So what's the verdict on the CV 35mm f1.4?

J

jky

Well-known
Local time
9:23 PM
Joined
Aug 6, 2006
Messages
1,430
For the folks out there that have one... what do you all think so far? Since the anouncement of this lens, I've been very, very tempted. Is it comparable to the 40mm Nokton in terms of signature? (Not that I really care much about the "signature"... I just want a lux-like 35mm that I can afford!)

Cheers, j
 
If you go to our Flickr site there are about 50 shots taken with it. Just use the tag "Voigtlander Nokton 35mm f1.4 SC" to call them up. I like the lens, it is very similar in character to the pre-asph Summilux 35 (the later version). More than sharp enough and remarkably flare free, even in the SC configuration. The size is marginally smaller than the 40/f1.4 and the hood is slightly more "petit" - less intrusion in the M2 finder (though the 40 hood is not bad in that respect either).
At less tha 1/2 the price of a 35/2,5 Summarit (the new one) it is a great deal. Considering that pre-asph Summiluxes are now fetching $1400-1700 and the Asph one almost double that - no contest. I have only shot about 10 rolls so far with it, but it is staying on a M2 as a "come along" camera whenever i leave home!
 
Tom, how would you compare the 35/1.4 to the CV40/1.4? any obvious differences there?

im most interested in the bokeh rendition.
 
Looks very interesting. I am quite pleased with my 35 2.5 pII but if it goes on an m8 then the 35 1.4 might be a better all around lens for me. Quite interesting indeed...I think I might get one if I can sell my 35 pII.
 
There's no free lunch, fellas. You want a compact, affordable, fast 35mm lens, then live with its limitations. "Perfection" either costs a ton or weighs one. :D
 
popobsd said:
Hi Tom, How about the new lens if put it together with ZM Biogon 35/2 and CV 35/1.2 ASPH?
Click to expand...

It is smaller than both the Biogon 35/2 and the Nokton 35/1,2. The 35/1,2 is a speciality lens - a bit big for walk around, unlss you walk around in places with very little ligh!
The Biogon 35/2 is in my opinion the best 35/2 around today! The VC 35/1.4 is a good "travel" lens as you can cover normal shooting and also have a f-stop in reserve for the low light stuff. It is also light enough that you can have it on a camera or in a pocket without feeling overloaded. My next trip will be a three bodies and three lenses, R4M with the 21/4,5 Biogon, M2 with the 35/1,4 SC and a MP with the 50f1.5 C Sonnar and 50 rolls of Tri X/Neopan 400.
 
Just got mine (thanks Stephen!). Attached is the obligatory close up wide open shot, 1/30 sec at ISO 320 on my M8. Cropped to 900x900, white balance and a bit of clarity added in Lightroom. Chrome background produces the expected ugly bokeh. The real test will be in the field, if we get a sunny day in DC this weekend.

As Tom has noted, small, light, well built.

Cheers,
Kirk
 

Attachments

  • 20080226-L1000699.jpg
    20080226-L1000699.jpg
    131 KB · Views: 0
I seen the shots on Flickr, I see that the OOF areas are very similar to the Nokton 40mm f1.4
the shots seem to lack that 3D quality of the 35mm preasph Summilux.
For the price though this 35mm Nokton looks to be a decent lens.
 
Thanks for the link in flickr, Tom. I see that it's a couple hundred $$ more than the 40 Nokton.... still a bargain though compared to the alternative. Savin' up my loonies now!
 
Picked mine up at the PO yesterday - SC version. The first thing I noticed was how much more glass there is in the rear element compared to the 40mm Nokton - this lens is a bit of a packaging marvel. First shots on the R-D1 look fine though I haven't put it to the "ugly OOF" test yet. Traveling today so won't get to do any real testing till the weekend.
 
all,

does anyone have an opinion regarding the results of the SC vs MC versions of the 35?
i'm about to spring for an R2a and have decided on this lens-- just need to work through the SC/MC eval.

i'll use this rig for B&W, but will also shoot color from time-to-time.

thanks
 
jky said:
Thanks for the link in flickr, Tom. I see that it's a couple hundred $$ more than the 40 Nokton.... still a bargain though compared to the alternative. Savin' up my loonies now!
Click to expand...
Just so you know it's about as many loonies in Canada as in the U.S. I'm seeing prices of $579 in Vancouver!
 
