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

Backgrounds are beyond wierd, with that double-line effect. Saves me $600. Looked at Tom A.'s pictures but he's shooting b&w and in a different style -- it isn't apparent there.
 
Last edited:
What is the "double-line" bokeh people are referring to? I can see the out of focus areas are kind of jarring, but I don't see any "double lines".

/T
 
I just received mine (an SC) this morning, so I haven't yet developed any images from it.

Initial impressions of build quality etc are good. I shoot mostly larger formats, and recently bought a 35mm rangefinder as something that I can carry with me on business trips - I can drop the camera in a briefcase, something that I can't do with my LF gear!


Observations:
1) The front element looks a bit strange - it looks very flat compared to what I would have expected for a 35mm

2) The text on the front has an S dot C in blue - not sure why it wasn't just SC or S.C.

3) I am quite happy about the size of the package that the R2M and 35f1.4 make - it is small and compact, and should be fairly versatile.

4) I am still new to rangefinders, but I find it strange that the lens/hood blocks about 25% of the image in the viewfinder. Vents make it slightly less bad.

5) I have a strongly dominant left eye, which means that I generally focus with my left hand as well. It could just be that I am not used to it, but I find the little thingy attached to the focus ring to be not-the-most-comfortable. I would have preferred a knurled ring, or little ears like the aperture ring has.
 
From super smooth Boke lenses, I've come to like all kinds of Boke. Harsh Boke sometimes can add great impact and feel to an image. Harsh Boke isn't necessarily bad.
Think outside of the box.
 
Tuolumne said:
What is the "double-line" bokeh people are referring to? I can see the out of focus areas are kind of jarring, but I don't see any "double lines".

/T
Click to expand...
Take a look at the photo up in the thread of the signpost with a high-rise building in the background. The foreground is very pleasantly rendered; the background looks like the camera moved. These are simply characteristics of the lens, they are neither wrong nor right. This photo is an extreme case, of a normal daylight shutter speed and a very wide opening. If you look at Tom A's set on Flickr, these things don't appear because his style of shooting is different.
 
NB23 said:
From super smooth Boke lenses, I've come to like all kinds of Boke. Harsh Boke sometimes can add great impact and feel to an image. Harsh Boke isn't necessarily bad.
Think outside of the box.
Click to expand...

Nenad,

IMO, this has nothing to do with 'out of a box' thinking. Bokeh is a personal thing. Wether you like it or not. You may like harsh Bokeh. I don't.

Rudy

P.S. Great interview in the LFI.;)
 
Just opened mine up last night. I like what I've seen so far. I'm going to run it through a comparison with my 35 nokton 1.2 as soon as I have some free time during daylight hours.
 
I was about to sell my 35mm 2.5 PII but after seen these pics I think I will hold my horses... The ghosty bokeh in most of those actually makes me fell dizzy and it takes a lot from the foreground subjects. I wish we could see some examples at different apertures.
 
I've seen a couple images with this lens that I don't like (in terms of bokeh). But they appear (at least to me) to be the sorts of situations that would seldom occur, at least during the course of my shooting. There are certain types of backgrounds (foilage, for example) that challenge most lenses in this arena.
 
Joe Brugger said:
Take a look at the photo up in the thread of the signpost with a high-rise building in the background. The foreground is very pleasantly rendered; the background looks like the camera moved. These are simply characteristics of the lens, they are neither wrong nor right. This photo is an extreme case, of a normal daylight shutter speed and a very wide opening. If you look at Tom A's set on Flickr, these things don't appear because his style of shooting is different.
Click to expand...


i'm confused...if they are 'simply characteristics of the lens', how could they be affected by 'his style of shooting is different'?

joe
 
back alley said:
i'm confused...if they are 'simply characteristics of the lens', how could they be affected by 'his style of shooting is different'?

joe
Click to expand...

I assume that simply means that "his style of shooting" does not cause those "characteristics of the lens" to become (as) apparent.

-Randy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom