Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
I had ISO 100 film loaded, so couldn't have gotten this shot with a slower 35 than the Nokton.
More Nokton shots from me here (including a few that show the barrel distortion).
That's why I carry two bodies with different films.
And if you try to shoot leveled (sometimes it's nice too...) the 35 Nokton has VERY noticeable barrel distortion ALWAYS...
For the rest of the situations, the Nokton is OK... In any case, my Nokton 40 1.4 lacks that distortion and has the same speed...
Maybe you have one image with straight lines parallel to borders showing its distortion...
Cheers,
Juan
kzphoto
Well-known
From what I've seen of the 35/1.4 & 40/1.4 CV lenses, I'd love to own one. Beautiful out of focus areas on the 40/1.4 and the color rendition is really similar to my 50/1.4 Leica lens.
Whatever lens you get, enjoy it and let us see how it goes!
Whatever lens you get, enjoy it and let us see how it goes!
My mistake. The film was Provia 400X. I was carrying two bodies - one loaded with Provia 400X and one loaded with Provia 100F. There are photos that show the distortion at the link in my previous post.
I've owned, and sold, three CV 35/2.5 lenses (two in SC mount, and one in M-mount). Its a nice performer, but to me it lacked character. The Nokton 35/1.4 has its faults, but a lack of character is not one of them.
To each his own hey
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Jon, beautiful composition and exposure!
Cheers,
Juan
Cheers,
Juan
exe163
Established
I don't quite understand the difference between old school and modern lens rendering of the image. Some examples in BW and color would be greatly appreciated. Oh, what group do the modern leica lenses considered to be in?
After reading the heated discussion about the two lenses, I think I will go with the Nokton if go the "modern" route. I have a 16-85vr on my DSLR, which is a very sharp lens but slow. While it is a very good walk around lens, I never find it too interesting to shoot with.
EDIT: How do you use a 40mm effectively? None of the M Leicas has frame lines for it.
After reading the heated discussion about the two lenses, I think I will go with the Nokton if go the "modern" route. I have a 16-85vr on my DSLR, which is a very sharp lens but slow. While it is a very good walk around lens, I never find it too interesting to shoot with.
EDIT: How do you use a 40mm effectively? None of the M Leicas has frame lines for it.
Last edited:
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Most people end up buying the Nokton 1.4... Here's what people think:
The 1.2 is more than I want to pay... The 1.4 is fast anyway... The 2.5 is slow.
Then they end up without a real great fast lens with beautiful image (1.2 aspherical) and without a real small lens (2.5) and go for a lens with barrel distortion. "But it's 1.4".
My case was: for small and very sharp I got the 28 3.5, which is the smallest 28 of any brand and the smallest Voigtländer lens ever. For speed I got the 40 Nokton 1.4 which yet is small enough for my style of shooting, has no distortion, and is very sharp even at 1.4.
Normally I carry two or three cameras with lenses on... As I've said other times, if I used just one lens and camera, I'd accept the extra size and weight of the 1.2... I think it's the best 35 ever by any brand. And it's amazingly good against flare too: images including sources of light are amazing. I like its out of focus rendering more than that of Zeiss and Leica 35's 1.4 and 2...
Of course the Nokton 1.4 can make beautiful photographs.
Cheers,
Juan
The 1.2 is more than I want to pay... The 1.4 is fast anyway... The 2.5 is slow.
Then they end up without a real great fast lens with beautiful image (1.2 aspherical) and without a real small lens (2.5) and go for a lens with barrel distortion. "But it's 1.4".
My case was: for small and very sharp I got the 28 3.5, which is the smallest 28 of any brand and the smallest Voigtländer lens ever. For speed I got the 40 Nokton 1.4 which yet is small enough for my style of shooting, has no distortion, and is very sharp even at 1.4.
Normally I carry two or three cameras with lenses on... As I've said other times, if I used just one lens and camera, I'd accept the extra size and weight of the 1.2... I think it's the best 35 ever by any brand. And it's amazingly good against flare too: images including sources of light are amazing. I like its out of focus rendering more than that of Zeiss and Leica 35's 1.4 and 2...
Of course the Nokton 1.4 can make beautiful photographs.
Cheers,
Juan
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Older lenses tend to have lower contrast and to be somewhat soft wide open. As the aperture is closed resolution increases, in the better cases to beyond the limits of what even a very good film can record. The low contrast is mainly for two reasons. First, coatings have improved, reducing veiling flare. Second, the lenses are not as well corrected as modern lenses, especially for spherical aberration. Older lenses often (though not always) render out-of focus information quite beautifully, and the low contrast can be helpful in getting good shadow detail. Wide open, they can have a "dreamy" look that many like.
Modern lenses are usually better corrected. They generally have higher contrast, especially at wide apertures, and higher resolution at wide apertures (f/4 and wider).
The modern Leica lenses are, generally, hyper-modern. They approach their optimal performance by f/2.8 or even by f/2, with extraordinary clarity and resolution even wide open. In technical terms, they are phenomenal. For taking pictures, many prefer the look of the modern lenses, and others prefer older lenses.
Probably the pinnacle of old-school lens design is the 50mm Leica Summicron, in the collapsible version or the rigid or dual-range versions. I have a 50 mm Summicron with the current optical formula (a modern lens -- yet the oldest design in the current Leica lineup, I think). In color, I prefer it to the older versions, but the older versions do look better for black and white work, in my opinion. The differences are not so large that I see a reason to trade, but some here have more than one 50. Some have several more than one...
Arguably the pinnacle of the modern school is the current 50mm Summilux ASPH. This is probably the highest-performing standard lens ever manufactured for 35mm format, at all apertures and over a range of subject distances.
If you search for these lenses there are whole threads, with example photos. There's a very long thread that compares the various versions of the 50mm Summicron (and some others), with many many examples, here.
Last edited:
exe163
Established
Juan, I appreciate your input. But sadly unlike you, I do not have money yet for two Leicas. When I do, I would just get a 35'cron and call it a day. I am also thinking about the 1.7 Ultron as well.
Thanks Juan
Just two comments
* The Nokton 35/1.2 and Nokton 35/1.4 have about the *same* amount of barrel distortion, but no-one ever mentions the barrel distortion of the faster Nokton.
* The size difference between the M-mount Skopar 35/2.5 and Nokton 35/1.4 was a lot less than I expected. They're both small, and the Nokton gives you almost two extra stops for not much extra weight or size.
Last edited:
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Thanks Juan
Just two comments
* The Nokton 35/1.2 and Nokton 35/1.4 have about the *same* amount of barrel distortion, but no-one ever mentions the barrel distortion of the faster Nokton.
* The size difference between the M-mount Skopar 35/2.5 and Nokton 35/1.4 was a lot less than I expected. They're both small, and the Nokton gives you almost two extra stops for not much extra weight or size.
Hi Jon,
The 1.4 is near twice as long as the 2.5P in LTM (a bit less than twice...) The 2.5 makes a lot more pocketable camera, and the 1.4 doesn't... The 1.4 isn't huge, but it's normal sized and in a completely different size level... The 2.5 is a tiny, flat lens... You're talking about the M mount one...
Cheers,
Juan
Hi Juan,
Yes I'm talking about the M-mount Skopar 35/2.5. The OP said he was looking at the CV Nokton 35/1.4 like new for $450, CV Skopar 35/2.5 at $350 new, or the 35/1.7 at around $400 used. So I assumed he was looking at the M-mount version of the Skopar. Small size wasn't one of the OP's requirements
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
I don't use Leicas, I use Bessas (3) and CV lenses (3) and only one Leica lens...
Tom Abrahamsson says the 2.5 is sharper than the 1.4 and rivals the 35 Leica Summicron, if you want to call it a day... But he also says sometimes speed is required and a faster lens can see more use: if you take just one lens with you, a fast lens is necessary especially if you have slow film only... As I said before, that's why we end up with more than one lens: no one can be the best in all fields...
If you don't prefer a very small lens, and if you don't care about barrel distortion, the 35 1.4 is your lens.
I prefer the equally fast 40 without distortion, or the flat 2.5 with faster or pushed film if necessary. My best lens in 35mm is the 28 3.5: It's the smallest and sharpest, and I seldom shoot with faster apertures than f/5.6... Normally by f/8 and f/11. Seriously: with f/2.5 and fast film pushed I can shoot handheld inside a church... With your M4 and ISO400 film on a sunny day, you won't use (unless with filters for it) a 1.4 lens at faster apertures than f/8, and with ISO100 film not wider than f/4... And that at your max. speed of 1/1000...
Again, you'll enjoy your 35 1.4 for sure, and you'll prefer other 28-35-40 lenses in some time...
Cheers,
Juan
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Hi Juan,
Yes I'm talking about the M-mount Skopar 35/2.5. The OP said he was looking at the CV Nokton 35/1.4 like new for $450, CV Skopar 35/2.5 at $350 new, or the 35/1.7 at around $400 used. So I assumed he was looking at the M-mount version of the Skopar. Small size wasn't one of the OP's requirements
The highest barrel distortion in all the lenses mentioned, either...
Cheers,
Juan
Juan, the two times I've had the pleasure of meeting Tom A, the lens I saw on his M2 both times was a Nokton 35/1.4
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
I'll say the right words for ending this (part of the) thread:
The Nokton 35 1.4 is the best option.
Cheers,
Juan
The Nokton 35 1.4 is the best option.
Cheers,
Juan
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Juan, the two times I've had the pleasure of meeting Tom A, the lens I saw on his M2 both times was a Nokton 35/1.4
I believe you... But its barrel distortion remains just as horrible as before...
Cheers,
Juan
kzphoto
Well-known
What he said.
Juan, you clearly don't like the barrel distortion of the Nokton 35/1.4 (and by extension would not like the barrel distortion of the Nokton 35/1.2 either). Others don't find it a problem. No need to keep harping on about it.
To the OP, the best thing to do is to check out the thousands of photos taken with each lens in the M-mount group on flickr and decide for yourself which lens gives the results you want. Click on the link below, then scroll to the bottom of the page to select a manufacturer, then select a lens in the manufacturer's list.
http://www.flickr.com/groups/m-mount/
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
I guess this is, as most things in photography and in life, a personal taste thing... I heard Tom A. stating that the distortion thing is sometimes exaggerated... Maybe it affects me more than to other people... For example I've found out that I'm extremely tolerant to vignetting, and sometimes I even prefer vignetted images that other people consider horrible...
The truth is that any CV lens is a wonderful lens without exception.
So, as I said all I had to, goodbye to this thread... And good night: it's 10AM and I haven't gone to sleep...
Cheers,
Juan
The truth is that any CV lens is a wonderful lens without exception.
So, as I said all I had to, goodbye to this thread... And good night: it's 10AM and I haven't gone to sleep...
Cheers,
Juan
Last edited:
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Jon, I hope my dreams tonight (today) don't look as through a 35 1.4...
Good night,
Juan
Good night,
Juan