filmfan
Well-known
Sell it. Simplify your life.
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
My rule is - never sell a lens. It's already paid for and the pain is gone. the moment you sell it - you will miss it!
A lens would have to gather dust for a looong time - before i sell it. My Nokton 35f1.4 certainly is not gaining storage dust. It is probably my most used 35mm lens - i have two and I have been known to carry two M2's with both bodies having the 35f1.4 on them. Saves time changing film!
A lens would have to gather dust for a looong time - before i sell it. My Nokton 35f1.4 certainly is not gaining storage dust. It is probably my most used 35mm lens - i have two and I have been known to carry two M2's with both bodies having the 35f1.4 on them. Saves time changing film!
noimmunity
scratch my niche
In an ideal world...
Always a good idea.
Sometimes doing nothing is the simplest.
filmfan
Well-known
I meant to simplify your life from too many possessions. I agree with what you said though.
peterm1
Veteran
I agree that the 35mm f1.2 has a wonderful look to its images.
But the 1.4 seems to be no slouch either judging by the review and images here:
http://www.stevehuffphotos.com/Steve_Huff_Photos/STEVE_HUFF_PHOTOS__.html
I was mightily impressed with its IQ as displayed in the images on that site. But the faster lens does seem to be even more special and I think like you if I were asked to choose out of those two, I would choose the faster lens.
Having said that, I have been considering buying one myself but have ended up opting for the 50mm f1.1 almost purely because I prefer shooting with a slightly longer focal length for most of my work. I recognise that the 50's bokeh is not as nice. "Caffienated" is how I have heard it described. So all in all I am on your side. If you are chosing between the two Voigtlander 35's get the 1.2!
But the 1.4 seems to be no slouch either judging by the review and images here:
http://www.stevehuffphotos.com/Steve_Huff_Photos/STEVE_HUFF_PHOTOS__.html
I was mightily impressed with its IQ as displayed in the images on that site. But the faster lens does seem to be even more special and I think like you if I were asked to choose out of those two, I would choose the faster lens.
Having said that, I have been considering buying one myself but have ended up opting for the 50mm f1.1 almost purely because I prefer shooting with a slightly longer focal length for most of my work. I recognise that the 50's bokeh is not as nice. "Caffienated" is how I have heard it described. So all in all I am on your side. If you are chosing between the two Voigtlander 35's get the 1.2!
noimmunity
scratch my niche
I knew what you meant, and I agree with it. Been living that way for a while, not in any extreme way, but in some substantial choices. Not having a car, for instance, is one of them. Way off topic, but still germane. I guess there's something in me that just resists having two of the same focal length...
Yet for one reason or another (largely geographical, I think), selling lenses has often been a real hassle for me, and doing nothing is just soooo much simpler. If you live in North America, buying and selling is just way too convenient, and that probably leads to a lot of GAS...
Have a look at some of the bokeh on the new $5000 Summilux asph II 35. It, too, seems at least as "caffeinated" as the 50/1.1 Nokton!
Personally, I never liked the busy bokeh of lenses like the Canon 50/1.2 that get a lot of praise. By contrast, the bokeh on the 35/1.4 can be very pleasing, especially in black and white. What bothers me occasionally is the color rendition, and having, God forbid, doubles of the same focal length!!!
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
I have only the 40/1.4 CV, and not the 35/1.4. I doubt I'd ever part with my 40. It performs very, very well my purposes, delivering good images even wide open. I feel it is a better lens than my 35 Summilux Pre-ASPH. At least, I'm more apt to reach for the CV most of the time.
So if the CV 35/1.4 is similar in performance, it would be a keeper, at least for me. I think the size and weight of the f/1.2 would make for a short honeymoon! YMMV.
So if the CV 35/1.4 is similar in performance, it would be a keeper, at least for me. I think the size and weight of the f/1.2 would make for a short honeymoon! YMMV.
Krosya
Konicaze
I'd sell 35/1.4 AND 40/2.8, keep 35/1.2 as it's lens like no other and if you still want a portable one - get a CV 40/1.4 - which will replace BOTH CV 35/1.4 and Rollei 40/2.8 - as a small as CV 35, faster than your 40mm and much cheaper than either of these two lenss, while still delivering as good if not better image quality. That way you will have a nice all around 40mm lens, a great "specialty" CV 35/1.2 lens to compliment each other. I have this set - CV 35/1.2 and CV 40/1.4 and they go well together.
david.elliott
Well-known
Loan the lens to a friend for a couple months and see if you miss it? Then you won't have seller's remorse. Might regret loaning it to a friend though - he or she may not want to return it. 
ferider
Veteran
I still cann't see this, and I'm more sensitive than others wrt bokeh, usually. Distortion and shift yes, and I don't mind at all, but wrt to bokeh my 35/1.4 MC delivers also with the toughest backgrounds. I've shown those before:
Maybe I'm blind or lucked out and got the only good one.
And wrt to 35/1.2, everybody comments on size and weight. The only reason I have avoided it, is I don't like obstruction of a third of my viewfinder. After all, what's the point of an M if you cann't see what you are shooting.
Roland.
Last edited:
ferider
Veteran
DN, I do suspect it has to do with film vs. digital, too.
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
The only reason I sold my 35 f1.4 Nokton (regardless of the minor issues with the distortion on that lens) was because I was able to snag a pristine 35 Summilux pre-ASPH locally for a scream of a deal.
Outside of that, I would have never given up that lens. It's a ridiculous bargain if you are not anal about distortion.
Cheers,
Dave
Outside of that, I would have never given up that lens. It's a ridiculous bargain if you are not anal about distortion.
Cheers,
Dave
ferider
Veteran
If you get a chance, would be great to have a side by side comparison DN. Not many have film Ms, an M9 and the 1.1.
People agree that focus issues are more prominent with DRFs due to depth of medium. Makes sense to me that OOF "cones" would look different too, when projected on a sensor plane, thinner than a film emulsion.
Roland.
People agree that focus issues are more prominent with DRFs due to depth of medium. Makes sense to me that OOF "cones" would look different too, when projected on a sensor plane, thinner than a film emulsion.
Roland.
noimmunity
scratch my niche
Ridiculous bargain is right. And not just a bargain, also a really unique lens. Where else can you find that combination of attributes (size, speed, cost)?
Just for the record, my interest in selling the 1.4 Nokton had really nothing to do with bokeh. (It just doesn't produce images that are as beautiful as the 1.2 Nokton).
By the way, VF blockage really isn't an issue if you use, like me, the 1.2 Nokton without a hood on the ZI. The only drawback of the large Nokton, for me, is the weight.
The 50/1.1 looks like a really competent lens. But like DN, I have a ZM C Sonnar, which I love, and I doubt I would reach for the CV over that. Will be interested to see when you, DN, favor the Nokton, if at all.
Just for the record, my interest in selling the 1.4 Nokton had really nothing to do with bokeh. (It just doesn't produce images that are as beautiful as the 1.2 Nokton).
By the way, VF blockage really isn't an issue if you use, like me, the 1.2 Nokton without a hood on the ZI. The only drawback of the large Nokton, for me, is the weight.
The 50/1.1 looks like a really competent lens. But like DN, I have a ZM C Sonnar, which I love, and I doubt I would reach for the CV over that. Will be interested to see when you, DN, favor the Nokton, if at all.
back alley
IMAGES
i much preferred the 'look' of the 50/1.1 to the zm 50 sonnar - once again the rebel i guess. and i much preferred the look of the 50/1.1 to the cv 35/1.2, a lens i never got comfy with.
noimmunity
scratch my niche
Many people have noticed, and I tend to agree, that the C Sonnar has a special chemistry with digital, especially the M8's already unique sensor. I assume the same holds true for the M9. I'm not convinced of where the advantage of the 1.1 Nokton lies. Bokeh and slim DOF? I doubt it. Portraits? Uh-uh. I think rather it's forte may lie with middle distance shots under available darkness, things like concerts and bars and alleys.
Speaking of alleys, I support Joe's right to be different.
Speaking of alleys, I support Joe's right to be different.
Stephen G
Well-known
Having had this lens on an M8-
I think on digital, under bright light, when close focussing.. background point sources/highlights can create some .. caffeinated bokeh ..
#1 was more subtle.. but the blades of grass have a very.. busy effect
#2 you can make it work in the image / use for effect if you know its there
#3 kind of made the background a bit too busy in relation to the foreground
I found it to be a hard lens to tame @ large aperture under summer daylight sun conditions.
I think on digital, under bright light, when close focussing.. background point sources/highlights can create some .. caffeinated bokeh ..
#1 was more subtle.. but the blades of grass have a very.. busy effect
#2 you can make it work in the image / use for effect if you know its there
#3 kind of made the background a bit too busy in relation to the foreground
I found it to be a hard lens to tame @ large aperture under summer daylight sun conditions.
noimmunity
scratch my niche
Hmmm, what to make of this?
Not really a fair comparison...
The M8 shot looks, to my eyes, far better, but under much more forgiving circumstances.
Not really a fair comparison...
The M8 shot looks, to my eyes, far better, but under much more forgiving circumstances.
noimmunity
scratch my niche
Another round of God's grace (six days) and the Nokton 35/1.4 is sold.
It was simply a monetary decision in the end.
It was simply a monetary decision in the end.