Should I buy another lens for the extra stop?

[scorpius73]

I have the Konica M mount 35mm f2 but there is something about the CV 35mm f1.4 Nokton that just keeps calling my name. I will not part with the Konica 35mm. I have a Nikon 50mm f1.4 Millenium S mount with adapter to use on my M mount camera. That is what I use for low light shots. Would you buy another 35mm lens if you already had a nice 35mm for just one stop? I'm kinda on the fence as too which way to go.

 

[jsrockit]

Yes, and I have. I use a Biogon and a Nokton... for me the reduced size of the Nokton is a plus too... but also the single coated aspect.

 

[ferider]

Get the 40/1.4. Something different and great lens.

 

[arnulf]

I did and didn't regret it. That extra stop is worth it, in my opinion. But it can be a good idea to test it first. My first 1.4 was a CV Nokton 35mm and it is a good lens. The only problem was that it wasn't any good wide open, at least not on my M6. So I ended up selling it. No point in keeping it for the one stop when that one stop was useless. I stuck with my Summicron and invested in a Summilux later when I could afford it (well, not really, but you know how it is some times....). I'm not saying all of the CV 35mm f1.4 Noktons are like that, but as I said, it could be a good idea to test it first, or at least have the possibility to return it later.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

I wouldn't. I'd buy the 1.2 for speed, subject isolation, IQ and bokeh...

Edit: I'm just waiting for V3, half its size... 🙂

Cheers,

Juan

 

[scorpius73]

Get the 40/1.4. Something different and great lens.

No thanks. I had the 40mm f1.4 and thought it a fine lens. But the framelines not matching bothered me for some reason.

 

[scorpius73]

Yes, and I have. I use a Biogon and a Nokton... for me the reduced size of the Nokton is a plus too... but also the single coated aspect.

Thats the other reason. The small size is very attractive.

 

[ferider]

No thanks. I had the 40mm f1.4 and thought it a fine lens. But the framelines not matching bothered me for some reason.

Then go for the 35/1.4. A good lens. The only risk is you might find your M-Hex obsolete.

Roland.

 

[Roger Hicks]

If you (reasonably) frequently find yourself wishing you had the extra speed, yes.

If not, not.

Sorry, I don't really believe in having a range of lenses that only the photographer can tell apart. Most of my focal length duplications are the result of historical accident, or of Frances preferring one particular lens when I prefer another (eg her Summarit versus my C-Sonnar). The only one where I choose one of two lenses according to application (and not weight and size) is Thambar vs. Summicron. I've even got rid of one 35mm lens and two 50mm because I hardly ever used them. Better to learn what you can do with what you like best, playing to its strengths, working around its weaknesses, than to be jack of five 50mm (or 35mm) lenses, master of none (though another Noctilux might force a reappraisal).

Cheers,

R.

 

[segedi]

For an extra stop? no. For something like differences in the way the lens renders, sure!

 

[Steve Bellayr]

Going from f2 to f1.4 reduces your depth of field which makes it more difficult to focus quickly. With modern films it is okay to shoot one or two stops negative (B&W). The question to ask yourself is how close will you be to the subject? Still again, would higher speed film suffice?

 

[jsrockit]

Sorry, I don't really believe in having a range of lenses that only the photographer can tell apart...

...Better to learn what you can do with what you like best, playing to its strengths, working around its weaknesses, than to be jack of five 50mm (or 35mm) lenses, master of none (though another Noctilux might force a reappraisal).

I understand what you are saying, and I used to be the same way. However, it's not like many of these lenses are so different that you'll miss a photo based on their differences. Not to mention, it is pretty easy to learn how a lens reacts after a few days of use.

To me, it's not hard to be a jack of multiple lenses of the same focal length... it's harder to be a jack of many focal lengths.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I understand what you are saying, and I used to be the same way. However, it's not like many of these lenses are so different that you'll miss a photo based on their differences. Not to mention, it is pretty easy to learn how a lens reacts after a few days of use.

To me, it's not hard to be a jack of multiple lenses of the same focal length... it's harder to be a jack of many focal lengths.

Interesting: a viewpoint I had literally never considered. But perhaps it's because a lot of my photography is done on long trips, a long way from home, where I'd be crazy to carry (say) three 50mm lenses for their different looks.

