peepete77
Established
Hi!
I am thinking of trying a Single Coated lens, and I have laid eyes on VL 35/1,4 and 40/1,4. The 40 is cheaper, does this mean lesser quality?
Also, if someone would like to post shots taken with these lenses, it can even be the same in multi-coat edition, please let me see... I am really curious.
I have searched flickr, and seen some good shots, but I am not convinced.
Is the 35 so much better than the 40 as the price "says", and is there really that much differnce between Multi coat and Single Coat?
Thanks, I am anxiousely awaiting answers here... Almost can't wait!
I am thinking of trying a Single Coated lens, and I have laid eyes on VL 35/1,4 and 40/1,4. The 40 is cheaper, does this mean lesser quality?
Also, if someone would like to post shots taken with these lenses, it can even be the same in multi-coat edition, please let me see... I am really curious.
I have searched flickr, and seen some good shots, but I am not convinced.
Is the 35 so much better than the 40 as the price "says", and is there really that much differnce between Multi coat and Single Coat?
Thanks, I am anxiousely awaiting answers here... Almost can't wait!
Sam N
Well-known
If anything the 40mm is of higher quality. The 35mm has a bit of barrel distortion but the lenses are pretty much the same. The 40mm matches much more closely to the conservative 35mm framelines of the R-D1.
I think the 35 is more expensive because it is more complex (1 more element) and that 35mm lenses are much more popular in general.
I think the 35 is more expensive because it is more complex (1 more element) and that 35mm lenses are much more popular in general.
gohaj
Well-known
as the frameline for rd1/rd1s is for 35mm, i suggest you stick to 35mm instead of 40mm.
35mm f1.4 S.C is quite good. Take a look at some of my photos @ http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=58545 if you have time.
35mm f1.4 S.C is quite good. Take a look at some of my photos @ http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=58545 if you have time.
oscroft
Veteran
This Flickr set is from my first session with my 35/1.4 SC.
(It's not on an R-D1, it's on film, but I hope it might still help)
(It's not on an R-D1, it's on film, but I hope it might still help)
Last edited:
sevres_babylone
Veteran
This link will take you to my flickr shots in which I used the Nokton 40mm sc on my R-D1:
http://flickr.com/photos/sevres-babylone/tags/nokton40/
http://flickr.com/photos/sevres-babylone/tags/nokton40/
snip
Established
sevres_babylone
Veteran
Yes, but that has nothing to do with the framelines issues. That is, if you have the 40mm, you use the 35mm framelines.
Burkey
Well-known
Interestingly the 35mm frame lines found with the RD-1 give a fairly accurate FoV for the 40mm Nokton. A number of folks here, including myself, have found this to be true. I have the multi-coat version. It's a great lens.
. . . Burkey
. . . Burkey
yanidel
Well-known
I found the 35mm framelines to be an accurate match for the 40mm Nokton except for the bottom part. Don't know why, but I always got the feeling the bottom part of my pictures came out tighter than I expected.
Apart from that, a wonderful lens for night shots, a bit too tight for daylight IMO.
Apart from that, a wonderful lens for night shots, a bit too tight for daylight IMO.
LCT
ex-newbie
The 35/1.4 SC is very good at f/1.4. Good sharpness, smooth bokeh. Sharper at f/1.4 than my favourite Summilux pre-asph 35/1.4. Flare is rather high though and from f/2.8 to f/5.6 it is difficult to get sharp results. This would be due to focus shift according to some reviewers.