Nokton 35 1.2 or Nokton 40 1.4

[hexardan]

Hi all,

Im looking for a bit of advice regarding lens options. I currently use a Hexar RF and have the 28 and 50 hexanon lenses. My problem is that neither one of them suits me just right. The 50 often being too narrow and the 28 too wide. I've decided that I need a compromise.

This is where my dilema starts. I often shoot in very low light and ideally would like the Nokton 35 1.2, I guess I could live with the size. But I cannot afford it unless I sell my Hexanon 28 (I use it less than the 50 because it's slower), which I am reluctant to do.

Enter the Nokton 40 1.4, fast, small, from what I have seen the quality is fine for me and cheap enough that I won't have to sell off any of my kit to buy it. The only problem is that I don't want to get it and then realise it's not that different from the focal length of the 50.

Basically, do people find the 40mm focal lenght and 'feel' to be closer to 35 or 50. Would you consider the 40 to be a good compromise or should I go for the 35. The framelines problem doesn't bother me much as I am sure I can get used to it.

Thanks in advance,
Dan

 

[Don Parsons]

I find the 40 more suits my natural vision. Way back, long time ago, the 35 was my pj lense. It really depends upon subject matter, i.e. distortion will make your choice for you.

don

 

[enochRoot]

to answer your question directly (as i just went through this), the 40mm is definitely closer in feel to the 35mm as compared to a 50. the 50 feels a lot tighter, and the 35 is just a bit wider. that said, i love the 40mm, but it takes some getting used to without framelines (as i compose in the camera, and hate to crop for prints). but that's just me ;-)

 

[summaron]

I find the 40mm a lot different than the 50mm. I always have to step back for the the 50mm while the 35mm is always takes in too much--I always run out of interesting details to fill the space with. But for some photographers even the 28m is too contraining. In its favor, the 40mm is much smaller than the 50mm, and balances nicely, at least on an M-3.

 

[Pherdinand]

i think it's closer to 35 than 50. Not this specific lens - alas i don't own it - but in general, 35mm and 40mm lenses are not that far.
40 and 50 are also not that far, you might find later that you are better off selling your 50 and getting stg longer🙂 but then, i know lotsa people here who own and use ten different 50mm's so thats a non-issue for them😀

 

[clintk]

I love the look of a 35 and that is my favorite lens. I have the Canon 17-40 and find the 40mm to be quite close to the 35. Since it's only 5 more mm. I also have the 40/1.4 on the R3A and simply love it. It's compact, fast and the perspective is close to the 35. That 35/1.2 is TOO big and expensive.

Clint

 

[sockeyed]

For me, the 40 sits squarely in the middle, which makes it a very useful lens. The 35 always feels a bit wide, and the 50 a bit tight.

40mm is great all-around lens. I just got back from a month of travelling in Asia, and the 40mm was mounted for about 60% of all my shots. The rest were shot with my 25mm (30%) and 75mm (10%).

 

[Philipp]

Hi Dan,
one more vote for the Nokton. After playing with a 50mm Jupiter 3 and a 35mm Jupiter 12 the 40mm are juuuust right 🙂 The lens really is small, but the perfect lenshood LH-5 is not. This is not a really problem for me, but worth considering when you talk about the size of the lens.

Philipp

 

[phototone]

If you add the cost of a 40mm aux. viewfinder, the price comes closer to the 35mm f1.2. Also, you can sometimes find the 35mm f1.2 used. I know I did. Saved about $250 over new.

I feel the 35mm gives a significant wider "feel" to shots. Not that it is that much wider, though. A lens you have not considered is the 35mm f1.7 Ultron. This is a stunning lens, and very reasonably priced. Probably a sharper lens than the f1.2. Certainly it is much smaller and easier to manage. I have all three styles of Voigtlander 35mm lenses, the Skopar, the Ultron and the Nockton. They are all good. If I were told I could only keep one, I would choose the Ultron f1.7. There "ain't" that much difference between f1.4 and f1.7.

 

[clintk]

in reference to the shade for the 40. I go without mine. It adds quite a bit to the length of the lens and I don't like it. Plus, that 40 looks so damn good on the R3 w/out the shade. That big front element is pretty.

But aesthetics aside, I've been quite pleased with the results from the 40.

Clint

 

[hexardan]

Well it seems the majority here say go with 40. Phototone your right about the Ultron 1.7 there isn't much difference between 1.7 and 1.4, that being said I am after the fastest lens I can afford so I have decided to go down to the camera store and try the 40 1.4 and 35 1.7 on for size. Which ever one feels better will be the one I get.

I figure it's a line ball. The 40 has a little extra speed. The Ultron has a little extra width. Life is full of compromise.

Thanks for all of your advice it has helped greatly. And I still get to keep my hexanon 28. 😀

I'll let you all know what I decide.

Cheers,
Dan

 

[CJP6008]

Okay, here are some numbers:

28mm lens - 75 degree angle of view (from the CV offerings at this length
35mm lens - 63 degree angle of view
40mm lens - 56 degree angle of view
50mm lens - 46 degree angle of view

10 degree difference between 40 and 50mm lenses, 7 degrees between 35 and 40mm lenses if my maths serves me correctly.

For a good review of the performance of the 35mm 1.2 see http://www.imx.nl/photosite/japan/voigt1235.html

The 35mm 1.7 is a better performer see - http://www.imx.nl/photosite/japan/voigtl01.html

I suspect that the 40mm will outperform the 35 1.2 as well.

 

[Toby]

I wouldn't dismiss the 35 1.7 Ultron it's a good lens and far easier to find second hand than the other two

 

[sockeyed]

If you'd like to see some pictures I've taken with the 40/1.4 (single coated version), click HERE

 

[Sonnar2]

The 35/1.2 is huge, while the 40/1.4 is niceley compact (even smaller than the 35/1.7).
Most people say the 35/1.2 is only good of you need the speed. The 35/1.7 is the better pcicture taker in general. What I have heard (and seen) from the 40/1.4 was not so bad. So MY choice would be clear.

cheers Frank
http://www.taunusreiter.de/Cameras

 

[Bryan Lee]

Just to throw somthing in to add even more confusion. Why dont you consider the Pancake 2 35mm in M mount to avoid the screw mount adapter issue and then get a Bessa T body ($185. U.S.) while they are still available so you can have 2 lenses mounted on 2 bodys and later you can get the super cool mini-viewfinder 35/28. Since the Hexar has 28 brightlines I would never consider going without a 28 lense, also in your consideration remember the hexar has 35 brightlines and not 40.


PANCAKE 2 M MOUNT

 

[hexardan]

Hi All,

Thanks for all your responces, I went into the local camera store and tried the 40 1.4 and 35 1.2. The 35 is massive way too big. It defeats the purpose of using a rangefinder in my opinion, so that lens is now out of the equation for me.

I really liked the size and feel of the 40. They didn't have any 35 ultrons to try on so I'll be going to a different store next week to try it out.

How hard would it be to modify the lens to bring up the 35 lines on my hexar rather than the 50? I've heard it can be done.

I would also like to hear peoples opinions as to which lens is a better performer wide open the Ultron 35 or the Nokton 40?

Thanks again.
Dan

 

[pvdhaar]

How hard would it be to modify the lens to bring up the 35 lines on my hexar rather than the 50? I've heard it can be done.

Yes it can be done.

There's a rim on the M bayonet that differs between lenses. It's the one near the preview lever, which is actually pressed partway by this rim. The longest rim brings up the 28/90 framelines, the medium one 50/75 and the shortest 35/135.

You can file off part of the rim of the 28/90 lens/adapter to bring up the 50/75, or if you file further the 35/135. You can file off part of the rim of the 50/75 to bring up the 35/135. This operation can not be reverted and lowers the value of the lens considerably..

I would however rather try to obtain a bayonet from a busted 35/135 lens and replace the 40/1.4 bayonet. At least that can be undone..

 

[Palaeoboy]

I would however rather try to obtain a bayonet from a busted 35/135 lens and replace the 40/1.4 bayonet. At least that can be undone..

I think you will find the mount of the 40mm f1.4 partially threaded so its not a simple swap as the mount is an intergral part of the focus helix.

 

[pvdhaar]

There's a rim on the M bayonet that differs between lenses. It's the one near the preview lever, which is actually pressed partway by this rim. The longest rim brings up the 28/90 framelines, the medium one 50/75 and the shortest 35/135.

For clarification, I've added the picture below, the adapter on the left is the 35/135, the one on the right the 28/90. The rim is marked with the red arrow. The differences are quite small..