andreios
Well-known
I`m here again with a bit of a question... I was offered a 35mm/1.4 Nokton for a really fair price (in fact for almost the same price as new 35mm/2.5 color skopar PII here).
I couldn`t find direct comparison so I wanted to ask if any of you used both of them and cane give a comparison to help me to choose between these two lenses (or point something other in this price range for me).
I`m fully aware of the difference in means of using in dark and bokeh, also of the difference in size; what I am not sure of are those "characters" of mentioned lenses.
I`m shooting almost only BW and this shall be for some time my only lens in this focal length, accompanied mainly with 50mm Jupiter 8. Also I shoot pretty often indoors - in old churches and similar buildings with really low light.
Am I right thinking that the Nokton could be more versatile (e.g. if I need more contrast I can manage it in darkroom using multigrade filters more easily than the other way)?
Thanks!
I couldn`t find direct comparison so I wanted to ask if any of you used both of them and cane give a comparison to help me to choose between these two lenses (or point something other in this price range for me).
I`m fully aware of the difference in means of using in dark and bokeh, also of the difference in size; what I am not sure of are those "characters" of mentioned lenses.
I`m shooting almost only BW and this shall be for some time my only lens in this focal length, accompanied mainly with 50mm Jupiter 8. Also I shoot pretty often indoors - in old churches and similar buildings with really low light.
Am I right thinking that the Nokton could be more versatile (e.g. if I need more contrast I can manage it in darkroom using multigrade filters more easily than the other way)?
Thanks!
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Between those two I'd go for the faster... But even having the jupiter, take a look at the 40 1.4 Nokton: it's a 35 with less distortion and a 50 walking a step... It's fast and sharp wide open, almost flare free (multicoated), and small... It's my favorite everyday lens.
Cheers,
Juan
Cheers,
Juan
sanmich
Veteran
you have some kind of a problem:
the CS will be limited indoors
the only apparent problem of the Nokton seems to be some level of distortion. If you are after architecture shots, it might be a serious issue too...
Given the price situation, and the low light requirements, I would go with the Nokton, and give it a shot.
the CS will be limited indoors
the only apparent problem of the Nokton seems to be some level of distortion. If you are after architecture shots, it might be a serious issue too...
Given the price situation, and the low light requirements, I would go with the Nokton, and give it a shot.
-doomed-
film is exciting
I'd go for the 1.4 since you say you are shooting in low light ,the extra speed could be useful. I'm sure you could manage with the 2.5 but f you've found a 1.4 at a reasonable price I'd go for that. The 1.4 seems like a perfect match for your needs.
andreios
Well-known
2Juan: I`ve been looking at the 40/1.4 Nokton, but for start I`ll stay within frames of my R2, perhaps I`ll come to 40 later... 
2Michael: As for architecture - I do shoot it sometimes but not only.. However, this is meant to be a "general purpose lens", so I think I`ll give it a shot..
2Michael: As for architecture - I do shoot it sometimes but not only.. However, this is meant to be a "general purpose lens", so I think I`ll give it a shot..
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
I would go for the low-light capability of the 35f1.4. the 35f2.5 is sharp - rivals the Summicron 35f2 pre-asph - but of the two lenses I use the 35f1.4 more. The distorsion issue is a bit of a "tempest in a tea cup". Unless you are doing tripod/spirit level corrected shots - you are not going to have a problem with it. I would check on Flickr to see what the two lenses can do - including low-light and distorsion. Virtually all lenses have distorsion to some degree - it is a trade off with most fast lenses, particularly 35 and wider. Do you want/need the speed - go for the 35f1.4 - a bit bigger than the 35f2.5 (which is miniscule). The 35f1.4 is a also very well corrected for flare - I have shot 1000's of rolls with mine (I have two) and the few cases when I have had flare can be counted on the fingers of one hand - and usually was in impossible light situations that would tax any lens.
scottwallick
ambition ≥ skill
If you are bothered by barrel distortion in how you make photos, get the CS. The Nokton has barrel distortion to a fault in my opinion. Of course, I'm shooting stuff with lots of geometry, squares, etc., in the city and the curvature across planes from the Nokton is excessive. The character of the Nokton and lens itself are both nice. The CS, on the other hand, is a stop and a half slower.
ampguy
Veteran
I'd go through the flickr shots and if you're OK with them, and don't use between f2, and f8, go with the CV 35/1.4, I'd also consider the 40/1.4, which is a true 1.4, not 1.6 or whatever, also less distortion and has negligible shift between f2 and f8.
Not sure how close the R2 framelines are to the RD1s, but if the same, the 40 fits the 35 lines very well past about 1.5 meters.
Not sure how close the R2 framelines are to the RD1s, but if the same, the 40 fits the 35 lines very well past about 1.5 meters.
Frank Petronio
Well-known
I like shooting in low, dramatic light and always had f/1.4 lenses but I had a realization that most of the stuff I shot at 1.4 sucks -- you miss focus, you try for marginal shutter speeds, the lens does goofy things... a f/2.5 or 2.8 lens gives you discipline, a little more foolproof extra depth of field without sacrificing nice bokeh, and for whatever reason, I do better with the slower lens, even in the dark.
I would attempt 1/8 at f/1.4 when I had a fast lens. Now I know better than to waste the shot -- instead I look for better light and that gives me better pictures.
I would attempt 1/8 at f/1.4 when I had a fast lens. Now I know better than to waste the shot -- instead I look for better light and that gives me better pictures.
andreios
Well-known
What do you mean by - if I don't use between f2 and f8? Is this lens good only wide open and with small apertures? I'm shooting mostly SLR lately and I use to stop down few stops if light (and my intention with the picture) allows this.
However, you all made me to reconsider the 40mm/1.4, indeed with my spectacles might well fit the whole finder - I discovered that to see full 35mm frame I have to move my eye a tiny bit..
2 Frank - thank you, you speak wisdom. I'm sure you are right about the discipline and the temptation to take the risk of shooting in really bad light and wasting the picture.
Perhaps the best solution to my problem would be to buy both the lenses
Perhaps we could alter the question and ask- which one first..
Last edited:
It has focus shift at apertures between f/2 and f/4 really...by 5.6 it's not bad so I think f/8 is an exaggeration. I've used both. I initially had the f/2.5, then went to the f/1.4, and then went back to the f/2.5 due to the focus shift issues of the f/1.4.
andreios
Well-known
I'm sorry, I don't know much about focus shift, does it mean that one is unable to have "well-focused" shots between these apertures? Do other lenses (e.g. the 40/1.4) have similar problem?
le vrai rdu
Well-known
it means that the foucsed point is not the same if you change the aperture, witout turning the focusing ring; quite a boring stuff :bang:
I think most lenses have some degree of focus shift. But if you're shooting film, I wouldn't worry about it, as it won't be a problem
It's the pixel peeking M8 and M9 users that have focus shift problems le vrai rdu
Well-known
andreios
Well-known
Thanks for quick responses.. But alas, they left me still undecided... It seems both are good lens, but considering given price, I'll perhaps go for the nokton and wait for a similarly good deal with the skopar or perhaps some old leitz lens to keep the Nokton company..
It seems both are good lens, but considering given price, I'll perhaps go for the nokton and wait for a similarly good deal with the skopar or perhaps some old leitz lens to keep the Nokton company..le vrai rdu
Well-known
If both are the same price I woulfd take the 1,4, not much bigger and more luminous, just in caseThanks for quick responses.. But alas, they left me still undecided...
ampguy
Veteran
40/1.4 is a great lens
40/1.4 is a great lens
no significant focus shift between 1.4 and f8 with my 40/1.4 MC tested at about 1.5m. CameraQuest, Photo Village, and others should have it in stock.
40/1.4 is a great lens
no significant focus shift between 1.4 and f8 with my 40/1.4 MC tested at about 1.5m. CameraQuest, Photo Village, and others should have it in stock.
andreios
Well-known
To make things even more complicated, I was offered today an 35/1.7 Ultron also for a very good price. So it seems, that the decision now lies between the Nokton and the Ultron. As far as I remember from the number of reviews I`ve read recently, the 1.4 Nokton has replaced Ultron in CV lenses line.. But is it significantly better?
cfritze
Established
andreios
You're making this too stressful. Pick one, enjoy the lens, learn what it can do, focus on composition, seeing, light, other things that depend more on you than the lens, and if in the end you want to try another, there'll be an opportunity through RFF or elsewhere to trade to another lens.
Your time choosing is time you could be enjoying taking images...
(feeling philosophical)
Christian
You're making this too stressful. Pick one, enjoy the lens, learn what it can do, focus on composition, seeing, light, other things that depend more on you than the lens, and if in the end you want to try another, there'll be an opportunity through RFF or elsewhere to trade to another lens.
Your time choosing is time you could be enjoying taking images...
(feeling philosophical)
Christian