I am however intrigued by your observation that it's not like many of these lenses are so different that you'll miss a photo based on their differences. I'd be inclined to turn it around and say, if they're not that different, why bother? How many people, other than the photographer, are going to notice the difference, and, if they do notice, care?

Please don't take this as combative. As I say, a completely novel viewpoint, utterly alien from one's own, is always intriguing. Well, not always: there are plenty of idiots around with totally incoherent ideas. But you aren't one of those.

Cheers,

R.

 

[jsrockit]

I am however intrigued by your observation that it's not like many of these lenses are so different that you'll miss a photo based on their differences. I'd be inclined to turn it around and say, if they're not that different, why bother? How many people, other than the photographer, are going to notice the difference, and, if they do notice, care?

Not that different in that they will all give you a photograph that is generally usable. Different in coatings, distortion, resolution, maximum aperture, focus throw, size, weight, etc. I find the single coated lenses are nice in the bright harsh summer sunshine and the Zeiss stuff is great during the winter (and in general).

For me, I'm just trying a bunch of things in order to see what sticks. I could just go with the two Zeiss lenses and be done with it, but I like the other lenses I'm using for many reasons. Sure, nobody will notice the difference, but I do and I enjoy geeking out trying different stuff all the time. There are so many lens myths on the internet, I find that you have to try stuff for yourself and make your own decision. With ebay and RFF classifieds, you can buy used and sell at the same price... cheaper than renting and you can keep it longer. Most of the time I make money on used gear that I don't like.

Please don't take this as combative. As I say, a completely novel viewpoint, utterly alien from one's own, is always intriguing. Well, not always: there are plenty of idiots around with totally incoherent ideas. But you aren't one of those.

No offense taken at all. I know you can handle differing viewpoints which is why I will quote you at times. I'm not trying to be combative either.

 

[thegman]

Not for me, f/2 is fast enough I think, and sure, we can all use another stop on occasion, but I find when I need another stop, I actually need several more.

I'd probably just practice holding the camera steadier at slower speeds, the 35mm 1.4 is quite a nice lens though, small, I liked mine a lot, although I will say that the bokeh is not swirly and exotic like some lenses, if that bothers you.

 

[sanmich]

I was tempted by the 35mm 1.4 again and again, and was put down by the distortion that is apparent in a few samples I saw. I know it's only in few samples, still, it annoys me. I had an otherwise excellent Canon 50mm 1.4 that I sold due to its distortion (Not sure if I was right to sell it, though)
I decided against it the nokton, and have now a hex-M.
I know it's limitations, namely, size, and f/2 but at the end, I prefer excellent IQ, build and handling to an additional stop.
Also, I have been burnt several times by the iffy Voigtlander QC, and try to avoid them.
Last, I'm not a "Dark" shooter, and most often, Tri-X gives me f/2 at 1/30 in regular lighting, which is enough. I will also propose that a Tom Abrahamson soft release can give you an "additional" f stop in terms of speed and camera stability.
When really in need, I just push TX to 800...
All that being said, I am sure all this is very personal, and if there were no alternative to the Lux 35 but the Nokton, I would most probably be perfectly happy with one.

good luck !

 

[jsrockit]

I was tempted by the 35mm 1.4 again and again, and was put down by the distortion that is apparent in a few samples I saw.

This is true... a lot of distortion in certain situations. I couldn't have it as my only 35mm lens. However, it is a good second lens.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

the CV 35mm f1.4 Nokton that just keeps calling my name.

Seems to me like you already have the answer: only you can say if you should. What you said above tells you that, doesn't it?



(btw, wide-open it has horrible chromatic aberration which is easily ignored if you shoot film)

 

[sanmich]

But again, personally, I'd probably want a second "more technical" companion that's slower (e.g. 2,8/35 C Biogon ZM).

More technical than the hex??😱

 

[tbarker13]

I'm sort of with Roger on this one. I generally don't see much point in have multiple versions of the same FL. Unless there is some some distinct difference between the two.
If owned the mammoth (by RF standards) 35/1.2, I'd probably want a smaller 35 for the times I want to travel light.

I do have a couple different 50s - but only because they render distinctively different images. It's pretty easy tell the difference between shots taken with a 50 Planar and a 50/1.5 J3.

If you need the extra speed, get the 35/1.4. But as Roland said, don't be surprised if it renders your other 35 obsolete.