kshapero
South Florida Man
Besides focal length I do not see any difference in IQ, etc between these two lenses. Obviously I am comparing the MC to MC or SC to SC. But what's up? The price sure is different.
kshapero
South Florida Man
Wow a 109 lookers and no comments. Amazing. Maybe the Chief Bartender knows the answer. After all....
can't help you, I have never shot the 35...
Bruin
Noktonian
I've owned the 40 SC and 35 MC, though not simultaneously. The 40 gave a more modern rendering, had less barrel distortion, and was (dare I say) a bit sharper. The 35 was designed specifically to emulate a classic lens, and it added more "character" to my shots. Focus shift on the 40 is noticeably less than the 35, too. Bokeh was a perhaps a touch less harsh on the 35. I couldn't tell the difference between SC/MC in actual use.
The 5mm FL difference WAS a big deal to me when using 35mm framelines. I tried the 40 as a cheap and compact one-lens solution, but the framing inaccuracy really got to me. The 35 was a lot of fun, but its idiosyncrasies and I began favoring a 28/50 combo anyways. Lately I came back to 35mm but with the f1.2 beast... truly a legendary lens.
The 5mm FL difference WAS a big deal to me when using 35mm framelines. I tried the 40 as a cheap and compact one-lens solution, but the framing inaccuracy really got to me. The 35 was a lot of fun, but its idiosyncrasies and I began favoring a 28/50 combo anyways. Lately I came back to 35mm but with the f1.2 beast... truly a legendary lens.
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
I use the 40f1.4 (SC or MC) on a M2, claw filed down to give me 35mm frame. By using the inside of the 35 frames it is pretty close. Becomes a great "walk about" lens - one camera/one lens.
The 35f1.4 (mine are SC's) are my most used 35's - more or less permanently on a MP 0.58 and/or another M2 - particularly as a travel lens (backed up by a 21 and a 50 on sep. bodies)
I dont see much difference between them. Both lenses are very good, does exactly what I want them to do.
In bl/w the SC version gives a bit more shadow detail, but also can blow the highlights a bit.
Probably could survive with just the M2 and a 40f1.4 - but dont have to.
The 35f1.4 (mine are SC's) are my most used 35's - more or less permanently on a MP 0.58 and/or another M2 - particularly as a travel lens (backed up by a 21 and a 50 on sep. bodies)
I dont see much difference between them. Both lenses are very good, does exactly what I want them to do.
In bl/w the SC version gives a bit more shadow detail, but also can blow the highlights a bit.
Probably could survive with just the M2 and a 40f1.4 - but dont have to.
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
Nokton 35f1.4 SC on M2. At f1.4. Kodak XX rated at 320.
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
Nokton 40mm f1.4 MC at f1.4. The focus is on the white feather. M2 and Kodak XX in Vestal Divided D76.
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
From my first trials with the Nokton 40f1.4 SC. This was in Sienna, Italy and the backlight was so strong that I could barely see the "postie". Diden't realize that he had the cigarette in his mouth until I printed the neg. for the first time.
M2, 40f1.4 SC and TriX in D76
kshapero
South Florida Man
Great shots. What frame would come up with the 40 on an M3?
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Likely only the 50 frame since that always shows anyway. The have a lens show the 135 frame it would have to be a 35mm mount and the 90 is a specific mount too.
kshapero
South Florida Man
The 50 would be fine.
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
With the M3 finder you can use the outside frame of the permanent 50 frame as a reference. Works fine - it is better to get a bit more than you anticipate anyway. You can always crop - adding is more difficult!
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I have the 40 and like it a lot. Have only seen photos with the 35 and it looks very similar. On the M9, 50mm framelines come up, but 35 fit it better for my eyes ... I should file the nubbin.