Nokton 1.4 - 35 or 40?

J

jamais

Established
Local time
8:51 PM
Joined
Apr 3, 2009
Messages
172
I would like an 1.4 lens mainly for low light portraits - of either 35mm or 40mm focal length. A Summilux is out of my price range so I am thinking about buying a Nokton.

The 35 is more the fov i am looking for but the 40 is appealing because it could replace my Jupiter-8. My camera is an M4-P (first batch) and I am not sure about using the 40 with 35mm framelines. IQ wise I expect the quality of either lens exceed my skills by far.

Any recommendations?
 
I'd generally go with the 35, if only because a lot more cameras have a 35mm frameline than a 40mm frameline. Anyway, why replace the J-8?
 
I like the 40mm length.
Be aware that earlier lenses may have parts that are no longer available. Just went through that with a damaged mount.
 
I have the Nokton 40mm which I use when I need f1.4. It fits the 35mm frame lines of my Zeiss Ikon perfectly. To be honest, I cannot tell the difference between the 40mm and 35mm field of view when actually photographing.
 
the 40mm will bring out 50mm framelines... I think...
The 35 is a 35, wide. I would suggest 40mm if you had a CLE or a Bessa 3, but with a Leica you have 35 or 50. I suggest the 35 because I own one and I experienced enough with the 40mm focal length when I had my CLE to know it is quite different from 35 and 50.
The 35mm will give you accurate framing, that is what's the most important I think...
 
I have had both and I also can not tell the difference in optical quality between the two. I presently shoot the Nokton 40/1.4 with my M3 and could not be happier.
 
I have the 40mm sc version and really like it. It gets used on both my M2 and MP.
 
I have the 40/1.4 SC version as well and have had no problem using the 35mm framelines on my MP or M9. Great value for the price, and currently the 40/1.4 is $100.00 less then the 35/1.4 if buying new.

Good luck with your decision.
 
Even though i'm kinda late joining the discussion but 40mm did it for me. The main reason was just simply my style of shooting. I prefer to travel light so i required a minimal amount of gear which should do most of what i want to do. 40mm is right between 35 and 50 so i can get a 35 view if i step back one step and get a 50 view if i step forward one step. It's kind of a weird lens but i just totally love it (and if my memory is right the 35mm has quite the visible barrel distorten, plz correct me if i am mistaken).
 
I don't crop so I like my framelines to be correct... Hope you'll have fun with your lens jamais! S.C. or M.C. version?
 
Barrel distortion on the 35mm SC isn't so horrific, there will be times you'll notice it on your prints but the majority of your images, unless you specialise in and enjoy architecture, will never give it away. For the money, an excellent lens.

Interesting to hear Bob's opinion that he can't honestly tell the difference between a 35mm and 40mm when working. I used to be a dyed in the wool 50mm shooter but when I sold up my Leica gear and went with an Olympus OM-D I was using a 20mm (40mm equivalent) as my main lens. Deciding that, despite it being a very good camera, I much preferred using an Rf I got myself another M6, the obvious 50mm and a 35mm for something wider (a combo that doesn't work for many but I like.) It seems that my vision has switched somewhat and I now find the 35mm is closer to my overall viewpoint. The 50mm is too 'restrictive' to have on my camera at all times and has become my 'pocket lens.' Yet, my eyes don't seem to register any difference between the 40mm (effective) lens I had used to the 35mm lens I am now using. I suppose that, much like the 35mm 1.4 Nokton's distortion, in real life use small differences and/or imperfections can fail to become apparent.

Good luck with your lens, as I say, I'm very happy and quite impressed with my 35 1.4 SC.
 
I know that bokeh "taste" is sort-of personal, but are there any opinions between the bokeh of the 35mm f/1.4 compared to the 40mm?

I've used the 40mm and found it to be very sharp and with OK, but not very smooth, bokeh. I'm wondering if the 35mm is "smoother" in this regard?
 
sleepyhead said:
I know that bokeh "taste" is sort-of personal, but are there any opinions between the bokeh of the 35mm f/1.4 compared to the 40mm?

I've used the 40mm and found it to be very sharp and with OK, but not very smooth, bokeh. I'm wondering if the 35mm is "smoother" in this regard?
Click to expand...

There's a question where I wouldn't trust other people's answer - but only my own eyes. I recommend a flickr search and judge for yourself.
 
Lflex said:
There's a question where I wouldn't trust other people's answer - but only my own eyes. I recommend a flickr search and judge for yourself.
Click to expand...

You're probably right. I have formed my own opinion.

I've checked out many (perhaps 100-200) photos from each lens shot wide open or near wide open. The 35mm has smoother bokeh to my eyes, and a consistent look, while the 40mm seems more variable: sometimes its combination of high sharpness and smooth bokeh is gorgeous, and sometimes the bokeh is harsh and the effect is gritty or busy.

But I've no personal experience with the 35mm f/1.4, so was wondering what people who actually own and use the lens think.
 
Thanks again for your suggestions! Meanwhile I got my copy of the Nokton 1.4 35 SC. It is a beautiful lens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom