sper
Well-known
I found it's a little wide to have as my 'normal' lens on my R4a. I'm maybe thinking I want a little bit more versatility, in terms of being able to shoot a portrait with it as well.
However I still have my 50mm 1.5, and 21mm f4 so I feel like it fits in perfectly in the middle. How do people like the 35mm 1.4? Is it as sharp as the Color Skopar 2.5?
Both these lenses cost the same new at B&H, and mine isn't that old, I have the original box, but not the original cap. I've been using one on the hood though, and it works great. It'll also have a B+W UV filter on it.
However I still have my 50mm 1.5, and 21mm f4 so I feel like it fits in perfectly in the middle. How do people like the 35mm 1.4? Is it as sharp as the Color Skopar 2.5?
Both these lenses cost the same new at B&H, and mine isn't that old, I have the original box, but not the original cap. I've been using one on the hood though, and it works great. It'll also have a B+W UV filter on it.
Last edited by a moderator:
stupid leica
i don't shoot rf
i am VERY happy with my 35/1.4 MC. I don't believe there is another lens out there in this size and price range (new) that is as good.
http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=cv+35/1.4&w=75696104@N00&s=int
http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=cv+35/1.4&w=75696104@N00&s=int
sper
Well-known
Hey Stupid Leica, I've seen your shots on Flickr before! Great work, keep it up!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/masperry/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/masperry/
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
With a quick search you can find lots of threads on that lens here on RFF.
Classic rendering, it's a good lens, and has some visible barrel distortion, more than other CV lenses... Some people don't care about it, though... 35 1.2 Nokton has outstanding OOF rendering, and 35 2.5 is smaller and has lower distortion... All of them are sharp enough...
Cheers,
Juan
Classic rendering, it's a good lens, and has some visible barrel distortion, more than other CV lenses... Some people don't care about it, though... 35 1.2 Nokton has outstanding OOF rendering, and 35 2.5 is smaller and has lower distortion... All of them are sharp enough...
Cheers,
Juan
coelacanth
Ride, dive, shoot.
I've had 40mm version of Nokton Classic (SC) x 2, and all three versions of Color-Skopar 35/2.5. I think 35 Nokton Classic got similar characteristics to the 40mm counterpart. Based on that, I'd say
Color-Skopar: sharp, super contrasty, well corrected distortion, some falling light around corners. Very modern look. Very compact and light. 3 designs (different handling and profiles) to choose from. Great value. It's crazy these little gems are going for just above $200 mark in perfect shape.
Nokton Classic: sharp enough, more controllable contrast, bit more distortion, some falling light around corners. As the name suggests, it is intended to give you "classic" look and more characters. Thin "pancake" design but larger and heavier than Color-Skopar. It is still a modern lens.
Color-Skopar: sharp, super contrasty, well corrected distortion, some falling light around corners. Very modern look. Very compact and light. 3 designs (different handling and profiles) to choose from. Great value. It's crazy these little gems are going for just above $200 mark in perfect shape.
Nokton Classic: sharp enough, more controllable contrast, bit more distortion, some falling light around corners. As the name suggests, it is intended to give you "classic" look and more characters. Thin "pancake" design but larger and heavier than Color-Skopar. It is still a modern lens.
Last edited:
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Pancake design? Stephen Gandy says not even the much thinner 35 2.5 "pancake" should be called like that, and says maybe Japanese pancakes are a lot thicker...
The 35 1.4 isn't huge, but has a common lens shape and size: no pancake at all... Not even the thinnest CV lens (28 3.5) is a pancake lens... Cheers,
Juan
coelacanth
Ride, dive, shoot.
Pancake design? Stephen Gandy says not even the really thin 35 2.5 "pancake" should be called like that, and says maybe Japanese pancakes are a lot thicker...
Cheers,
Juan
I totally agree and that's my point exactly. Nikon, Pentax and Cosina, I think Japanese are into Pancake more than Americans.
Again, none of the lenses above aren't huge, but don't think those "Pancake" lenses are that tiny as the name suggests.
P.S. I'm an English Muffin type of guy although I'm a Japanese in the US.
Last edited:
ferider
Veteran
It's all relative. A link to the Online Photographer:
To the OP: the Nokton is a great lens. Hard to say which I would prefer compared to the 28/2. There's stuff you can shoot with one and not the other - and vice versa.
