What else make you hate CV 35 1.4?

I really don't see why anyone needs to hate this lens. It's compact, sharp and reasonably priced. You want more, you pay more. If you don't like it, don't buy it.

It would though, be interesting to to have a Lightroom lens profile for it - anyone done one?
 
Yeah this thread is bothering me. I don't know if you realize this but CV actually does make two highly regarded 35mm lenses, they just happen to be called Zeiss, and they cost what world class lenses should cost.

Read reviews. Why would you buy a classic look lens when you obvisouly hate it?
 
I wouldn't get too bent out of shape over this thread. The title was meant facetiously.

The CV 35/1.4 is really really good. 9 times out of ten the bokeh is entirely agreeable if not downright appealing. 10 times out of 10 you will never find another 35 that offers that combination of speed, size, build quality, image quality, and price.

I have both 35 Noktons. Foolishly thought I would compare and keep one, but that has proved impossible :D The Big one in chrome looks way too cool on my M8 (where it is one of the best lenses for that camera) and never disappoints image-wise. But sometimes I need something lighter, and the Lil SC Nok is ready to perform. Especially in B&W, the Lil Nok has a very appealing look. In crazy moments :eek: I still contemplate selling one of the two and getting another ZM C Biogon 35/2.8 to complement the remaining one, but the problem is, I can't decide which one :bang:

For color work, I think the 35 lux asph is way ahead of the lil Nok and just different (better?) than the Big Nok.

Where it all gets really out of control for me is when I start thinking about selling my 28 cron and both of the CV 35s to get a lux asph with a CV 28/3.5 thrown in for good measure :confused:
 
the ONLY problem i have with this lens is the chrome front ring. I almost sold it, but realized i will not find anything in this range that will please me as much.
 
I got back from Italy in August, taking my R3A + 35/1.4 ... I had also brought the CV 21/4 and my Zeiss 50/2, but found I took most of my shots with the 35/1.4 lens.

After I got the film developed, I was pleasantly surprised -- the 35/1.4 really did a great job. A wonderful lens for the price, IMHO.

I have some samples on my Flickr thread if anyone's interested:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/bobby_novatron/sets/72157624642966568/
 
focus shift is the most overrated lens performance issue on the net, as far as I'm concerned. I've owned some big "shifting" lenses that are now infamous for focus shift, and not once has it shown itself or impacted me in any way in the real world.
 
fdigital said:
focus shift is the most overrated lens performance issue on the net, as far as I'm concerned. I've owned some big "shifting" lenses that are now infamous for focus shift, and not once has it shown itself or impacted me in any way in the real world.
Click to expand...

I think it depends, too, on what you shoot and what kind of shift it is. My Nok 35/1.4 exhibits a small amount of shift from f/2.0 - 5.6, but since the depth of field moves back from the point of focus, it is quite easy to use it for shots with people even at minimum distance. By contrast, the ZM C Sonnar that I have, which was optimized for f/2.8 when new, would front focus wide open at MFD, so I eventually had it optimized for f/1.5 (which is where I use that lens most).
 
mike_j said:
It would though, be interesting to to have a Lightroom lens profile for it - anyone done one?
Click to expand...

I couldn't find one so I created a profile for the 35/1.4 on a Leica M8.

It's the first time I have tried but it seems to work OK on jpg and tiff files. For some reason it doesn't show up when using straight Leica DNG files.

So if anyone wants to try it please send me a pm with an address that will accept an attachment and I'll email it.
 
I love everything about the 1.4 Nokton...
5094373593_fa970b1e24_z_d.jpg


...except when it gets this annoying circular flare.
5094970464_aa9f334511_z_d.jpg
 
I love mine but still hunting down for a pre asph 35mmlux.

This CV lens is so small and cheap but handling still not very quite smooth for my liking as compared to my m mount summaron .

But this CV f1.4 lens sure is sharper compared to my cv f1.2

Shot on M8







I feel that for the price and what it can do. Worth every cent I spend for it.
 
Last edited:
You guys are so cynical about the Nokton 35mm f1.4 lens. Your pointing out how horrible the Bokeh is, the distortion, lens flare. To be quite honest. Not everyone shoots wide open. You can resolve the lens flare issue by putting a filter on. I've seen tons of examples of this lens on flickr and the examples look great. I plan to purchase the Nokton or the Zeiss 35 Biogon f2.8. I'm leaning toward the Nokton 35 1.4. So if any of you don't enjoy it i'll be glad to buy it off your hands to shoot photos with. It will definitley meld into my workflow and look awesome on my Zeiss Ikon.
 
Dwayne, stopped down I think the lens is pretty great as well. Overall I really like the lens, the bokeh, don't mind the distortion at all, the only issue being the occasional circular flare (I had already tried using a filter, but didn't help, only using a big aftermarket square hood the circular flare is gone). I love having such a compact and fast lens that is so versatile.

5094972626_5bea3c1477_b_d.jpg
 
I had two of these and actually liked the bokeh and didn't find it to flare to much. Focusing issues and field curvature were a totally different matter however. One of them did focus spot on wide open and only back focused closed down (I shouldn't have sold it). The other one back focused with every aperture. I had professional camera service check it out and they said it is just build wrong and very difficult=expensive to repair. They also said that most people with film cameras would probably never have noticed the focusing issue but M9 is ruthless in that way. I would still buy one if I would get a chance to test it out first.
 
I can solve the debate in one word: Ultron

The Ultron is a tad slower at f/1.7 and not f/1.4, but it is a better lens.
 
filmfan said:
I can solve the debate in one word: Ultron

The Ultron is a tad slower at f/1.7 and not f/1.4, but it is a better lens.
Click to expand...
I had the Ultron and it was a great lens. However it's not as sharp in the middle, it's bigger and it only focuses down to 0.9 meters.
I tested the Ultron and Nokton side by side and decided the Nokton is better for me and sold the Ultron.
 
I have the 35/1.4 ASPH, probably one of the best 35mm lenses ever made. I love it, I've taken some of my favorite shots with it and if tomorrow I had to replace it I'm sure I could be happy with the 35/1.4 MC CV lens. After seeing so many pleasant shots from stupid leica's copy I'm sold. The 35/1.2 is huge, but nice too. For me I don't think the size difference is worth 1/2 a stop.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom