kshapero
South Florida Man
Probably been done before but the CV 35/1.2 is one helluva lens. Is it really worth the extra $$$ and the size and weight? You decide.
noimmunity
scratch my niche
I couldn't answer this question for myself, so I got both 
Seriously, I think each has its merits, and each has a distinct look and feeling in use that I quite like. Occasionally for that very reason I miss very much the ZM Biogon 35/2, which is lovely but quite neutral in its rendering. Either one of the CV lenses may have a tendency to impose its "character" on the scene in a way that the Biogon would only let the scene speak for itself (by giving the most faithful rendition possible).
The 35/1.4 is a lens that I would not hesitate to give up for a Leica 35/1.4 asph. The 35/1.2 is a lens that I might want to keep even if I were one day to have the unimaginable good fortune of getting the Leica.
Seriously, I think each has its merits, and each has a distinct look and feeling in use that I quite like. Occasionally for that very reason I miss very much the ZM Biogon 35/2, which is lovely but quite neutral in its rendering. Either one of the CV lenses may have a tendency to impose its "character" on the scene in a way that the Biogon would only let the scene speak for itself (by giving the most faithful rendition possible).
The 35/1.4 is a lens that I would not hesitate to give up for a Leica 35/1.4 asph. The 35/1.2 is a lens that I might want to keep even if I were one day to have the unimaginable good fortune of getting the Leica.
Krosya
Konicaze
You are right - been done before time and time again. But if you need another opinion just look at these threads for pics from these lenses:
one for pics from CV 35/1.4:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=75000
and one for CV 35/1.2:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=72649
I think it's pretty clear
baycrest
Established
You said it all. Its a fantastic lens. If you can get by the size and weight, then by all means, I think its much better than the 35 f/1.4 Voightlander.
I tried many copies of the 35 f/1.4 Voightlander on my M8 and found the f/1.2 much easier to consistently nail the focus.
Its just the weight that puts me off sometimes. YMMV
Best
Rob
I tried many copies of the 35 f/1.4 Voightlander on my M8 and found the f/1.2 much easier to consistently nail the focus.
Its just the weight that puts me off sometimes. YMMV
Best
Rob
boy_lah
Discovering RF
m8 + CV 35 1.4 MC
ferider
Veteran
I prefer the 1.4 and also would if the price would be the same. Not only due to size either. Of the people who keep going on and on how bad it's signature is (which in reality is nothing short of the "bokeh king"'s, except for barrel distortion, which the 1.2 has as well), nobody has actually used it.
The only lens I would consider an "upgrade" is the 35/1.4 asph.
Last edited:
boy_lah
Discovering RF
m7 + 35/1.4 MC
snausages
Well-known
Just a theory, but I think the CV 35 and 40 1.4's sometimes get a bum rap because people compare them to the Lux and the Nokton 1.2. They're looking for a dreamy signature and the CV 1.4's aren't particularly painterly wide open. But if the CV 1.4 was thought of as a well priced, small 2.0 lens with an extra stop's cushion it might find a place in more people's heart.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Akiva,
No.You decide. It's not worth it for me. Others disagree.
I've had one, and prefer my (tiny, light, coma-ridden) pre-aspheric Summilux. My pictures might be technically better with the Nokton, and if I didn't already have a fast 35 I might buy one. But I suspect that at this point a lot more is down to my skill (or lack of it) than to 1/2 stop. Or to ridiculously restricted d-o-f in good light: my Summilux is only at f/1.4 when I NEED the speed.
Cheers,
R
Last edited:
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
A better question may be: is it worth the bulk?
To me, RF is about compactness, I'm not sure I'd be inclined to pick up the bigger Nokton, let alone use it.
To me, RF is about compactness, I'm not sure I'd be inclined to pick up the bigger Nokton, let alone use it.
kshapero
South Florida Man
Well I have the Nokton 35/1.2. It is a freaking curse. Why? It feels sacrilegious to have such a large lens on an M and yet I am so pleased with the results I can't let go of it.
wgerrard
Veteran
As a new owner of the 35/1.2, I can attest to that. Used it recently on a walk through the autumn woods, on a cloudy gray day. Shot a cute little cluster of leaves on the ground, from about waist level. Probably wasn't at 1.2, but close to it. The leaves that were flat on the ground were in focus, the leaves that were, at best, two inches above the ground weren't.
LIve and learn.
ashrafazlan
Established
Could any of you post pictures of the 1.2 mounted on your RF? (or M8, for those who have it )? I'm interested in this lens but i'm afraid it might be too big.
)? I'm interested in this lens but i'm afraid it might be too big.
Ditto to this!
The Nokton 35/1.2 may be a stellar performer, but I've handled it in the local shops and its way too big for me to want to stick it on an RF camera and carry around. I'll stick to my little Nokton 35/1.4 thanks
thomasw_
Well-known
Always about lens compactness? Yes, I will grant a lot of the time. But not always, otherwise no one would use the longer lenses or the Noctilux or the incredible Summilux 75! What a shame that would be; and it is the same with the 35/1,2: it is eNORMous indeed...but O Lord, there's the rendering, which makes it worth the heft for those who take delight in her look.
That said, my main 35mm is a small summicron 35/2. And I am picky about size, too; even the Superb Summilux 35/1,4 ASPH was too big as a main 35 in my VF....
Krosya
Konicaze
I dont follow this - why do I have to use a lens to know if I like it's signature or not? Size/handling - maybe, but not signature. I liked CV 35/1.2 before I had it and I still do after I've had it a while. CV 35/1.4 never did anything for me from pretty much every pic I have seen from it, so no matter size, handling or price - I have no desire to have it, as final result - the photo - wouldnt be to my taste. Would I like if CV 35/1.2 was smaller - sure! But it's not enough reason for me to not have/use it.
For example, I dont have Summilux ASPH, but I know I'd like one based on photos I have seen - and it's not a small lens either. To me - the way lens draws - thats what it's all about. In that respect to my eyes - CV 35/1.2 is unmatched, while CV 35/1.4 is just sort of generic or blah. I think that even Ultron 35/1.7 has a better signature than 35/1.4 CV, which in itself is not a bad lens, but just doesnt have "the look" that I clearly see from CV 35/1.2.
But if someone else likes it - thats cool - thats why they have different lenses.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
I agree, maybe not always, but to be honest, I have zero desire to use any of the longer than 50mm lenses on an RF camera either. Roland will roll his eyes again reading this.
Mind you, I have a very narrow (thus unpopular) definition of an RF kit. One body, one compact 35mm (or up to 50mm lens). That's it.
And while I do care about a lens' signature, that alone is not enough for me to either spend more money or attain more bulk.
Kind of the opposite of Krosya and maybe most of others here
ferider
Veteran
Because, unless you look at a print you can only judge by 600x800 web pics. The Summilux ASPH is way smaller than the 35/1.2.
To each his own, it's one thing to say that you like the 35/1.2, but why going on and on and on about how much you dislike the 35/1.4 Nokton, how it is too expensive compared to other 35s, etc., when you have never tried it ? I would understand the emotions if you had decided to get rid of a lens you used and that had disappointed you, but otherwise, why ??
Last edited:
Renzsu
Well-known
Could any of you post pictures of the 1.2 mounted on your RF? (or M8, for those who have it
Here you go, it's quite big and heavy for sure, but I kind of like it that way
Certainly it's not the only big lens out there (noctilux.. )
Leica All Day
Veteran
I think I am in the minority when I say that I don't give a sh&t about the size of the lens on my Leica.....I have a big 90mm summicron and a 35mm nokton 1.2 and the size doesn't really bother me...the smallest lens that I own is a 15mm vc (which is pretty small)....to be honest, I am a 6 foot white guy that has been living/working in South/South East Asia for the last couple of years and the term "stealth" does not apply to me.....no matter where I go, I don't blend in and I don't think it really matters what the size of my lens is....granted, I am not talking about a 300mm lens on a SLR
I wish I owned a 50mm noctilux or a 75mm summilux but I don't (both are "big" lenses)....then again, my "style" of photography might be different than someone who is going for the "stealth" look...to each is own, if it works for you, cool.....I think a lot of people here have different stlyes and take different pictures than I do and that is fine....but at the end of the day, I look at the end result (photos) and to be honest, I don't think the size of my lens has anything to do with the "quality" of photos that I take.....
I understand that there are a lot of opinions when it comes to this subject, but does the size of the lens on a rangefinder make you any more "stealth"?...I am not talking about a 300mm lens, but in reality, what is the difference between a 90mm summicron and a pre-asph 35 summilux.....does someone "not notice you taking a photo".....
sure, one can argue about carrying the "extra weight" of a "big lens" and they have a point, but I don't mind the extra weight......like I said, at the end of the day, I care about what the photos look like....BTW, I like the look of the pre-asph 35mm summilux a lot but I will probably never own one....I did borrow a friends 35mm asph summilux and I loved it, but did it make me a "better" photographer......I don't think so.....
whatever works for you and makes you comfortable, cool, use it....I like my 35mm nokton 1.2, because it is very different than my other lenses and it allows me to take photos that my other lenses won't allow me to take....
cheers, michael
I wish I owned a 50mm noctilux or a 75mm summilux but I don't (both are "big" lenses)....then again, my "style" of photography might be different than someone who is going for the "stealth" look...to each is own, if it works for you, cool.....I think a lot of people here have different stlyes and take different pictures than I do and that is fine....but at the end of the day, I look at the end result (photos) and to be honest, I don't think the size of my lens has anything to do with the "quality" of photos that I take.....
I understand that there are a lot of opinions when it comes to this subject, but does the size of the lens on a rangefinder make you any more "stealth"?...I am not talking about a 300mm lens, but in reality, what is the difference between a 90mm summicron and a pre-asph 35 summilux.....does someone "not notice you taking a photo".....
sure, one can argue about carrying the "extra weight" of a "big lens" and they have a point, but I don't mind the extra weight......like I said, at the end of the day, I care about what the photos look like....BTW, I like the look of the pre-asph 35mm summilux a lot but I will probably never own one....I did borrow a friends 35mm asph summilux and I loved it, but did it make me a "better" photographer......I don't think so.....
whatever works for you and makes you comfortable, cool, use it....I like my 35mm nokton 1.2, because it is very different than my other lenses and it allows me to take photos that my other lenses won't allow me to take....
cheers, michael