Help me choose a normal for my R4a

[barefoot]

I'm enjoying my new Bessa-21/4 combo, and I'll be able to get some film developed tomorrow (and I'll post some soon after).

However, I'll need a fast, small normal lens, too and am considering the following: (only 35's and 40's - 50mm is a little tite for me. 28mm may be a possibity later, but only if I decide there's a middle ground that I'm not covering with a 21 and a 35/40)

• CV 35/2.5 PII - inexpensive, very small
• CV 35/1.4 - not as inexpensive, but faster
• CV 40/1.4 - inexpensive and fast, but doesn't match framelines on R4a

As far as I know, any of these will do what I need, but I'd like to know what y'all think about how these lenses work for the kind of shooting that I do, which is about 80% B&W, mostly land/cityscape plus a little street.

So .. is the 2-stop advantage of the 35/1.4 valuable - or is the character of the PII something to consider? Does anybody have any positive or negative experience using non-matched frame lines? Anything else I should consider before ordering?

 

[chris00nj]

I had the 35/2.5 and while I liked it, I prefer my Canon 35/2. It's the same size and a 1/2 stop faster.

jiri_e has one for sale on eBay

 

[payasam]

I have no complaints about my CV 35/1.7.

 

[kshapero]

I have no complaints about my CV 35/1.7.

I have had almost all the CV 35mm lenses (not the f1.2) and I prefer the 35mm/f1.7.

 

[Pickett Wilson]

Another vote for the CV 35 1.7. Of several 35's I've had or tried, this is the one I prefer.

 

[barefoot]

I hadn't really considered he CV 35/1.7 and Canon 35/2 as options because they're not readily available (I'm not fond of ebay for purchases like this), but for the sake of discussion (those of you who suggested them), tell me what you like about them ...

Any comments about the lenses I listed above?

 

[kshapero]

CV 35mm/f1.7. Great ergonomics (no annoying tab), small, wonderful contrast. Worth looking for one. Ebay works when the seller is a 99% or better.IMHO.

 

[david.elliott]

I've only used the 35/2.5, but I absolutely love it.

I started a thread where I posted a bunch of photos with it and others have shared photos as well. You may want to check it out - http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=74668&highlight=color+skopar

Also, you should check out the flickr m-mount group for photos with each of the lenses. http://www.flickr.com/groups/m-mount/

With regard to a two stop advantage - if you need it, you need it. Personally, I use the 35/2.5 and tri-x at iso 1250 (developed in diafine) and find it easily covers any low light situations I find myself in, the darkest of which is probably a dimly lit restaurant.

Sometimes you need a couple extra stops. You can achieve that with fast glass, faster film, or skipping your coffee. 🙂

Best of luck!

 

[petebown]

...and another vote for the 35mm f1.7. It's my main lens on the R2A.

It is worth fitting a 39mm vented hood on it though as it can flare in difficult lighting conditions.

I've also owned the older 35mm f2.5 non pancake. This was also an excellent lens. The bokeh of the f1.7 is better.

 

[barefoot]

Wow! So nobody has anything good to say about the Noktons?

 

[back alley]

the 35 and 40 1.4s are a little more controversial than the 2.5 because some think that the bokeh is bad.
i think that is bunk but then i tend to look at the subject of my photos and not the backgrounds.
the 2.5 is a very good lens.
i have not tried the 1.7 but then that is not on your list anyway.

if you don't need the speed get the 2.5, if you need the speed get the 40 as it is a it cheaper.

 

[BillBingham2]

I loved my 40/1.4 and used it with 35mm frame lines on my M6 and M4-P without issues. I replaced a 35/1.7 for a bit more speed and newer build quality, not that I ever had a problem with the 35/1.7 ever.

As you love the CV 21, I doubt you would have any problem with the build on the 35/1.7. Do get the vented lens hood (HeavyStar on Evil Bay) it looks and works great. You will need another LTM to M adapter so figure that into the cost too.

One other thing that could be small to you but was big to me, the 40 has a focusing tab. I really liked mine it on my 'Cron so it was part of the reason to move from the 35/1.7 (nice metal ring all the way around) to the 40/1.4. If you have the new 21/4 they will look like a matched set!

B2 (;->

 

[notturtle]

I was impressed with the performance of my new 35 2.5 pancake and thats compared to ZMs and Leica lenses. Its tiny so will leave your finder relatively clear. Its contrast is a far better match for your 21 F4 than the 35 1.7 too. If you feel like something in between at a later date a CV 28 3.8 or 25 F4 will fill the gap and ocne again these are similar contrast to what you have now and they are all tiny with the same handling (esp if you 21 is the P version)

 

[watchyourbackgrounds]

standing up for the 40

standing up for the 40

It's not that "nobody has anything good to say about the Nokton" as much as "the 35s have been around longer and everybody has one because most of the cameras have 35 framelines, and maybe the RELATIVELY few 40 users out there may not be posting here."
I'm guessing that the quality of the lenses is not hit-and-miss; that Senor Kobayashi and the lens-designers know exactly what they're doing when they design the lenses, and that the 40 came out the way he wanted it. So...my next lens is going to be the 40, and I'm confident that none of the lousy pix I take with it will be blameable on the lens!🙂

 

[watchyourbackgrounds]

Oh..the R4

Oh..the R4

Aha. Well, no 40 framelines. Still, with 35 and 50, you don't need the 40 lines. So...I'd still consider it.

 

[BillBingham2]

Just use the 35 frame lines and enjoy! You will be fine.

B2 (;->

 

[notturtle]

In keeping with keeping things simple, having the correct frame lines makes life and awful lot simpler IMO. I know opinions vary, but with a 21 as your only lens, a 28 or 35 makes a great deal more sense than a 40 as the next one IMO. Seems daft to choose a lens without frame lines are your first non-superwide lens!

 

[peter_n]

... the kind of shooting that I do, which is about 80% B&W, mostly land/cityscape plus a little street.

The CV 35/2.5 PII as you don't seem to need the speed. I used the optically almost identical CV 35/2.5 PI for years and thought it was a tremendous lens. Contrasty so you will never need a yellow filter, but an excellent all-round lens. It now focuses down to 0.7M (mine only went to 0.9M) and takes 39mm filters.

 

[barefoot]

Well, I'm kinda leaning towards the 35/1.4 because 1) even at $150 or so more, it's still not particularly expensive, 2) though I probably wouldn't often need the extra 2 stops of speed, it would still be nice to have, 3) I'm thinking that for the extra money, I might be getting a little extra QC, don't know if that's really true, but it might make me feel better. 4) it's smaller than the f1.7 Ultron (though I did check and Adorama has a silver one (but I prefer black))
I was wondering if I would get a lot of 'bad bokeh' feedback on the Noktons, and that didn't develop, unless you count the second-hand reports. I've seen some 40/1.4 and 35/1.4 w/o photos, and they don't look bad to me so.... I'll think on this for another week or so (until the beginning of the month $$).

Thanks for all the discussion!

 

[mfogiel]

Take a look at some articles in this blog by Matt Alofs, who is a fellow here BTW. He seems to be enjoying the lens despite the shortcomings:
http://www.1point4photography.com/blog/category/optics/cv-35-f14-sc/