To the OP: the Nokton is a great lens. Hard to say which I would prefer compared to the 28/2. There's stuff you can shoot with one and not the other - and vice versa.
coelacanth
Ride, dive, shoot.
Haha, Roland, yeah I forgot that's also Japanese making all those crazy huge SLR glasses as well.
And if you are used to 28/2 size, all lenses mentioned are TINY.
And if you are used to 28/2 size, all lenses mentioned are TINY.
sebastel
coarse art umbrascriptor
sug, you should know the song "muffin man" by frank zappa and captain beefheart.
"...
girl,
you thought he was a man,
but he was a muffin
..."
my favourite way of starting the day: listen to this song and have huang qiao shao bing with coffee.
back to topic: the nokton is wonderfully compact. it's not so helpful to see the lens alone - you need to know how big (or compact) the whole package is, camera AND lens (and hood).
cheers,
sebastian
"...
girl,
you thought he was a man,
but he was a muffin
..."
my favourite way of starting the day: listen to this song and have huang qiao shao bing with coffee.
back to topic: the nokton is wonderfully compact. it's not so helpful to see the lens alone - you need to know how big (or compact) the whole package is, camera AND lens (and hood).
cheers,
sebastian
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
The answer is easy. You don't feel happy with the 28... Unless you want a 35 with different specifications, go for the 35 1.4... I'd pick a 40 1.4 or a Zeiss 35 2.8, though... Or a 35 1.2...
Cheers,
Juan
Cheers,
Juan
sper
Well-known
That 1.2 is lovely, and the C Biogon is perfect. However, I can't really afford either. I have a 40 f2 for my 5D, the Voigtlander one (I have only good things to say about that lens by the way, but thats another post) and I like the fov. My R4a has frame lines for 35mm so I'm favoring that length. I basically just want to do an even trade if I can.
I feel like i've been trading things left and right though looking for a kit thats just right, it's driving me nuts!
I feel like i've been trading things left and right though looking for a kit thats just right, it's driving me nuts!
Leigh Youdale
Well-known
mike_j
Established
I recently bought a Voigtlander Nokton f1.4 MC rather on impulse and since then, on various forums I have seem quite a lot of adverse criticism. However I have never seen a proper test report on this lens. Although I don't generally do a lot of testing of new gear I decided to take a series of pictures under reasonably reproducible conditions but with real outdoor shots, to test the lens, both for validity of the comments, and for comparison with my CV Color Skopar LTM 35mm. All pictures taken on Leica M8.
Criticism 1. Focus shift. At about 1.2m neither lens showed significant focus shift.
Criticism 2. Barrel distortion. Yes, The Nokton has noticeable distortion. This requires a correction of +6 on Lightroom 3. I do not know what this equates to in percentage terms but the correction is consistent and effective. Skopar has no discernable distortion.
Criticism 3. Soft at full aperture. Yes, comes sharp at f2.8 when it is about equal to the Color Skopar at the same aperture. By f5.6 Skopar is sharper but both are good.
Criticism 4. Flare. Nokton definitely subject to flare but a smaller apertures not much worse than Color Skopar.
As to your range of lenses, it must be a personal decision but I find I am happy with a sequence of lenses with approx x2 factor of focal length, eg 15, 28, 50, 90 or 15, 35, 75. I would not bother taking 28mm and 35mm with me normally, nor 35mm and 50mm.
The other criticisms relate to build quality and handling. Build seems good to me, better than my Zeiss Biogon 28mm which unscrews the front lens cell with monotonous regularity.Handling is good enough though I don't much like the f stop tabs. It's very similar to the CV 21mm f4,0 which I have had for some time. The lens hood is excessively expensive and quite important as the lens is susceptible to flare. The Nokton takes a 43mm filter which is a nuisance as the M8 needs a UV/IR filter all the time. The Skopar takes the common E39.
Criticism 1. Focus shift. At about 1.2m neither lens showed significant focus shift.
Criticism 2. Barrel distortion. Yes, The Nokton has noticeable distortion. This requires a correction of +6 on Lightroom 3. I do not know what this equates to in percentage terms but the correction is consistent and effective. Skopar has no discernable distortion.
Criticism 3. Soft at full aperture. Yes, comes sharp at f2.8 when it is about equal to the Color Skopar at the same aperture. By f5.6 Skopar is sharper but both are good.
