Might be getting an M8 and have a CV 1st lens questions

[Zalman Stern]

The CV 35mm f/1.2 Nokton is an excellent lens. The only real drawback is the size, which is a hair large by rangefinder standards. Minimal focus shift and very sharp. Every so slightly lower on contrast, but that is easy to dial in with digital so it isn't a problem. I actually like the slight "glow" the loss of contrast gives. Appearance of out of focus areas is very pleasant. .7m minimum focusing distance.

(If the 50mm f/1.1 Nokton had the same minimum focus distance and bokeh, it would be amazing too. Alas it does not.)

-Z-

 

[Tom Niblick]

You might consider a 35/2.5 CV. Its tiny, cheap and optically excellent.

My favorite combo is the M8 with a 35/2 Summicron V4. The lens is about a grand more expensive than the CV but it is absolute perfection on a M8.

 

[noimmunity]

What he said. If you like 35 in full frame, the 28/1.9 must be the ideal M8 lens. No focus shift, no distortion, nice bokeh wide open and very sharp at f4.

Not to disagree, but the OP should know that the 28/1.9 is prone to flare, esp. with the use of the UV/IR cut filter for the M8.

Within the parameters given, one will have to compromise somewhere...It really depends on what kind of compromise the OP wants to make. Enjoy!

 

[dfoo]

I find all of the CV lenses I've used prone to flare. 21/4, 28/1.9, 28/3.5, 35/1.4. In contrast, I've rarely flared my Leica lenses.

 

[jaapv]

As the 35/2.5 Color-Skopar flares, another contender for M8 standard lens. Not too bad, about the same level as the old Leica Summaron 2.8/35, and certainly acceptable for the M8. Only don't do what I did yesterday - shoot it against the Summicron 35/2.0 asph on an M9...🙁 That will show up where the price difference comes from.

 

[ferider]

I think the sometimes reported 28/1.9 flare is part of CV's sample variation, Jon 🙁

Sean Reid had similar experience with two 35/1.7 Ultrons he tested. One flared, the other didn't. My current 28/1.9 doesn't.

 

[ChrisC]

I too highly recommend that you subscribe to Sean Reid's 'Reid Reviews' [and yes it will more than pay for itself].

And to save repeating myself about the lens-for-life I bought; you should read this thread :

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=93561

............ Chris

 

[Keyne]

I have been reading the Sean reviews and they have been very helpful. So here is a question... what about choosing between these two:

- Lieca Summicron 40 f2 (the lens used on the CL). Its Leica but has the finicky filter connection with a 39mm filter and would use the approximate 35mm frame lines...

Or

- Zeiss 35 2.8 Biogon. Its not a Leica and its slower... but based on that link from Chris C it looks like an amazing lens.

 

[ferider]

If you consider the Summicron-C, do yourself a favor and get the CLE Rokkor (the one with straight cam). Same diagram as Summicron-C, multi-coated, built like the v3 Summicron (i've had both), good performer, 40.5mm filters, generic hoods applicable - all around a super lens.

I would pick the CLE Rokkor over the Biogon-C any day. Plus you can buy two Rokkors for the price of one 35/2.8.

 

[The Meaness]

For your needs, the CV 40/1.4 sounds ideal. Cheap, fast, normal FOV, and a really great performer. Wish I bought it over the 40 'cron.

 

[jsrockit]

Wish I bought it over the 40 'cron.

Huh? Why?

 

[The Meaness]

I didn't mesh well with the cron, and I wonder if the extra stop and different rendering would have won me over. I tried quite a bit, because you can't beat the size and I loved carrying around a Leica - I just couldn't get into a rhythm. I didn't mean to imply it's a bad lens - it's certainly not. I got one or two winners out of it, also.

R-D1, 40/2

 

[ChrisC]

Lieca Summicron 40 f2 (the lens used on the CL).......s..

Or

- Zeiss 35 2.8 Biogon...... it looks like an amazing lens.

Hi - I tried over a fairly long period to get a good 40 Cron, or a 40CLE Rokkor. I even bought a 'mint' 'CLE' Rokkor from a 'respected' European dealer; it turned out to be a dirty CL Rokkor complete with thumb print on the lens, a host of misfocusing issues, and ghastly 'glowing' veiling haze in the highlights. I bought the C-Biogon at a time when the independent information available about it was scarce, but I speculated that it should be a good lens; I was rewarded by it being a fantastic lens to replace my 35mm Colour Skopar.

I actually do understand the attraction of the 40mm focal length, but I'm really glad that I opted for a fantastic 35mm with it's matched framelines, easy coding, and no odd-thread or replacement hood issues. The C-Biogon with a Megapearls 1.15 variable dioptre magnifier [to get the M8's 24mm twinned frameline out of my field of view] is a great combination for me.

[Read Sean's '35mm lenses on an M9' - Reid Reviews]

............... Chris

 

[Keyne]

Thanks for all the help! So many great options. Reading all the comments and other threads has been a lot of fun.

Welll I found a used (rated a 9) Zeiss 35 2.8 Biogon from a reputable dealer for less than the price of a new CV28 1.9 Ultron with adaptor. Its a little slow but I shoot a lot outside at non golden times (e.g. typically midafternoon) so it should be fine for now. Also, the price seemed really good and they have a return policy for orders placed during the holidays (now through 12/24) can be returned by Jan 17th, so I pulled the trigger on that before it sold. Now I just need to wait for the M8.