kossi008
Photon Counter
It's me again, back with another stupid question...
I am looking for a compact, fast 35 or 40 mm lens to take along for night shooting in cafes, bars etc. to complement my brilliant but somewhat slowish C-Biogon 35/2.8.
So I am torn between the 35/1.4 and the 40/1.4. The latter would intrigue me as I would not simply be replicating an existing focal length, but adding something. On the other hand, I am wondering about guessing the framing. (I know, I shouldn't, after guessing the 28 on the Bessa R for so long).
In the end, it really boils down to image quality. So, those of you who have both lenses: Which is sharper? Which has the nicer bokeh (no, I'm not considering the 35/1.2)? And which has less distortions?
I am looking for a compact, fast 35 or 40 mm lens to take along for night shooting in cafes, bars etc. to complement my brilliant but somewhat slowish C-Biogon 35/2.8.
So I am torn between the 35/1.4 and the 40/1.4. The latter would intrigue me as I would not simply be replicating an existing focal length, but adding something. On the other hand, I am wondering about guessing the framing. (I know, I shouldn't, after guessing the 28 on the Bessa R for so long).
In the end, it really boils down to image quality. So, those of you who have both lenses: Which is sharper? Which has the nicer bokeh (no, I'm not considering the 35/1.2)? And which has less distortions?
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Both are sharp wide open... 35 has barrel distortion. 40 has a modern, a bit busy bokeh for background highlights when focused close wide open, but it generally looks good enough to me: these are examples I've showed before. The 40 is the lens I use the most, both under direct sun and in low light.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/40894234@N07/4549633224/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/40894234@N07/4528669840/
Cheers,
Juan
http://www.flickr.com/photos/40894234@N07/4549633224/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/40894234@N07/4528669840/
Cheers,
Juan
kossi008
Photon Counter
Thanks Juan, tha 2nd picture shows exactly what I would be using the lens for... but the first also helps judge the bokeh. Nice shots, by the way...
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Thanks!
The lens is great. It's small, sharp and fast, and could cost a lot more... It's been a bestseller, I think...
Cheers,
Juan
robbeiflex
Well-known
Today I found a review of the 35/1.4 here, maybe it will help:
http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2009/12/02/the-voigtlander-nokton-35-1-4-mc-lens-review/
http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2009/12/02/the-voigtlander-nokton-35-1-4-mc-lens-review/
ferider
Veteran
The 35/1.4 is very good. A bit more distortion and nicer bokeh than the 40. The distortion has never bothered me, it's not worse than that of other lenses, like for example UC Hexanon and 35/1.2 Nokton.
I stopped using the 40, too many over-cropped shots on my Leicas, at close focus mostly. It's a little longer than 40, maybe 43 or so. Look at the 40 this way: it's a slightly wider 50, in relation to 50, much like 28 to 35.
Roland.
I stopped using the 40, too many over-cropped shots on my Leicas, at close focus mostly. It's a little longer than 40, maybe 43 or so. Look at the 40 this way: it's a slightly wider 50, in relation to 50, much like 28 to 35.
Roland.
Last edited:
kossi008
Photon Counter
Thanks for the insight, guys, I've ordered a 35/1.4 SC for that classic look in low-light situations. I still have the C-Biogon if I need tack sharp... 