Criticism 4. Flare. Nokton definitely subject to flare but a smaller apertures not much worse than Color Skopar.
As to your range of lenses, it must be a personal decision but I find I am happy with a sequence of lenses with approx x2 factor of focal length, eg 15, 28, 50, 90 or 15, 35, 75. I would not bother taking 28mm and 35mm with me normally, nor 35mm and 50mm.
The other criticisms relate to build quality and handling. Build seems good to me, better than my Zeiss Biogon 28mm which unscrews the front lens cell with monotonous regularity.Handling is good enough though I don't much like the f stop tabs. It's very similar to the CV 21mm f4,0 which I have had for some time. The lens hood is excessively expensive and quite important as the lens is susceptible to flare. The Nokton takes a 43mm filter which is a nuisance as the M8 needs a UV/IR filter all the time. The Skopar takes the common E39.
Last edited:
Krosya
Konicaze
Well, if you are not too picky and consider 40mm is close enough to 35mm - CV 40/1.4 is a cheaper lens that is as small, as sharp or sharper wide open. I also like it better the way CV 40 draws vs CV 35/1.4. But than again, 40mm may be a bit too close to 50mm.
Doesnt bother me - I have 15mm, 21mm. 28mm, 35mm, 40mm, 50mm, 75mm, 85mm and 90mm lenses and many of them more than one (diff. brands), so having extra lens or two doesnt bother me much.
I think it comes down to personal prefference - I'm not a huge fan of 28mm lenses on RF camera (I do like them on SLR - go figure), but it may be different for you (OP). I'd try one and see if you like it and go from there.
kossi008
Photon Counter
Given your other lenses, I'd stay with 21/28/50 rather than go to 21/35/50. But I guess it's too late now with Bizarrius' offer?
Pablito
coco frío
"Should I trade my CV 28mm 2.0 for a CV 35mm 1.4"
The answer seems simple: If you want a faster, less-wide lens. Voila!
The answer seems simple: If you want a faster, less-wide lens. Voila!
thomasw_
Well-known
I think the salient point here is that you, OP, have to decide the 28 vs 35 FL question for yourself; other photographer's experiences are often insightful as to why they chose as they did -- but the insights are not necessarily congruent with what you will find. A case in point here in this thread you have some very good photographers telling you 35 is too close to 28 and, then, other very good photographers telling you the two FLs are distinct enough to warrant carrying both at times.
So you must decide which FL suits your style, especially if you will keep just one of these lenses. FWIW, I stand with Roland and the guys who find the 28 and 35 FLs -- and the 35 and 50 FLs -- to be distinct enough to possibly carry both at one time, as the FLs just do different things well.
Again, what works for me may for you or may not. That's a big part of the fun of figuring out what you prefer as a RF shooter -- because, ultimately, when discussing our gear preferences, we are talking about how we like to make images
Thomas
So you must decide which FL suits your style, especially if you will keep just one of these lenses. FWIW, I stand with Roland and the guys who find the 28 and 35 FLs -- and the 35 and 50 FLs -- to be distinct enough to possibly carry both at one time, as the FLs just do different things well.
Again, what works for me may for you or may not. That's a big part of the fun of figuring out what you prefer as a RF shooter -- because, ultimately, when discussing our gear preferences, we are talking about how we like to make images
Thomas
back alley
IMAGES
i never found the answer to be simple...i have bought and sold and bought again the same lenses until i could decide what really worked for me.
this is a creative process that requires mechanical devices to make it work...it takes personal experience to figure it out.
buy what you want or trade for it and if you think you made a mistake then go back to the original lens or maybe another.
will you lose some money doing this? of course but that is the price you pay.
i look at it as renting the lens...
this is a creative process that requires mechanical devices to make it work...it takes personal experience to figure it out.
buy what you want or trade for it and if you think you made a mistake then go back to the original lens or maybe another.
will you lose some money doing this? of course but that is the price you pay.
i look at it as renting the lens...
sper
Well-known
After shooting some street photography this weekend I finally decided to hold on to the 28mm Ultron. It's very, very sharp. I found new applications for it on the street beyond what I had been using it for. I still want the 35mm 1.4, but I think I'm going to have to go the old fashioned route and just save for it. Thanks for all the input people! I know I would have regretted losing this lens after a while.
