ferider
Veteran
Size or weight - who cares.
Neither Noctilux or 75 Summilux cover 30% of the frameline area. Which is the single thing that bothers me about the 35/1.2. Who cares about half a stop or smooth bokeh if you cann't see what you are shooting ?
Neither Noctilux or 75 Summilux cover 30% of the frameline area. Which is the single thing that bothers me about the 35/1.2. Who cares about half a stop or smooth bokeh if you cann't see what you are shooting ?
rya
Established
I thought the window blocking of the 35/1.2 would bother me until I got it and used it for a bit. I rarely notice it now, but I usually am not totally concerned about my framelines anyways. It is only there to me when I am trying to make sure something is in that bottom-right corner, and I just glance to check.
The size only bothers me because of how I have to reconfigure my bag depending on whether it is attached to the camera or not.
The size only bothers me because of how I have to reconfigure my bag depending on whether it is attached to the camera or not.
Leica All Day
Veteran
good point Roland.....
andredossantos
Well-known
If I am looking at a compelling photograph compositionally I never say " great photo but I don't like the rendering of the lens".
Honestly, I can understand having preferences as to how certain lenses look but in reality the question of the 1.2 vs the 1.4 to me is about speed. Do you need that extra speed.
90% of the job after you have a lens in your head, not the optics.
Honestly, I can understand having preferences as to how certain lenses look but in reality the question of the 1.2 vs the 1.4 to me is about speed. Do you need that extra speed.
90% of the job after you have a lens in your head, not the optics.
Last edited:
snausages
Well-known
I understand what you're saying, but I don't think you can reduce the difference between these lenses to half a stop. The 1.2 at 1.4 is very different from the 1.4 at 1.4. Of course a lens can't make or break a photo by itself, but the 1.2 does beautiful things at wide apertures and this character can be used, if you wish, to help express your vision of the scene.
andredossantos
Well-known
Snausages...
I understand what you're saying and can see where you're coming from. Perhaps my response was a bit presumptive and general.
However, I think if you are looking for a lens for a very specific reason, like the one you proposed, then you probably won't be trying to decide between two well known and often talked about lenses.
I understand what you're saying and can see where you're coming from. Perhaps my response was a bit presumptive and general.
However, I think if you are looking for a lens for a very specific reason, like the one you proposed, then you probably won't be trying to decide between two well known and often talked about lenses.
Last edited:
snausages
Well-known
The 1.2 begs to be shot wide open. The 1.4 is terrific a bit stopped down. I think that's the difference.
Krosya
Konicaze
Well, lets see here:
1. web pics seem to be just fine for me and many others (even you, I recon, as you often refer people to M-mount flickr group). I have done my lens research based mostly on web pics whenever I wanted to buy a lens and so far it worked out very well. So, based on that experience I can safely say that if I dont like how lens draws based on a web pic - I will not like it otherwise as well.
2. As far as me expressing my opinion - if you dont like it - oh well. I just cant understand why you keep saying "if you never tried it" in every post. Once again - I dont have to try it to see that I dont like how it draws. So why would I spend money to confirm what I already can see? Or you know what - lets set up an experiment - you can send me your CV 35/1.4. I'll use it a while - and if after I "actually used it", I'll give you my opinion. That way we will see if what you say holds any water - does one really have to use a lens to see how good it is, or web pics are enough? So, how about it?
Krosya
Konicaze
andredossantos
Well-known
Sure, but I think that happens much less often.
I'm not saying having preferences is wrong or the differences in rendering are some sort of mirage. All I'm saying is that if one is evaluating these two lenses for general purposes IMHO it basically comes down to the speed. If you take the same great photo with both lenses at say, f8, will the 1.2 version really be markedly more interesting? I'm not so sure it would. Otoh will the same great photo from the 1.4 nokton become boring due to the rendering?
I'm not saying having preferences is wrong or the differences in rendering are some sort of mirage. All I'm saying is that if one is evaluating these two lenses for general purposes IMHO it basically comes down to the speed. If you take the same great photo with both lenses at say, f8, will the 1.2 version really be markedly more interesting? I'm not so sure it would. Otoh will the same great photo from the 1.4 nokton become boring due to the rendering?
thomasw_
Well-known
I do sometimes. Especially if it is a lens I plan to use during a day. The bulk has to be worth it.
Two ways I find to aid the f1,2 in use:
1. shoot with both eyes open, using the open non-vf eye to help compose with regard to what is coming/going in terms of the framelines.
2. shoot w/o the hood. the f1,2 is very flare resistant and I have found the vf is much less impacted when the lens does not wear its hood.
Not trying to talk you into the f1,2 nokton Roland, just trying to offer some sol'ns to others who already like her look but want to minimize her eNORMousness.
BTW, I have had a summilux asph and I used it as my normal everywhere lens --- and with its hood on, which I found it req'd in many situations the f1,2 doesn't --- and I found it to be too big for an everyday carry around, much preferring a summicron for everything except very lowlight.
noimmunity
scratch my niche
Polemics aside, there are some good suggestions/observations in this thread (many of which have come up time and time again here, but the repetition of which does not in any way diminish their value).
I use the 35/1.2 almost exclusively w/o hood on the ZI, where it barely blocks the VF at all. The ONLY thing that really keeps me from making it glue-on everyday lens is NOT the size (it just ain't that big) but the weight--which, incidentally, I feel balances supremely well on camera bodies like the R-D1 and the Bessa T (and isn't half bad on the M8, either).
To my mind there is no question that the 1.4 and the 1.2 can co-exist in the same bag. I admire people like Roland and Tom A for consistently arguing in favor of the 35/1,4. In fact, I don't think there is ANY other lens like it (same could be said of the 35/1.2, for that matter) in the sense that it is relatively inexpensive, extremely compact, very fast, highly flare and coma-resistant, takes standard filters...and renders with classical aplomb. Now that doesn't mean it is THE best fast 35 out there. But it does mean an attractive combination of qualities.
I use the 35/1.2 almost exclusively w/o hood on the ZI, where it barely blocks the VF at all. The ONLY thing that really keeps me from making it glue-on everyday lens is NOT the size (it just ain't that big) but the weight--which, incidentally, I feel balances supremely well on camera bodies like the R-D1 and the Bessa T (and isn't half bad on the M8, either).
To my mind there is no question that the 1.4 and the 1.2 can co-exist in the same bag. I admire people like Roland and Tom A for consistently arguing in favor of the 35/1,4. In fact, I don't think there is ANY other lens like it (same could be said of the 35/1.2, for that matter) in the sense that it is relatively inexpensive, extremely compact, very fast, highly flare and coma-resistant, takes standard filters...and renders with classical aplomb. Now that doesn't mean it is THE best fast 35 out there. But it does mean an attractive combination of qualities.
I care
If I'm gonna lug that much weight around, I'd prefer it be an SLR. But that's just me
starsailor
... needs some lenses!
Is there someone who uses the 35er lens(es) with the R3A. Can one get used to the problem with only having the 40 frame? I do not wear glasses so from that point of view I can get really close to the vf. Does it - in the end - lead to pictures which do not use the full format - whis would be a terrible waste (especially in 35mm format)?
starsailor
starsailor
Last edited:
philhirn
Medic
The 35/1.4 is a great allround travel lens. I also have wonderful pictures shot at 1.4, but if I can I prefer to stop down to f2 for smooth bokeh and dof.
Last edited:
Photon42
burn the box
I can only contribute to the Nokton 1.2/35. At the beginning of the year I finally broke down and bought one, knowing already about the size and finder issues.
For me, the Nokton serves to needs: it's my specialist lens for low light shots and it's teams up very well with 2/90 as a two lens kit.
I've actually never used the hood and did not find it a problem. When I saw the comments on blocking the finder so much, I had to just double check it again. At least w/o the hood, it's blocking certainly quite less than one third of the finder.
It's clear that the size of the 1.2/35 is not rangerfinder-like, and size is certainly one field where RF cameras excel. I wouldn't buy it as the first lens, as I believe the size factor needs to be experienced and valued.
Optically, there's little to complain about. from f2 on, I can't normally tell the difference between my Biogon 2/35 and the the Nokton in terms of sharpness. Wide open, the Nokton is a little soft.
For me, the Nokton serves to needs: it's my specialist lens for low light shots and it's teams up very well with 2/90 as a two lens kit.
I've actually never used the hood and did not find it a problem. When I saw the comments on blocking the finder so much, I had to just double check it again. At least w/o the hood, it's blocking certainly quite less than one third of the finder.
It's clear that the size of the 1.2/35 is not rangerfinder-like, and size is certainly one field where RF cameras excel. I wouldn't buy it as the first lens, as I believe the size factor needs to be experienced and valued.
Optically, there's little to complain about. from f2 on, I can't normally tell the difference between my Biogon 2/35 and the the Nokton in terms of sharpness. Wide open, the Nokton is a little soft.
Renzsu
Well-known
It doesn't really bother me to be honest.. although of course it would be nicer is there was no obstruction at all:
kubilai
Established
Is Nokton so fast ?
Is Nokton so fast ?
Sometimes one says Nokton 35 is not exactly f/1.2. Does somebody notice inaccuracy when full open ?
From time to time I am afraid the idea of getting one is coming back, so I look for arguments against it.
Is Nokton so fast ?
Sometimes one says Nokton 35 is not exactly f/1.2. Does somebody notice inaccuracy when full open ?
From time to time I am afraid the idea of getting one is coming back, so I look for arguments against it.
Last edited:
adrianzg
Established
i had the 35mm 1.4 as my first rf lens on a bessa. handles really well. sold it when i got the summicrons as i found it to be a lil soft in the corners and oof areas can be a little harsh. it is still a really good performer. i now have the 35mm 1.2 and there is nothing else like it. the rendering is soft yet high res, i really like how the lens draws, especially at closer distances up to 3-5m.
photos from 1.4:
1.2:
at mfd:
not a very good comparison since it's colour vs b/w but the drawing is quite different.
photos from 1.4:
1.2:
at mfd:
not a very good comparison since it's colour vs b/w but the drawing is quite different.
SteveM(PA)
Poser
I care
If I'm gonna lug that much weight around, I'd prefer it be an SLR. But that's just me
Are there people out there shooting SLRs at 1.2 in bright sun? I know there's no way I can focus through double-stacked ND8s.