Thoughts on some 35mm?

[david3558]

I've been shopping around for a 35mm lens, and I'm certain I'd like to spend my money on CV - seems best bang for the buck. I own a Summicron now and I don't think I can afford to dump money into a 35mm cron/lux at this point!

Anyhow, the response for the 1.2 Nokton is phenomenal but I hear mixed things about the 1.4.

If I were to only own one 35mm, which one would you recommend? At nearly double the price, is the 1.2 that much better - or would the 1.4 serve me well?

David

 

[Lauffray]

What have you heard about the 1.4 ? I used to own it, it's a nice lens. Frankly, I don't see what the big fuss is about with the 1.2, it's huge, costs a lot more for barely half a stop more, that's my opinion though.

 

[david3558]

Well, from what I've read, there is some distortion and lack of sharpness, but I don't know how that compares to the 1.2...

I love how the 1.4 is very small and has the focus tab though!

 

[back alley]

i'd go for the cv 40/1.4...

on par with the 35/1.4 but cheaper.

 

[nanthor]

The 1.2 is too big, you'll probably end up selling it like I did just due to it's size. My favorite VC 35mm is the discontinued 1.7 Ultron, very much like the pre-asph 35mm cron in sharpness and signature, IMO. Find one used, they are also very well made. Also, take a look at the 2.5, it also has an excellent signature and is very compact and nicely priced. I use flickr to compare the "look" of a lens when deciding what to buy. Good luck, Bob.

 

[loneranger]

I have a newish 35/1.2 v2 that I am thinking about selling, sure is sharp, but too damn heavy for everyday use.

 

[pobe]

I've only had my CV 35/1.4 for a few days but I really it. Certainly seems sharp enough for me and its compact size is perfect for an all-rounder.

 

[andredossantos]

The Nokton 1.2 has distortion as well. Nice lens, but it's big.

 

[jim_jm]

Take a look at this recent RFF thread about the CV 35/1.4 for some sample images from other members: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=89571
I've been very happy with this lens and it's my first choice to stick on my M2 when I go out shooting. Ergonomics are great and it's fast enough for most situations, but still small and light. This lens has produced some very sharp negs and although there seems to be a consensus that it has a bit more distortion than other 35's, that might not be an issue for you unless you do a lot of architectural shooting. If I had the 1.2 I might not use it as much due to the extra weight and size.

 

[redisburning]

just as a YMMV, and take this with a grain of salt since I dont actually own the lens and only have seen pictures of it mounted on a body but...

I don't think the size or weight would be that big of a deal for me. I still shoot with my SRT-101 and Rokkor 58mm f1.2 and while it's big and not precisely convenient, I don't mind carrying it around when that is the sort of thing I want. And that's a big, bulky, heavy camera, and a big, bulky lens with a front element the size of the state I live in.

You might still consider the biogon.

 

[EthanFrank]

just as a YMMV, and take this with a grain of salt since I dont actually own the lens and only have seen pictures of it mounted on a body but...

I don't think the size or weight would be that big of a deal for me. I still shoot with my SRT-101 and Rokkor 58mm f1.2 and while it's big and not precisely convenient, I don't mind carrying it around when that is the sort of thing I want. And that's a big, bulky, heavy camera, and a big, bulky lens with a front element the size of the state I live in.

You might still consider the biogon.

Perry, I see your point and would have agreed with you six months ago. However, while I'm content carrying around my Nikon F3 with the 50mm lens on it, when I take my Leica, I'm thinking 'as small as possible". The 40mm Nokton has been pretty amazing. I used the money from selling a 50mm f/1.5 Nokton to buy it (I sold the 50mm almost purely because I didn't want such a big lens) and while the benefits of the 40mm are more than just size related, I couldn't be happier.

Holy run-on sentence, Batman!

By the way, nice avatar, David. Fantastic album, though it doesn't need saying.

 

[DamenS]

Wow - not much love for the f1.2 in this thread ! I think the f1.4 is amazingly small and is well-priced, but the smooth bokeh of the f1.2 would be a huge factor for me.

