santela
Established
So, I currently own the 1.2ii and the ZM35/2, both are fantastic lenses, but I find myself missing the compactness of the 35/1.4. I had that lens, sold it, bought it again, and then sold it again. Now when I look at the pictures I've taken with it, sure there are some left to be desired, but nothing that killed the shot. There wasn't a moment I wished I had a better lens with me. Okay, maybe the purple fringing could use some work, and the distortion sure doesn't help when shooting architectures, but that's about it! The bokeh really isn't that bad, and since I shoot film almost exclusively, sharpness is mostly hidden by the grains. The extra speed of the 1.2 really doesn't make that much of a difference under low light either... I also have a T3 which could come in handy at that focal length.
So... If I sell the 1.2ii and the ZM, then just get the 1.4, will I regret it? Will I be happy with it? After all, rangefinders are all about compactness, right? 35mm is an important focal length for me, so I wanna make sure I don't make any stupid decisions... Any comments or suggestions appreciated.
So... If I sell the 1.2ii and the ZM, then just get the 1.4, will I regret it? Will I be happy with it? After all, rangefinders are all about compactness, right? 35mm is an important focal length for me, so I wanna make sure I don't make any stupid decisions... Any comments or suggestions appreciated.
But you sold it, twice????????
Clovis
Established
If you owned it twice, you should reflect on why you sold it twice. If the same reasons don't bother you any more I'd say you'll be fine re-buying it the third time.
It sounds like you are pretty closed to convinced from your post, I'd say do it.
It sounds like you are pretty closed to convinced from your post, I'd say do it.
santela
Established
I know, I know... the reason I bought it the second time is that at the time I don't own the 1.2 yet, and my fastest lens was a f/2, and I wanted something faster to shoot inside the mosques when I went to Turkey. As soon as I got back a friend wanted get it off my hands so I sold it and got the 1.2...
santela
Established
The first time is because I acquired the ZM, and the second time I acquired the 1.2... I think for me the 1.4 is "good enough", and the compactness is a real advantage over the 1.2, while the extra stop is pretty useful against the ZM...
I guess the question is should I go for a lens that is "good enough" but very compact? Or should I keep a great lens (1.2) and live with the weight?
santela
Established
I think GAS is what kept me away from this lens...
Joosep
Well-known
Love my 35 1.4. Only lens I would change it to, would be a ASPH Summilux.
But Im a poor student, so Ill keep on using this beatiful lens.
But Im a poor student, so Ill keep on using this beatiful lens.
haempe
Well-known
I would go the compact and good enough route.
If you keep the Biogon you have still a fantastic, nearly distortion-free 35mm.
And in low-light the slight distortion of the Nokton 1.4 bothered (me) nearly never.
Keep your 1.2 and get the CV 35mm 2.5 for when you need compactness.
Great vs Good enough, your words, and you already have the great one, plus one more to boot, also great (the Biogon).
lcpr
Well-known
I'd live with the weight.
umcelinho
Marcelo
don't get it again. after a month with it you will remember why you sold it twice already and will regret having sold both the planar and the 1.2.
if you miss compactness, sell the 35/2 and get a 35/2.8. it'll be compact enough and for low light you'll still have the 1.2. this way you have the advantage of having the best from each lens... sharp and compact 2.8, sharp and fast 1.2.
i had a 1.4 sc, then got a 1.2, traded the 1.4 sc for a kowa six but regretted it afterwards (both missed the compactness+speed and the kowa six wasnt in good shape). so i got a 1.4 mc from a friend, used it for a while before undoing the kowa six trade and getting my 1.4 sc back. sold the mc to a friend and now am traying to sell the sc locally.
if you want speed and compactness, i'd recommend the 1.7 ultron. i never use it with the hood, it's not necessary. a tad faster than f2, not as fast as 1.4. but somewhat compact, good ergonomics, much sharper and better bokeh (more neutral) than the 1.4... the downside would be the 1m mfd, i was lucky to have bought a lens modified to focus down to 70cm.
in real life use, i have the v4 summicron with the rectangular hood on (size wise, should be as big as the zeiss 35/2) mounted on my m4 most of the time, keeping the 1.2 for low light situations. the 1.7 ultron i have on my r-d1 almost all the time, and it's more or less a backup to the summicron, or for when i just want to take one 35mm lens and i feel i'll need the extra half stop.
if you miss compactness, sell the 35/2 and get a 35/2.8. it'll be compact enough and for low light you'll still have the 1.2. this way you have the advantage of having the best from each lens... sharp and compact 2.8, sharp and fast 1.2.
i had a 1.4 sc, then got a 1.2, traded the 1.4 sc for a kowa six but regretted it afterwards (both missed the compactness+speed and the kowa six wasnt in good shape). so i got a 1.4 mc from a friend, used it for a while before undoing the kowa six trade and getting my 1.4 sc back. sold the mc to a friend and now am traying to sell the sc locally.
if you want speed and compactness, i'd recommend the 1.7 ultron. i never use it with the hood, it's not necessary. a tad faster than f2, not as fast as 1.4. but somewhat compact, good ergonomics, much sharper and better bokeh (more neutral) than the 1.4... the downside would be the 1m mfd, i was lucky to have bought a lens modified to focus down to 70cm.
in real life use, i have the v4 summicron with the rectangular hood on (size wise, should be as big as the zeiss 35/2) mounted on my m4 most of the time, keeping the 1.2 for low light situations. the 1.7 ultron i have on my r-d1 almost all the time, and it's more or less a backup to the summicron, or for when i just want to take one 35mm lens and i feel i'll need the extra half stop.
---f
-
1.2 was too heavy, the PII 2.5 is small, and really sharp!!!!, but can be slow. The Nokton 1.4 is really, really decent especially compared to being an 1/8th of the Lux cost.
back alley
IMAGES
get the 40/1.4...you will be much happier.
mile
Member
Sell the ZM, keep the Nokton and add a Color Skopar. IMO that's the only sane combination, if you must have two 35s: It will give you the opportunity to choose between ultrasmooth ultrafast but bulky lens or a ultraportable ultracompact and nontheless still very good lens with ok speed. Bye, M.
kyubophoto
Newbie
back alley
IMAGES
i think it's a better lens and it's cheaper than the 35.
and i love the small difference between 35 and 40...
JayM
Well-known
Only lens I'd trade the 35 f/1.4 for is the 28 f/2 
ferider
Veteran
Note that the 35/1.2 has as much distortion as the 35/1.4. Just saying.
The 35/1.4 is a great all around lens for me. I like the fact that it fits in an ER case, that framelines remain uncovered, the min. focus distance, etc.
BTW, the 40 is slightly different, a bit sharper in the corners, less distortion and and a bit rougher bokeh. Hard to tell the difference in practice though.
Roland.
The 35/1.4 is a great all around lens for me. I like the fact that it fits in an ER case, that framelines remain uncovered, the min. focus distance, etc.
BTW, the 40 is slightly different, a bit sharper in the corners, less distortion and and a bit rougher bokeh. Hard to tell the difference in practice though.
Roland.
santela
Established
Thanks guys, a lotta good suggestions! But I'm probably not closer to making up my mind. My goal is to slim down my gear and have only one 35 lens. The 1.2 is great except the size, the Biogon is great except the speed, and the 1.4 is mediocore with good compactness. Tough call. I can see myself banging my head to the wall for selling two fantastic lenses though...