cv...35 or 40? sc or mc?

[back alley]

i just spent some time looking at flickr images, specifically 4 different slide shows one each of the cv 35/1.4 mc, the 35/1.4 sc and the 40/1.4 mc and the 40/1.4 sc.

i was quite surprised that the one i enjoyed the most was the 35 sc images. not just looking at 'artistic' merit but more looking at image qualities like contrast, smoothness, tonal value, clarity, detail, etc.

i know it's all subjective but has anyone else done this and have you come to a similar conclusion?

 

[FrankS]

I'm not sure one can reach a valid conclusion about which lens one prefers by looking at/comparing images on a computer monitor (low fidelity) due to the plethora of uncontrolled variables of how each image was processed on it's journey to become displayed where it is. Film types/digital, scanning if applicable, and post processing would all have a greater effect on the look of the final image than the lens used. This is my opinion.

 

[back alley]

I'm not sure one can reach a valid conclusion about which lens one prefers by looking at/comparing images on a computer monitor (low fidelity) due to the plethora of uncontrolled variables of how each image was processed on it's journey to become displayed where it is. Film types/digital, scanning if applicable, and post processing would all have a greater effect on the look of the final image than the lens used. This is my opinion.

maybe if looking at a few images...but after looking at many images there seems to be a trend emerging.

 

[umcelinho]

I had a 35/1.4 SC which I traded for a MF camera (but I'm switching it back, so it's coming back home). It's a great lens. I've recently bought a 35/1.4 MC from a friend because I was missing the Nokton look and having a small fast 35... but I really like the SC better. It gives a bit more detail on shadows and overall less contrast. Yep, it's more prone to flare, but I just use a hood when I feel flare might be a problem and it's good to go. I'm glad I'm getting mine back.

 

[kxl]

35mm MC for me.

I don't like the 40mm FL, so the choice for me is 35mm MC versus 35mm SC. I didn't really like the SC "low contrast" look on B&W or color.

 

[back alley]

the sc seems 'smoother' more than low contrast, to my eye.

 

[kxl]

I used to shoot Neopan 400 with the SC... Smoother may be an appropriate description, but I never really go the crisp blacks that I was hoping for.

 

[Perfect Imposter]

I had the 35mm MC for a couple of weeks and returned it because it was only usable at f/2.4 due to severe focus shift. I then switched to a 40mm MC. The 40mm is sharper wide open and has no noticable focus shift. I did actually prefer the look of the 35mm wide open though.

 

[monochromejrnl]

the sc seems 'smoother' more than low contrast, to my eye.

given the amount of contrast/sharpening etc... flickr applies to images, I echo FrankS's warning above and be wary of drawing conclusions based on jpgs on a screen...

it's like drawing conclusions and judging how one lens renders relative to another (with their primary/only difference being type of lens coatings) by viewing prints made from negatives processed using dozens of different developers/techniques then printed by dozens of different people on a range of different paper grades and developers without knowing anything about any of the above except for the lenses

YMMV

 

[jsrockit]

I like the SC on bright sunny days and the MC on dull cloudy days.

 

[Lss]

I had the 35mm MC for a couple of weeks and returned it because it was only usable at f/2.4 due to severe focus shift.

Ah, the famous focus shift. I'm sorry to hear about your experience. Your lens may haven been poorly adjusted, since f/2.4 is exactly where the focus shift should appear.

 

[Lss]

i know it's all subjective but has anyone else done this and have you come to a similar conclusion?

No, but I still like the lens (35 SC) a lot.

 

[gavinlg]

DCWATCHIMPESS.co.jp had a comparison between the rokkor/summicron 40mm and the MC/SC nokton 40mms. I don't have the link on hand, but the noktons were somewhat sharper than the rokkor/summi at f2, and the difference between the MC and SC was veeeery small, but visible. As expected, the SC had very very slightly less contrast and very slightly more glow around high contrast edges. I had to go back and forth looking between them to point out the differences.

 

[ferider]

The 40 is optically "better", a bit sharper and less distortion. The 35 has smoother OOF rendering but you pay with some distortion.

Don't worry about SC vs MC, in most shots it makes no difference. Only in very strong backlight do you get some veiling flare with the SC versions.

Either way, they are all great lenses. I were you I would decide based on FOV and getting a good copy.

Roland.

 

[kshapero]

the sc seems 'smoother' more than low contrast, to my eye.

I have owned all four and the Nokton 35/1.4 SC is my favorite. Have actually owned it now for about 3 years now. The SC seems to have a bit of that Leica glow.

 

[Perfect Imposter]

Ah, the famous focus shift. I'm sorry to hear about your experience. Your lens may haven been poorly adjusted, since f/2.4 is exactly where the focus shift should appear.

Yes it must have been. Had it been optimized for wide open use I would have kept it. I'd be cautious when buying this lens, I'd definitely recommend trying it out first. Unfortunately I couldn't, which is why mine went back.