A Used Classic is Still a Better Buy

A Used Classic is Still a Better Buy

With all the hubbub I was almost ready to plunk down $560 for the new 1.4 CV 35 but I decided to take my old friends out for one last comparison shoot to see if it was worth it. There are plenty of posts on Flickr now to see what the new lens can do.

In order to lenses VC's marketing ploy has been to sell there glass as 'Classics' because they clearly cannot market newer designs for the price they are asking. The issue is is whether or not one is better off just buying the Real Deal for the same price, or often much less, than the cost of the VC product. The Ultron 1.7 35 was often compared to a v.IV Summicron (the hook that tricked me into buying it), but it was ungainly large, and ergonomically backward. VC lenses are often presented as faster lenses than they can actually muster and this tradition goes forward. The new 1.4 is a clone of the v.I Summicron, but that is yet to be seen in execution.

I have presented here shots from a 3.5 Summaron, a 2.8 Summaron, and the 1.7 Ultron. Had I some old Canon glass I would have added that in the mix, but you can get the gist of this post from these examples. I should like to add that I owned a v.I Summicron, and sold it reserving my 2.8 Summaron I bought new in the 1960's. I've never regretted it.

All these examples were shot at f8, with Kodak Porta and no hood at the same event. Minor issues such as flare were not addressed in this test. I am formally trained in photography; I do not shoot into the sun, or pee into the wind.
 
Dektol Dan said:
I am formally trained in photography; I do not shoot into the sun, or pee into the wind.
Click to expand...

ok, that's by far my favorite quote of the year. worthy of coffee mugs, bumper stickers and refrigerator magnets!

- chris
 
Dektol Dan said:
With all the hubbub I was almost ready to plunk down $560 for the new 1.4 CV 35 but I decided to take my old friends out for one last comparison shoot to see if it was worth it. There are plenty of posts on Flickr now to see what the new lens can do.

In order to lenses VC's marketing ploy has been to sell there glass as 'Classics' because they clearly cannot market newer designs for the price they are asking. The issue is is whether or not one is better off just buying the Real Deal for the same price, or often much less, than the cost of the VC product. The Ultron 1.7 35 was often compared to a v.IV Summicron (the hook that tricked me into buying it), but it was ungainly large, and ergonomically backward. VC lenses are often presented as faster lenses than they can actually muster and this tradition goes forward. The new 1.4 is a clone of the v.I Summicron, but that is yet to be seen in execution.

I have presented here shots from a 3.5 Summaron, a 2.8 Summaron, and the 1.7 Ultron. Had I some old Canon glass I would have added that in the mix, but you can get the gist of this post from these examples. I should like to add that I owned a v.I Summicron, and sold it reserving my 2.8 Summaron I bought new in the 1960's. I've never regretted it.

All these examples were shot at f8, with Kodak Porta and no hood at the same event. Minor issues such as flare were not addressed in this test. I am formally trained in photography; I do not shoot into the sun, or pee into the wind.
Click to expand...
Show me a used 35 1.4 in new condition for under $500 and you've got a deal!
Now where are these examples of yours?
 
Took some test shots at lunch...on M8, at or near minimum focusing distance, all at 1.4. Not the most sympathetic backgrounds, probably a tough test for boké.

2296651706_a69a1bd442.jpg


2295858065_94f4412cd9.jpg



Larger versions:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3095/2295858065_ef9cce223d_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3281/2296651584_b23da447cb_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3166/2296651706_d88985b470_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3002/2296651820_e23582de5b_o.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom