CV 35/1.2 finally gotta admit it's too heavy

[jonmanjiro]

After looking at photos I really think a Rokkor-M (Summicron-C) 40/2 would suit my taste. But I need the speed (largely to use in tandem with my 75/2), so the Little Nokton it is. I see it just as a "place holder" until such time as I can get a Lux Asph.

I think the little Nokton 35/1.4 SC version (you sure move fast in the classifieds 😉) will keep you quite happy until such times you can spring for the Lux Asph, Jon. I'm looking forward to hear your thoughts about the lens, as I suspect you'll be pleasantly surprised with its performance, even on the M8.

 

[boy_lah]

Some samples taken with the 35/1.4 Nokton MC. More pix here.

 

[Simon Larbalestier]

I use both the Nokton 1.2 and Cron IV. The first at night or dark days and the second on sunny days or long walks. Yes, the Nokton is heavy but it does take shots that the Cron cannot and usually at night I won't take my long lens so all in all, the kit weights the same.

Interesting thread. I have been using the 35 1.2 and the Cron IV on my M8.2. 9/10 times when i look at the files i prefer the look of the Cron @F2 and it's small size and weight makes it easy to carry. Usually i work with the 50/1.4 and the two 35's on the M8. Sometimes it's the 28/2.8 ASPH but in practice much less than i thought. The 35/1.2 is bulky especially when working fast and carrying belt pouches. Sometimes i regret selling my Noctilux but the weight and vignetting was always a trade off. In practice, i seem work best when traveling very light so compact lenses have always outweighed the speed of the very fastest lenses.

So i decided last week to trade in the 35/1.2 for a new 40/1.4 and a Nikkor 35/2 for my son's FM2 for his college work alongside his 50/1.4. That way we are both happy. The 40 might slot right in there between the 35 and 50 FOV's on the M8. If i doesn't work out i can always sell it and get Jack another Nikkor 🙂

 

[noimmunity]

I think the little Nokton 35/1.4 SC version will keep you quite happy until such times you can spring for the Lux Asph, Jon.

You and a few other people around here have handily shown what can be had from this lens.

Now I'll have a chance to form my own opinion based on experience about the advantages of the Big and Little Noktons.

(you sure move fast in the classifieds 😉)

Usually I'm just fast asleep when most of the deals come up here, otherwise there's no telling where I'd be now 😀.

even on the M8.

I shoot black and white primarily on film. Looks like the SC is a winner for that. I'll see about the M8.

Notturtle: If I could live with f/2, I'd be forever happy with the ZM Biogon 35/2. That is a fantastic lens.

Sam: The 40/1.4 is a great lens, too, but I want 35 to pair with my 75 in a two lens kit (tho 40 would be cool as part of a 3 lens kit).

Clinton: thanks for sharing the photos. First one has too high contrast for my taste, but it works okay on the artfully composed second shot.

Simon: It's really not the size that bothers me so much as the weight. I could be happy with a Summicron-C, I think, but for that f/2.

 

[dcsang]

I personally enjoy the Nokton f1.4.
I've got the MC version and have had it since sometime last year.
It's compact, easy to handle and a great performer.
I can live with any distortion on the lens - since I'm not one to shoot nothing but brick walls and straight lines - some folks like to do that but not me.
I compared it to the 35mm Summicron ASPH @ f2 and it performs surprisingly well (on the M8) at f2 and, of course, it offers that extra stop @ f1.4 - bokeh is a personal preference and I don't find this one too "harsh".

Cheers and enjoy the SC version Jon 🙂
dave

 

[boy_lah]

Clinton: thanks for sharing the photos. First one has too high contrast for my taste, but it works okay on the artfully composed second shot.

No probs. Some pix often say more than i can in words.

As for high contrast first shot, it was a very sunny/harsh light day and i use a lab to develop/scan my photos. So as much as would like to say it's the lens, I can't as diff film, chemicals, scanning, etc all changes things.

As you can see from the other shots...there is a lens 'look' but I wouldn't have said high contrast being an obvious attribute.

Below a few more pix taken at diff times/film...

 

[kross]

hey now that u remind me, i was quite annoyed of the nokton's weight during my recent vacation carrying it! however, the images that it renders is what kept me using it even if it means aching wrist and inconveniences (try changing it with another lens...fast) 😛

i'm definitely gonna get a compact 35mm (either a cron, uc hex f2 or cv 35 f1.4) in future... as for now, my wrist needs some workout.... 😛

 

[noimmunity]

Thanks, Dave. Your experience was in mind when I made the decision. Cheers!

 

[ferider]

Good pick, Jon 🙂

 

[Simon Larbalestier]

I think at the end of the day one has to decide if the difference between F2 and F1.4 really matters that much in the kind of photographs you choose to make and the conditions that you find yourself shooting in. Everyone has their own individual preferences based on our own experiences.

No matter how much i liked the F1.0 Noctilux wide open it's bulk and weight outweighed it's practical ease of use when working discreetly. The LHSA 50/1.4 with it's snap on hood is still a relatively heavy lens to carry but less than the 1.0. Often i find that this goes in a pouch and i'm attaching the Cron IV to the camera body. If i really need 1.4 and a tighter look to the image i'll swap them over. Both have a very different look but sometimes i'll compromise that "look" if i need the shot.

Voigtlander/Cosina have, in the last few years, come up with some very good 1.4 lenses which are compact in size and represent good value for money.

 

[Krosya]

I dont mean to offend anyone with the following comment, but this thread is rather surprising to me. I suppose I can see how Nokton 35/1.2 can be seen as "too large", but "too heavy"? C'mon! Maybe instead of a new lens it's time to invest in some barbells? 😉

 

[Simon Larbalestier]

For me the reason for discarding the lens was bulk not weight. I can carry a 28 and 35 for the same space the 35/1.2 would take up. I could of course carry a bigger bag or pouch......

 

[Simon Larbalestier]

For those weak forearms this would help 😀

Ivanko SUPER GRIPPER DEVIL's ADVOCATE (IGDA)😀

 

[dcsang]

I dont mean to offend anyone with the following comment, but this thread is rather surprising to me. I suppose I can see how Nokton 35/1.2 can be seen as "too large", but "too heavy"? C'mon! Maybe instead of a new lens it's time to invest in some barbells? 😉

I don't think it's "too heavy" but that's comparing it to a Canon 70-200 f2.8 L IS - compare it to the 35mm f1.4 Nokton and it can be seen, respectively, as being a bit too "large" and "heavy".

As a fast prime, no, not too heavy or large.
As a fast prime that's only usable on a rangefinder, then ya.. a bit large and heavy 🙂

I personally never had issue carrying it around but it did take up a bit of room in my bag. Now that room is being used by an equally large 75mm Summilux 🙂

Dave

 

[morgan]

It's not necessarily the weight, more the bulk. Especially if I also want to bring along a 50 or something else. I also have an elmar 35/3.5 that is so incredibly tiny. It's like a few quarters stacked on top of each. I guess compared to that, anything is big. My gripe about the bulk is mostly related to when I'm traveling. Over several days, I just get tired of lugging it around. I'd use a smaller 50 but on my R-D1 that's too long. The 35/1.4 would be a good travel lens I think.

And to join in the fun, here's a shot with the 1.2 on film.

 

[jonmanjiro]

Here's a couple scans hot off the press (i.e. scanned just now) taken with a Nokton 35/1.4 (MC version) on Kodachrome 64.

This is my local train station on a wet weekday morning. Everyone is under cover behind me. Not sure what f-stop I used but it was dark, so maybe f2.8?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jonmanjiro/3381700555/

This shot was taken at f1.4. It's dark in the office at lunch because the lights are turned off, so f1.4 was a must! As you can see, the result photo is plenty sharp with some nice light drop off in the corners.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jonmanjiro/3381700563/

 

[thomasw_]

Here is a scan from a wet print that gives an idea of what the Summilux 35 asph can do in very low light. This is John Darnielle from a Mountain Goats concert in Vancouver at a venue on Richards Street.

 

[fbf]

I had to make the similar decision before then I went with cv 35/1.4 and maybe a 35/2.5 pII in the future. Together they cost about the same as one cv 35/1.2. I don't feel comfortable using a big lens on leica M body though I love my 90 cron pre-asph. It's a personal choice. I agree the 35/1.2 has more characters than 35/1.4

 

[ferider]

Bulk and weight - I don't care, really.

Intrusion in the Viewfinder bothers me quite a bit. Let me join you guys in posting an irrelevant photo 🙂

Cheers,

Roland.

 

[thomasw_]

Bulk and weight - I don't care, really.

Intrusion in the Viewfinder bothers me quite a bit. Let me join you guys in posting an irrelevant photo 🙂

Cheers,

Roland.

hehe 😉 i do agree about vf intrusion with the f1,2 especially if one uses the fancy hood for it; that thing is so large it probably has its own gravitational orbit. when i use a hood on my f1,2 it is the standard one, and I stress, I avoid using it as much as is possible. Interestingly with the f1,2 on my .85x vf, the 35 framelines are not intruded on as much as on my ,72 vfs.

As well to be balanced, I should say that I found the ZM 35/2 too intrusive with its hood, and that I do find the same with my Summilux 35/1,4 ASPH; therefore with these lenses I avoid(ed) using the supplied hood.