sojournerphoto
Veteran
I' thinking of getting a faster 35 to supplement my 2/35 Biogon.
Can anyone tell me about their experience with the above lenses and how they render. Wide open is more important here, though if I got one of the 1.4s they both seem pretty compact so could get more use.
Any other lenses can also be thrown into the mix, but I didn't buy the last current Summilux 35 I was allowed to play with.
Thanks
Mike
Can anyone tell me about their experience with the above lenses and how they render. Wide open is more important here, though if I got one of the 1.4s they both seem pretty compact so could get more use.
Any other lenses can also be thrown into the mix, but I didn't buy the last current Summilux 35 I was allowed to play with.
Thanks
Mike
magicianhisoka
Well-known
Other than the obvious frameline factor, I find the 35 1.2 superior in every way except size and weight
I went with the 35mm 1.2 and I'm happy with it
I went with the 35mm 1.2 and I'm happy with it
sojournerphoto
Veteran
Thanks MH, I think I might give it a go.
Mike
Mike
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
got one for sale in the classifieds. It's very fine lens, though rather large.
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
+1 for the 35/1.2 - it is large, but only in the world of rangefinder lenses. And the weight is worth it. It has a very special look wide open and sharpens nicely stopped down. Also, no focus shift, which the C/V 35/1.4 and 40/1.4 have between 1.4 and 5.6.
Chris Bail
Regular Guy
I can't speak for the 35/1.4 or 40/1.4, but I can say that the 35/1.2 is fantastic. Large for an RF lens, but well built and a joy to use.
Edit: Also the 35/1.2 in the classifieds is less expensive than you're likely to find it on the auction site. I know I paid more for my 35/1.2 v1 in the same stated condition just a couple months ago.
Edit: Also the 35/1.2 in the classifieds is less expensive than you're likely to find it on the auction site. I know I paid more for my 35/1.2 v1 in the same stated condition just a couple months ago.
Last edited:
Share: