just got home and tried the Nokton on the Canon and somehow it just doesn't feel right. I had thought of the CV 35 but as it about the same size as the 50, I think I will go for the Canon. If I got the CV, it wouldn't get a huge amount of use. I am not that bothered about ultimate quality. If it was that important, I would go out with the Pentax glass. To me the Canon is about exploring a different form of photography and the pleasure in it's use.

I think Joe must be infectious!!

Kim

 

[back alley]

'I think Joe must be infectious!!'

not since the medication kicked in! lol

 

[ray_g]

i don't care as much for the black lenses, not the same feel to me.

i'm rambling maybe...i just like what i like is the bottom line for me and if it makes me happy and puts an image on film, cool!

joe

I feel the same way. As Taffer pointed out, sharpness and contrast are easily manipulated on PS, that it really doesn't make sense to shell out the extra $$$ for a bit more "microcontrast" -as Erwin Puts puts it.

Personally, I am starting to like low contrast and less sharpness in my photos, kind of like the old fashioned ("retro?") look. That seems to be harder to accomplish convincingly on PS. Costs less too.

To each his own. It is nice to have all the choices out there.

 

[nrb]

Canons are good lenses when they are clean, but Voigtlanders are modern new lenses. Look at JJW's demonstration.

 

[back alley]

no doubt about the differences but when i used the 35/2.5 cv lens i found the contrast on the harsh side while the canons have less contrast. so i might get a bit more detail with the canon and then can play with the contrast in photoshop or the darkroom.