What else make you hate CV 35 1.4?

[eieio]

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.

 

[kxl]

The 35/1.2 is my favorite M-mount lens, bar none. Strictly comparing IQ, the CV 35/1.4 does not even belong in the same conversation. If the 35/1.2's size/weight is an issue and you are basically looking for something smaller with excellent IQ, there are better choices than the CV 35/1.4., such as the ZM 35/2.8.

 

[jsrockit]

Distortion as well... since you have the 1.2...why not just buy a used 35mm f/2.5 Pancake for size and keep the 1.2?

 

[andredossantos]

i always hated that horrible bokeh. An all around a horrible lens 😉


all packed by andre dos santos, on Flickr



Untitled by andre dos santos, on Flickr


Untitled by andre dos santos, on Flickr


narrow by andre dos santos, on Flickr


Untitled by andre dos santos, on Flickr


la reina by andre dos santos, on Flickr

 

[eieio]

I already have 'cron 35 8 elements for normal day time walk around. The reason I bought 35/1.2 is for low light - night time photo. Before I did that, I already looked around both in here and also in Flickr for samples of both 1.4 and 1.2. That's why I choose 1.2.

I know that it's faster, it's smoother, hard to flare, less distort. But when holding it, it's really like I'm holding my ex-D700. I think I loose the feeling of RF camera.

I know that it's the price I have to pay for fast glass. But now I'm not sure if it worth to sacrify convenience with IQ and half stop faster.

(BTW, I really love my chrome 1.2 on my M2. I think chrome is sexier 😉)

 

[eieio]

Andre..

Seem like your hate this lens A LOT. That's why you have A LOT of pictures from this lens on your Flickr. 😛

 

[photogdave]

Yes, what lousy bokeh! Why anyone uses this lens is a mystery to me. 🙄

 

[ferider]

I already have 'cron 35 8 elements for normal day time walk around. The reason I bought 35/1.2 is for low light - night time photo. Before I did that, I already looked around both in here and also in Flickr for samples of both 1.4 and 1.2. That's why I choose 1.2.

I know that it's faster, it's smoother, hard to flare, less distort. But when holding it, it's really like I'm holding my ex-D700. I think I loose the feeling of RF camera.

I know that it's the price I have to pay for fast glass. But now I'm not sure if it worth to sacrify convenience with IQ and half stop faster.

(BTW, I really love my chrome 1.2 on my M2. I think chrome is sexier 😉)

The 35/1.4 MC flares (much) less than your 8 element Summicron. And no, your 35/1.2 does not have "less distort".

Most 35/1.4 "haters" have never used it. But you are out of luck - there is no chrome version. And you don't see it through the viewfinder ..... So it's not sexy 🙄

So much bad bokeh, flare, distortion - awful, really.

 

[ampguy]

Hey Roland, that's a great photo. Posed, or Unposed??

 

[RobertB]

Only thing I can think of is the handling of focus compared to the leica's. The fingerknob is a bit to small and the edge of it is to hard. Otherwise I can't help you... Good luck not buying it 😉

 

[shadowfox]

Y'know, those who complained a lot about this lens' "badness" are strangely (but not unexpectedly) silent...

... wow, look at them tumbleweeds.

Personally, I don't care how "supreme" the IQ of a lens is, it won't automagically make my pictures good. I say good enough is good enough.

Add to that, using an RF lens that are bigger and heavier than an SLR lens is to me rather ... un-sexy (for the lack of a better word). But that's just me I'm sure.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

So when will the 35/1.2 appear in the classified?

 

[ndnik]

Horrible lens, really. Totally wasted money. Big, heavy, soft, miserable bokeh, flares even in darkness, and wonky construction. So bad, I use it most of the time on my M4 as my standard lens.

😉

 

[back alley]

get a 28/1.9 then.

 

[user237428934]

In this photo you have the not so nice bookeh, flare and the colour cast in the corners that got worse through photo editing (perhaps this is even a M8 problem). But I still like that photo. The size of the lens is great. What really disturbed me was the distortion.


L1001360_web von tom.w.bn auf Flickr

 

[back alley]

i find it hard to believe that size and weight are the reasons to get rid of this lens...i sold mine because i didn't really care for the look of the images i made with it...but my current fave is the 50/1.1 which is much bigger...and i love the feel of it on my little rd1.

joe

 

[mathomas]

Sorry, I can't talk you out of trading "down" to the little 35. These shots aren't as good as the ones that others have posted, but I like my little Nokton a lot.

 

[ampguy]

Hi Dave

Hi Dave

I'm a fan of this lens, at least when it hits the $200-$300 range, like the 40/1.4 did. It would make a great backup for a 35 lux or cron, and would focus well with an EVIL camera.

Now I like this photo a lot, but am not keen on the bokeh near the headboard. That part looks like someone parked their shiny bicycle up there. The rest of the photo is great though !

Yes, what lousy bokeh! Why anyone uses this lens is a mystery to me. 🙄

 

[stupid leica]

i love this lens. my only complaint is that it's not free.

oh wait, a real complaint? i wish the front ring was black, not silver.

 

[maggieo]

Terrible lens. That's probably why it's welded to my M8.


Closing Up, Nouvelle Eve, Omaha, NE, August, 2010 by Maggie Osterberg, on Flickr


Joann, M's Pub, Omaha, NE, August, 2010 by Maggie Osterberg, on Flickr

Works on my M4-P, too.

Sue and Dad, August, 2010 by Maggie Osterberg, on Flickr