CV 40/1.4 vs CV 35/1.4?

T

tobinharris

Established
Local time
9:16 AM
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
90
Hey friendly R-D1 folks!

It time to try a new lens for my R-D1! Woohoo!

I'm really enjoying the CV 25mm/f4 Color Skopar, but I'd love to have a few scenarios covered that me+CV25 struggle with:

a) low light interior shots (parties, restaurants etc)
b) those poppy 3D bokeh portraits (as above)
c) boken in any outdoor shots (close up static subjects)
d) tighter angle shots (closer shots where I've got less stuff to frame)

I'm considering the CV 40mm/1.4 or the CV 35mm/1.4.

Most recommended the 40mm for indoor low light over the 35, any idea why that is?

I understand the 40 might be better for low-light interior shots. Do you know why that is, considering they both have the same aperture?

I read Steve Huffs review of the CV 35mm/1.4 MC, and it looks cool.

I'm leaning toward a SC lens rather than a MC one, apparently it has less contrast for the B&W stuff. Do you have any preferences?

After all that is said, 3-6 months down the line I love the idea of getting really wide 12mm or 15mm lens, that would be a lot of fun :)

Any pointers or pearls of wisdom appreciated as usual


Tobin
 
On the R-D1 I prefer the 35mm because of the matching frameline. I think, one of the reasons against the 35mm is for many people the focus shift, but I can live with that.

Also the 35mm is closer to be a normal lens on the R-D1 as the 40mm and especially indoors I would prefer the wider lens. Nevertheless, I never had the 40mm and since I heard much positive critique about it, it might be a good choice also. For me, it's the 35mm.
 
I think the CV 35 1.4 SC is perfect for the RD1.

I'm sure the 40mm is very similar but on a crop body a 35mm lens is already pretty tight. I've had a really hard time making this lens fringe at all either, a task which is not so difficult with the 50mm 1.1 ;)

I could see replacing it with a pre-asph lux someday, possibly, but other than that I don't have any desire for a lens in this focal length.
 
Last edited:
Thanks folks.

That's +2 for the CV35/1.4.

I was over-eager and got a CV40/1.4 delivered. I've only shot a few with it so no real opinion yet - except I'm loving the colour and the DOF. Frame-lines will take some getting used to....

The 35mm may still be well "on the list", but gonna get used to this bad boy for now!

Thanks again

T
 
They are very similar, T, I have both, both great lenses. The 40 is optically a bit "better" (sharper and less distortion). The 35 has a bit smoother bokeh and is easier to use with 35mm framlines, and is also a little smaller. You will only notice the difference between SC and MC with very strong back light, where the SC version has a little veiling flare.

Enjoy your 40, it's one of the best M lenses out there.

Roland.
 
i prefer a 40 on the rd1 over a 35...i know it's a small difference but...the 35mm framelines seems better suited to a 40...the 40 is a slightly 'better' lens in most respects except that some find it's bokeh offensive...i do not.
and the 40 is cheaper, not a slight consideration.

my favourite 40 is the rollei sonnar 2.8...but i have had the cv 40 and it is excellent.
 
I have owned the 40 SC and MC and the 35 SC and MC. Presently own the 35 SC. I think all four are awesome lenses. Due to artistic ignorance I can not tell the difference in quality of either of the four. If I was buying right now I would get the 40 MC as it is cheaper than the 35 and I would not worry about framelines unless you are very anal.
 
hope you like the 40!

when you go for an ultrawide, i recommend the 12. it worked best for me than the 15, as it vignettes less and has an amazing field of view of 18mm. the 15 would be a 23mm, and as I had a 24mm f2 (my Lumix LX3) it didn't make much sense.
 
back alley said:
i prefer a 40 on the rd1 over a 35...i know it's a small difference but...the 35mm framelines seems better suited to a 40...the 40 is a slightly 'better' lens in most respects except that some find it's bokeh offensive...i do not.
and the 40 is cheaper, not a slight consideration.

my favourite 40 is the rollei sonnar 2.8...but i have had the cv 40 and it is excellent.
Click to expand...

Thanks for feedback

I'm living with this lens for a while, and getting good and bad results.

Currently struggling to focus accurately with such narrow DOF in f1.4 or f2.0, but I'll stick with it (I'm still relatively new to the R-D1).

Wasn't overly chuffed with the colour on the low light shots at ISO 800. But again.... sticking with it and experimenting.

Suspect these issues are more "user error" than lens/camera problems :)
 
umcelinho said:
hope you like the 40!

when you go for an ultrawide, i recommend the 12. it worked best for me than the 15, as it vignettes less and has an amazing field of view of 18mm. the 15 would be a 23mm, and as I had a 24mm f2 (my Lumix LX3) it didn't make much sense.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the feedback. I'm quite excited about trying the 12mm for some epic shots. I guess an external viewfinder is essential?

I see they're selling a screw mount version and a viewfinder and a more expensive Leica M version without viewfinder.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom