Anyone own BOTH the CV 35/1.4 and 40/.14?

[Benjamin Marks]

Any RFF'ers own both of these lenses? If so, how do you use them? What's their relationship in your camera bag? Differences in rendering? I have often thought it odd that C/V offered two such similar focal length/speed lenses . . . Anyone succumbed to the temptation to use both?

Ben Marks

 

[ferider]

I've owned them in sequence, not together, Ben.

The 40 has a little less distortion, and a bit harsher bokeh than the 35. In practice, they are almost indistinguishable.

The only reason I don't use the 40 but switched to the 35 is a better frame-line match at close focus and on older Leicas. Kept cropping portraits too much with the 40.

Roland.

 

[jmkelly]

I did own both at the same time, though I used them differently. I parked the multi-coated 40mm on an R3A and kept it in one location for indoor portraits and group shots. The single-coated 35mm was more of a walking-around lens that spent some time on an M6 but most often was used on an R-D1.

Both lenses were excellent performers IMHO. I agree with Roland's assessment - spot on. I did not object to the 40's OOF or find it too harsh as some do, and though the OOF on the 35mm did seem a little softer there was very little to tell between them. Same with the minor distortion.

Ultimately I sold both: the 35mm because it was not as small as the UC Hexanon or as good as the Summilux ASPH, and the 40mm (with the R3A) only because I needed a little less gear and a little more cash at the time.

 

[Benjamin Marks]

Thanks folks. Very helpful - Ben

 

[Michael Markey]

Thanks from me too. I own a 40 SC and use it most of the time. Like it both with BW and colour .I was thinking of a 35 MC but concluded that there would not be a great deal of diff.

 

[Tom A]

I have both the 35f1.4 (SC) and the 40f1.4 (MC and SC). I tend to use them differently, the 40 usually goes on a M2 (claw filed down to give 35 frames) as a one lens/one camera "walk-about" kit. It will work as a 35 and/or a 50 with some light shuffling of feet!
The 35's are usually paired wit either a 50 or sometimes with a 75 as a two lens/two camera travel kit (with a wide added to it - usually a 21) and the occasional 90 - which rarely gets used.
The 40f1.4 is a very good lens - sharp at f1.4 and depending on if you use color, the MC works great or bl/w, in which case I prefer the SC version.
The 35f1.4 has replaced my pre-asph Summilux as my preferred "all-round" 35 - and I have never seen anything from it that has made me change my opinion about it.
I do have other 35's that I use - but the 35f1.4 SC and a Zeiss ZM Nokton 50f1.5 on two bodies (M2/M6 or MP) is my basic travel kit. I might add more lenses and bodies - depending on were I am going (wide to ultra wide) or longer lenses - but those two are the "core" kit. I am considering trying out the 50f1.1 as a "travel" 50 later this spring.

 

[ChrisLivsey]

Tom, quick edit perhaps I'm sure you mean the Zeiss ZM C Sonnar 50mm f1.5 not a Nokton.

 

[Tom A]

Tom, quick edit perhaps I'm sure you mean the Zeiss ZM C Sonnar 50mm f1.5 not a Nokton.

I stand corrected, but I have a valid excuse! I have been shooting with a Voigtlander Prominent Nokton 50f1.5 on a Nikon S2 for the last week or so!
This is with the Voigtlander Prominent adapter to Nikon lensmount. If I add my orion and screw-to-M adapter to that, it could be used on a M.

 

[runny]

Both 35mm and 40mm

Both 35mm and 40mm

I have both and use the 35mm on the M8.2 and the 40mm on my CLE and CL. Lovely lenses, but the shade does interfere with the RF on both the CL and CLE. Otherwise extremely happy with them.

David