M6 and Nokton 1,4/35 - any alternatives?

[jamais]

I am still looking for one camera and one lens between 35 and 40 mm - especially low light capable.

- The Nokton 1,2/35 seems to be too bulky and heavy for me
- The Nokton 1,4/40 has a poor bokeh (for me - if it is a matter of taste)

Together with a Nokton 1,4/35 which should have a nicer bokeh than the 1,4/40 I could afford an M6.

Are there any alternatives in this price range you could suggest? Would it make sense to buy a Bessa or M2 instead and spend some more money on the lens?

Thank you...

 

[f16sunshine]

It is My opinion that the Bokeh of the 1.4/35 is very much the same as the 1.4/40. Of course this opinion is from shooting one test "roll" only.

 

[johannielscom]

Get the M6, and an M-Rokkor 40mm f2.0 which was designed for the Minolta CLE. You can hardly do any better than that, and the Rokkor very often isn't that expensive. Still sorry I sold mine...

 

[Svitantti]

M2 + 35/1.7 Ultron, both silver, then a handheld meter, for example Gossen Digiflash.

Right now this would be my setup of choice, as I had M6 + Summicron but it was too expensive for me. I used to shoot with M4 and the Ultron. I kinda miss that setup now. The M4 was M2-style, so it had the old kind of wind lever and wholemetal levers in front 🙂. You could probably get this set at about the same price as the M6 body.

Even cheaper: Some 35/1.8 compact, like the Konica S3, Yashica 35 cc, Canonet 17, ...

Or a Hexar AF or Contax G1 with 35/2 Planar. Btw if interested, I might have a G1-set with 28mm and 45mm for sale. Doenst quite fit the focal lengths though 😉.

 

[Bruin]

Honestly there's not much to choose from in 1.4 land (or faster) for 35/40mm. It comes down to which compromise you're willing to accept.

I recently went through this decision and settled on the Nokton 40 SC. The 35/1.4's barrel distortion bothers me, and it's $200 more than the 40. (Okay, I don't know how much distortion the 40 has, but I haven't seen any examples or read complaints after a lot of research). I love the look from the 35/1.2 but it's too big, heavy, and expensive for me.

Cost, size, weight, and distortion are objective qualities. They can be quantified, and people can decide how much they're comfortable with. Bokeh is quite subjective however, and since that's the biggest complaint about the Nokton 40 it came down what I thought of it. And basically...I'm fine with it, and I know what situations tend to provoke the worst bokeh. Also I picked SC because I want lower contrast and the veiling flare can smooth out the bokeh a bit.

If you're willing to go slower than 1.4, your options expand considerably. How important is speed to you?

 

[sanmich]

canon 35mm f/1.5.

 

[Tom A]

The lens is more important than the body! All the body does is provide a box for the film, some controls for speed and focus. The lens makes the picture! Even a combination like the Bessa R3 and the 40f1.4 is better than a sub standard lens on the best M-body!.
The 40f1.4 Nokton is a very good lens, well balanced between size/speed and it is also sharp, even at f1.4. The slightly "pessimistic" framing that the 40 gives you versus a 35 is not a drawback as, with a rangefinder you tend to shoot a bit more "loose" in regards to framing anyway.
The Nokton 35f1.4 is another choice, disregard statements about its flaws - they are few and rather insignificant unless you shoot architecture and need absolute straight edges.
As per usual, go to Flickr and type in the tags for the lenses you are interested in and see what other shooters have done with them.

 

[funkaoshi]

You really don't have that many choices at f/1.4. You certainly have next to no choices at that price. That lens apparently has a lot of barrel distortion, but i'm not sure that's the worse thing ever. As for 'bokeh', I can also say that I have never had anyone complain about the background blur in my photos. I think if people are spending their time looking at the out of focus area in your photos, you're doing it wrong.

 

[ferider]

The Nokton 35f1.4 is another choice, disregard statements about its flaws - they are few and rather insignificant unless you shoot architecture and need absolute straight edges.

I second that. Great lens. BTW, the 35/1.2 has similar distortion.

The only "better" lens for me would be the 35/1.4 ASPH, but I'm not willing to pay the price tag. Lot's of example shots on flickr (see for instance the M-mount group). I like the Nokton's bokeh, and find it a little smoother than that of the 40. Others complain - but already did so before the lens was even released 😉 The 1.4 Nokton SC has really beautiful and unique color rendering.

The 35/1.7 is another good choice but slower and longer min. focus.

Roland.

 

[Svitantti]

I disagree. The 35/1.4 has obvious distortions especially close up, but also in normal street shooting. Means the lines near the edges will be bent, which is not beautiful. It is quite obvious if you know to look for it OR shoot straight lines very close to the edges.
Of course depens on taste etc. if it matters much or not. I'd like my photos to be geometrically OK. I never noticed that kind of distortions with Ultron, even though it could have some too, but much less.

The Ultron is great. half a stop isn't that bad, but the lens is bigger, has no focus tab and focuses "only" to 0,9 m. It is also not quite as sharp, but sharp enough.

 

[sanmich]

I disagree. The 35/1.4 has obvious distortions especially close up, but also in normal street shooting. Means the lines near the edges will be bent, which is not beautiful. It is quite obvious if you know to look for it OR shoot straight lines very close to the edges.
Of course depens on taste etc. if it matters much or not. I'd like my photos to be geometrically OK. I never noticed that kind of distortions with Ultron, even though it could have some too, but much less.

The Ultron is great. half a stop isn't that bad, but the lens is bigger, has no focus tab and focuses "only" to 0,9 m. It is also not quite as sharp, but sharp enough.

Any example?

 

[sanmich]

I meant....of the distortion...

 

[Svitantti]

Well, this one is stupid but... (0,7 m)

Then in normal use:

(I really am not 100% sure how the bricks should be but I guess they might really be straighter...)
Plus I am not claiming it is really critical or distracting in these particular photos.

I really didn't own the lense for a long, just a couple weeks. Not because of the distortions but I got a really good trade offer that I took. So I just had time to shoot like a couple rolls.

Later I've seen some examples from my friends too, but I think I shouln't link them here as they are not really published I guess.

Anyway from the examples I've seen I can say it can be critical, if you hate bent lines. I think it would be a shame to have great photos that are spoiled because the lines are bananas. Imagine, for example, a photo that you take through an open door or window, having the frames close to the edges of the film frame...

 

[sanmich]

Thanks
On the last one, I don't see anything objectionable but the two first are obvious. The first one particularly so...

 

[Svitantti]

Yup, the first one should be all straight. It is taken 0,7 m and f1.4 I think. At least pretty close.

I really am not sure if the bricks on the second photo really are a bit curved. Actually I should check it sometime 😉.

I've seen photos where a stick of sunshade is a banana just like in my first photo, when it is at exreme left of the frame. I would say the distortion of this lense is obvious, but depens what you shoot (etc.) if it is that bad thing.

 

[principe azul]

I used to shoot with M4 and the Ultron. I kinda miss that setup now.

Me too!

My first setup, bought the lens before I could afford a camera to go on the back. And I shot with that combo for three years. Never found anything lacking with the Ultron, and thought it much better than my (admittedly older design) Nikkor 35/1.4.

 

[Svitantti]

Yeah, I never had anything to complain either. What got me to lose it was the size and that the Nokton was faster and had focus tab and I heard it was a bit sharper. Anyway I went back to Ultron after that. Right now I dont have any Leicas though.

When I get more money again, I will get me some M2 or M4(P) and Ultron I think. Now that I think back, I think my first Leica setup was the best, and I liked incident metering a lot, more than M6. It just felt more "free" than looking at the leds and trying to remember which way to turn the rings and all...

 

[ferider]

My copy of the Ultron had no noticably distortion; the 1.4 Nokton has as your example shows. All I said above was that 1.2 and 1.4 Nokton distort similarly.

Still I prefer the 1.4 Nokton over the Ultron, due to color rendition and close focus. Which makes it easier to use for portraits.

Cheers,

Roland.

 

[sanmich]

I just took a round on Flickr.
The distortion is there from time to time. Nothing horrible though.
What really puzzles me is the high % of unsharp pictures...
I guess people are in love with full bore and forget that it can be tricky.

About distortion again, the color skopar smaples running on the neighbour thread seem pretty neat in that respect.

 

[Svitantti]

About the sharpness and stuff: scanning issues and image processing differs so much, it is actually very hard to tell anything unless there are "original" size files and some info on how it is processed.

For me, the distortion-freeness of the Ultron is a big deal, but I know the Summilux probably isn't free of distortions so why shouldn't one buy the Nokton if they feel like it. I'd get the 'cron instead though.