photogdave
Shops local
To all those who say your lens has focus shift: are you shooting film or digital?
Mine works fine on both but I'm curious anyway.
Also, I always knew this lens has visible barrel distortion but it doesn't affect the subjects I typically shoot.
Mine works fine on both but I'm curious anyway.
Also, I always knew this lens has visible barrel distortion but it doesn't affect the subjects I typically shoot.
efix
RF user by conviction
Digital. And yes, I know digital is much more sensitive to that issue than film. Haven't tried it on film. Also, there reportedly are copies without or with only negligible shift - too bad mine wasn't one of those, or I might have kept it.
Lss
Well-known
I use this lens with both film and digital, but I have only verified the focus shift issue on digital. Frankly, I'm not sure if I ever saw it in my film photographs and I only had a handful of real-life digital photos where I had any problem. Even then, I cannot tell for sure if the issue I was originally seeing was every time due to focus shift or instead my own or subject movement.
Once you know it's there, it's really simple to work around it. The shift is very small, so your best chance of seeing it is putting your camera on a tripod and taking a close-up photo at several apertures.
sanmich
Veteran
Seriously?
SolaresLarrave
My M5s need red dots!
Some of the posts in this thread are evidently in jest... I really would like to have a copy of this lens. I am fortunate to have the 'lux on one of my M6TTLs, but I'd like the CV for my M4-2. What can one do? Fast glass is terribly addictive...
porktaco
Well-known
seems that this lens inspires the most polarized debate of any m-mount. very interesting.
cjcm
Member
Have to object there, mine had backfocus from f/1.4 to f/2, and frontfocus from f/2.4 onwards - or was it the other way round? Anyway, I had to twist my rf alignment to get in-focus shots at f/1.4 so that it then was off at infinity. I don't say it's a bad lens, it might indeed be a great lens for what it is, and there are people who love it to death. I hated it and sold it again within days, got the Biogon 2/35 and was happy
Got exactly the same problem with a lens of a friend of mine I have tried several month !
This lens front focus at f1.4, and backfocus at 2, 2.8, 4, 5.6 with 2.8 beeing the worst (focus shift / DOF). I have made pictures and a complete test on film. No way, that I may have made a mistake on this. And the Sean Reid review of the lens shows exactly the same thing.
So, I never tried to get one, which is a pitty since I love this lens (even the bookeh) ... when the focus is correct ...
I'm still thinking of getting one. Is it possible that the lens of my friend, the ones used by Sean Reid were bad copies ? Is it that the last version of the lens has corrected this problem ?
Does somebody has made focus test with success ?
Thanks for reporting your experience
ferider
Veteran
Hexar AF, UC Hex, Nikkor 35/1.8 (same basic lens design for all three), 35/1.2 and Nokton 35/1.4 are pretty much on par, Michael. With the AF you can get closer - and it's more pronounced the closer you get. Here is one of my AF test shots (the GAS lamp is straight in real life
):
Also, have a look at the recent M-mount Nikkor 35/1.8 thread.
Note that the new Summilux ASPH has around 2% distortion as well, even more than the previous one.
Last edited:
sanmich
Veteran
Got it, thanks.
I was a bit surprised since I never noticed that bad a distortion on this camera. I certainly don't shoot brick walls with it. It's to good for that
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Reading back through this thread I have to conclude that as good as the 1.4 is there are quality control issues with varying reports of focus problems. It seems that some examples have it to a larger extent than others and this is what makes me wary of Cosina's current lens offerings. I'm not comfortable with the prices you have to pay for Leica glass but it does make me lean towards Zeiss ... and I know I'll get shouted down with the inevitable argument ... "Cosina manufactures Zeiss's range so what's the difference?"
There's obviously a big difference and although the 50mm Sonnar C does have a a focus shift issue it's known and it seems to be consistent. Slowly but surely I'm building my collection of Zeiss glass as finances allow and each additional lens blows me away with it's rendering ... particularly in the OOF areas and distortion seems to be minimal in the four examples I now own which is two M mount (25mm Biogon and 50mm Sonnar) and two F mount. (50mm Planar and 35mm Distagon!)
I know Zeiss aren't currently offering a fast 35mm M mount but if they did come up with a 35mm f1.4 that was twice or two and a half times the price of Cosina's lens I would happily pay the premium ... finances allowing of course!
There's obviously a big difference and although the 50mm Sonnar C does have a a focus shift issue it's known and it seems to be consistent. Slowly but surely I'm building my collection of Zeiss glass as finances allow and each additional lens blows me away with it's rendering ... particularly in the OOF areas and distortion seems to be minimal in the four examples I now own which is two M mount (25mm Biogon and 50mm Sonnar) and two F mount. (50mm Planar and 35mm Distagon!)
I know Zeiss aren't currently offering a fast 35mm M mount but if they did come up with a 35mm f1.4 that was twice or two and a half times the price of Cosina's lens I would happily pay the premium ... finances allowing of course!
Last edited:
ampguy
Veteran
Hi Roland
Hi Roland
Yes, it does manifest in many lens out there. As Brian mentioned, Nikon's first or one of their first zooms, the 43-86/3.5 that sold for 30+ years or so has not only severe barrel, but severe pincusion. I like that lens though
I never noticed it much on the 50/1.4 pre asph lux, until you showed me your uncorrected photo from the SJ museum? or wherever, window shot (damn, I wish I din't see that!), but I do think it is less than say the Hexar AF's, by a tad maybe. Also, my particular J3 has it, but I rarely notice it unless shooting, uh, straight line buildings, etc.
What's interesting is that while it certainly bothers me now that I've seen it, I can accept that it doesn't bother others, and I'm now fine with this. I do think it odd, that here we are in 2010 paying lots of money for lenses with more distortion than a) HBC's 50/2 collapsible cron and b) $59 p&s cameras with plastic lens, but hey, that's what makes this hobby interesting!
Hi Roland
Yes, it does manifest in many lens out there. As Brian mentioned, Nikon's first or one of their first zooms, the 43-86/3.5 that sold for 30+ years or so has not only severe barrel, but severe pincusion. I like that lens though
I never noticed it much on the 50/1.4 pre asph lux, until you showed me your uncorrected photo from the SJ museum? or wherever, window shot (damn, I wish I din't see that!), but I do think it is less than say the Hexar AF's, by a tad maybe. Also, my particular J3 has it, but I rarely notice it unless shooting, uh, straight line buildings, etc.
What's interesting is that while it certainly bothers me now that I've seen it, I can accept that it doesn't bother others, and I'm now fine with this. I do think it odd, that here we are in 2010 paying lots of money for lenses with more distortion than a) HBC's 50/2 collapsible cron and b) $59 p&s cameras with plastic lens, but hey, that's what makes this hobby interesting!
sper
Well-known
It's supposed to be a 'classic' rendering right? I would guess that the imperfections were meant to be charms. Not for everybody. The perfect lens far as I can tell is the zeiss 35 2.8. If you want sharp and beautiful I'd opt for that. Or hell! The CV 35mm Color Skopar is fantastic!
Ah lenses. None are perfect. I'm trying to avoid letting too much thought about my optics stop me from making pictures. It's become a problem lately.
Ah lenses. None are perfect. I'm trying to avoid letting too much thought about my optics stop me from making pictures. It's become a problem lately.
Krosya
Konicaze
I know Zeiss aren't currently offering a fast 35mm M mount but if they did come up with a 35mm f1.4 that was twice or two and a half times the price of Cosina's lens I would happily pay the premium ... finances allowing of course!
If they did come up with ZM 35/1.4, I wonder if it would be much larger too? Close to CV 35/1.2 in size? It looks like thier new 35/1.4 SLR lens is HUGE!
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Well I just got my used 35mm f2 ZF Distagon in the post (thankyou Nicky) and it's a fair lump of a lens ... as big as the 1.2 Nokton in fact. I can't say it concerns me much as performance was my priority in choosing this lens so the size is secondary. The new 35mm f1.4 must be a monster though!
Griffin
Grampa's cameras user
FYI, I have let a €500 35/1.2 on ebay slide because I think I will prefer to hate the more compact lightweight 35/1.4... :bang:
Sonnar2
Well-known
size is a big plus of the C/V 35/1.4, and has to do with the classic Gaussian design. Any improvement will result in a huge lens.
Vincent.G
Well-known
Flare easily.. Not quite good OOF rendering..?
Also if it's possible, could you please post those bad pictures which you get from this lens.
I'm looking for reason not to sell my 35/1.2 and buy this lens.
I do love pictures from 35/1.2, but not it weight. Carrying it around make me feel like I'm
holding the brick.
I had the 35f1.4 and 35f1.2 but both are sold.
35f1.4
I bought the S.C. version. I have nothing to dislike about it. In daytime, I use it f8 or f11 and it is very sharp. In low light, the f1.4 is sufficient. I sold it because someone offered a good price for it and my M4P.
35f1.2
I bought it to try since many praise its rendering. Sure it is good and so is the build quality. But the lens eventually got on my nerves as it is big and heavy. It blocks a portion of the VF. It has the same amount of distortion as 35f1.4 (but it does not bother me). The lens just don't feel right as an everyday-carry-everywhere lens. I sold it eventually.
Between this 2 lens, I have more to dislike about the 35f1.2 than the 35f1.4. I will buy a 35f1.4 again anytime. Like Roland said, many who rant about the 35f1.4 has never used it. I am saving up for it.
Michael Tyler
Member
FWIW, this is what people are talking about when they say the 35 1.4 has distracting bokeh. The light from under the doorway looks like Darth Vader wants inside that church. This is from a 40mm, but in comparing the two I believe the bokeh is the same.
The 35mm 1.2 Nokton was my favorite lens, and to this day I've never found something I've enjoyed more. The signature is beautiful, the bokeh is smooth. At 1.2 it glows. At 2.0 it's as sharp as I could ever want it to be. It was my totally reliable lens. I only sold it because I sold my entire M8 system (mistake #1). More than any other lens I miss this one.
If size is an issue (which I agree with) then I would recommend getting a 35mm 2.5 Skopar as a walkaround lens, and keep the Nokton for when you need the speed.
The 35mm 1.2 Nokton was my favorite lens, and to this day I've never found something I've enjoyed more. The signature is beautiful, the bokeh is smooth. At 1.2 it glows. At 2.0 it's as sharp as I could ever want it to be. It was my totally reliable lens. I only sold it because I sold my entire M8 system (mistake #1). More than any other lens I miss this one.
If size is an issue (which I agree with) then I would recommend getting a 35mm 2.5 Skopar as a walkaround lens, and keep the Nokton for when you need the speed.
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
We just came back from three weeks in Europe. Three bodies, a R4M for my 21f4.5 C Biogon, a M2 for my Nokton 35f1.4 SC and a R3M for the new 75f1.8 (there was also a 12f5.6 along - used sparingly.
So far I have processed 30 of 50 rolls, scanned about 165 shots from those - and at least 70% were shot with the 35f1.4! Not a single shoot rejected because of lens performance issues. Yes it does have some distorsion - but if I was shooting architectural stuff - i would not use a 35 anyway (it would be the C-Biogon 21f4.5 - with NO distorsion!).
I did a couple of quick snaps with a friends new 35f1.4 Summilux Asph. Very good close-up (floating element helps), sharpness looks OK - but the bokeh is ugly - compared to the Nokton 35f1.4 - and it costs $4000 to boot!
Looking at the negatives - I most likely could have done the trip ( about 2700 miles) with only a M2 and the 35f1.4 and not really missed the other lenses - though the 75f1.8 nicely complements the 35.
Check on our Flickr site under the set "Tom's Europe 2010" and there should be at least 100 shots, ranging from ragged edge f1.4 @ 1/4 sec to 1/500 @ f16. All done on either Neopan Presto 400 or Fomopan 400.
So far I have processed 30 of 50 rolls, scanned about 165 shots from those - and at least 70% were shot with the 35f1.4! Not a single shoot rejected because of lens performance issues. Yes it does have some distorsion - but if I was shooting architectural stuff - i would not use a 35 anyway (it would be the C-Biogon 21f4.5 - with NO distorsion!).
I did a couple of quick snaps with a friends new 35f1.4 Summilux Asph. Very good close-up (floating element helps), sharpness looks OK - but the bokeh is ugly - compared to the Nokton 35f1.4 - and it costs $4000 to boot!
Looking at the negatives - I most likely could have done the trip ( about 2700 miles) with only a M2 and the 35f1.4 and not really missed the other lenses - though the 75f1.8 nicely complements the 35.
Check on our Flickr site under the set "Tom's Europe 2010" and there should be at least 100 shots, ranging from ragged edge f1.4 @ 1/4 sec to 1/500 @ f16. All done on either Neopan Presto 400 or Fomopan 400.
noimmunity
scratch my niche
But it will not have detractors like Lil Nok!