Low light lens on M8: 35 1.2 or 50 1.1 (or...)

[fiatlux]

I am already fairly well equipped in terms of lenses (see signature) but I'm tempted to get a low light lens, to compliment the ZM 25 and 50 I use the most on the M8. The 35mm 1.2 would be more complimentary but does not seem as good as the 50 1.1.

What would you recommend on a M8? My main interest is low light photography (available light portraits, etc...) not necessarily the most characterful lens.

TIA

 

[ramosa]

Nocti? Yea, I know it's pricey, but it seems to stay lodged atop my list of impractical wants ...

 

[hteasley]

I have the 1,1/50 Nokton, and I don't use it as much as I might, because it's so large. It's a real drag. I prefer my 1960-mumble Summilux, which I got for around the same price as the Nokton, or the 1,4/50 Canon LTM with adapter. They are much smaller and lighter, and I just use them more.

 

[Doug]

Not having used either, just going on reviews and comments, it appears the 35/1.2 Nokton is extraordinary in performance, while the 50/1.1 has some drawbacks like focus shift and less favorable appearance of out of focus areas. Both are large and heavy.

But you already have pretty fast lenses in the 35/1.7 and 50/2.0, both excellent performers. You could pick up a stop at 50mm by getting a 50/1.5 Nokton, probably a good match for your 35/1.7.

Many of the super-fast lenses have "character" wide open, due to unresolved optical defects, and of course razor-thin depth of field. If you're looking for either or both of these qualities, there are some choices...

But if it's just a matter of low-light, I'd say what you have already can serve you pretty well! Sorry about the GAS leak... :angel:

 

[Peter Klein]

I'd vote for the 35/1.2. Low light situations are often indoors, and you don't have a lot of space to back up. The 50 would probably be too tight on the m8, where it's the equivalent magnifiaction of a 67mm on film. The 35 becomes a 47mm equivalent. Like a 50 on film, with a bit of extra space. The 35/1.2 also has no appreciable backwards focus shift as you stop down. The 50/1.1 has a lot.

 

[tbarker13]

Easy. 35/1.2
At least that's what I'd do.

 

[olelovold]

I would take the 35mm f/1.2 over the 50mm f/1.1 any day of the week. I own both.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

I have both. Easy choice.

One over the other for available light portraits: The 50/1.1. The focal length is more suited to portraits.

 

[fiatlux]

Thanks for the feedback. I've read a bit more and currently favor the 35mm. I was a bit worried by Erwin Puts's fairly negative review but his opinion does not seem to be universally shared.

On the 50mm side, I realised I had an old Jupiter-3 screwed on a Fed somewhere (bought 15y ago for very little money). I briefly tested it on the M8, and it turns out to perform adequately at f/1.5 and 2 (a strong focus shift seems to manifest itself between 2.8 and 5.6), so the 50mm Nokton/Noctilux acquisition syndrome is temporarily under control ;-)

 

[quadtones]

Don't have the 50, but the 35 1.2 is great on both my M8 and M9. No focus shift, sharp, manageable for size, though not small. It also seems to be getting more expensive, now that it's discontinued, but Steve Gandy has some. Well worth it.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Had both out yesterday to the Fine Arts Museum in Richmond, which allows Photography but does not allow you to use tripod, flash or other lighting sources.

35/1.2 Nokton on the M8:

Tiffany Lamps wide-open:



Ballerina, Wide-Open:



Stained Glass, stopped down to F4:



ISO 160 on the M8 for all.

 

[Jason Muelver]

I'll throw something else into the ring. I have the 40 1.4 and really like it. I've done low light portraits all the way thru landscapes with it on my M8. And it's CHEAP for what it is.

f1.4 ISO 320

and stopped down to f2