Ken Rockwell didn't like the f1.4 very much (he reviewed it recently), so that might sway you one way or the other depending upon your views of Rockwell's reviews

 

[Lss]

The CV 35/1.4 Nokton SC is easily my most used lens since the day I bought it. It has some weaknesses but it is nevertheless a great performer. The CV 35/1.2 is a more special lens and probably a better lens (I never owned one), but it is much bigger. I like my CV 50/1.1 but I use my Summicron 50/2 more due to its significantly smaller size.

 

[Lflex]

I have the Nokton 35/1.4 and 35 summicron (see a comparison in this thread ).
Should I buy a 35mm today I would get the Nokton - no doubt. The images are pleasant in line with Leicas pre-asp offerings of the 70-80s.
I will not out rule that I get the f1.2 one day, but it would never be my only 35mm - it is simply too big and impractical.

Nokton 35mm SC on M6 by mandoflex, on Flickr

 

[jonmanjiro]

I've owned all the Cosina 35mm lenses at some point. IMO the best is the 35/1.2 (at the drawback of weight and size) but they all have small drawbacks of some sort anyhow. All are capable of taking great pictures. I'd summarise them as follows:

35/1.2
Big, heavy lens
Sharp at f/1.2
Some barrel distortion
Some falloff wide open
Very smooth bokeh
No focus shift
Very flare resistant
V2 focuses down to 0.50m

35/1.4
Small lens
Significant falloff at f/1.4
Noticeable barrel distortion
Not that sharp at f/1.4
Focus shift
Love it or hate it bokeh
Ring flare at f/1.4
Focuses down to 0.70m

Nokton 35/1.7
Large-ish lens
Short focus throw can make it tricky nailing focus wide open
Only focuses down to 0.90m
Minimal barrel distortion
Reasonably sharp wide open
Smooth bokeh
Flares sometimes with the sun just outside

Skopar 35/2.5
Sharp wide open
Minimal falloff
No focus shift
Small and light
Minimal distortion
Focuses down to 0.70m

 

[Tompas]

If speed is not that important you might want to consider a Summicron-C 2/40 as well. Very nice, very small, quite cheap. Especially for a Leica (Leitz) lens.

I use mine with the 35mm frame lines. Works well.

 

[david3558]

Wow thanks for all the responses. It seems that the 35 Nokton might experience some focus shift, has this been a real issue at all?

Also what are you thoughts on SC vs MC?

 

[magicianhisoka]

I personally found I couldn't live with the 35mm 1.2 alone. I have a 35mm f2 hexanon for a daily lens.

 

[uhoh7]

Now I've got the 35/1.2 v1 and have had the nice 35/1.4 MC for quite awhile.

These are dramatically different lenses. Perhaps the SC is more similar to the 1.2--I don't know.

While the 35/1.4 MC distorts, it shoots with a pretty modern look---to my eye. It gets respectably sharp at 5.6

and is perfectly fine at 1.4---perhaps losing some contrast

the 1.2 is to the 1.4 what apollo is to hector--or that's my feeling so far.

Those who say there is not so much difference in speed--well it seems huge to me. But beyond that, the lens renders with creamy highlights--they sometimes glow like a canon LTM 50/1.2 wide open, but it draws very rich blacks wide open--and it is deceptively sharp. It is by far the easiest to focus super speed I've ever had--obviously the dof is larger by a fair bit than the 50/1.1. Then there is the OOF rendering, where the 1.2 is frankly just superb in a way the 1.4 cannot approach.

After hearing all the complaints about the weight and size, I was surprised. It is 24 grams heavier than the 50/1.1 but alot smaller in every dimension except length. I don't even use that strange hood.

this is v1. If you don't mind to carry it around it is really something. They seem to go for around 850 while the 35/1.4 is running 450 or so.

I also have the 35/2.5 which is smoother than the 1.4 OOF but also has a very cron like look----3d whether you want it or not sometimes. Way less distortion and sharper than the 1.4 past 5.6.

I have not shot the 1.2 extensively in daylight--but I am very curious what it does at f/8

 

[meandihagee]

I used the 35/1.4 as an all rounder. The distortion is not important to me, and in one year I cannot say I missed a shot because of the focus shift. I didn't bought it for the speed, but the shots I made wide open (in very low light) were nice.

Great lens and a world of joy for me, as it is small and very capable in a lot of situations.

f4 or f5.6

f8