which lens would you rather have

which lens would you rather have

  • Total voters
    141
mfogiel said:
The 35mm is a better lens of the two to start with, also, it has no focus shift. I tried to use the 50/1.1 in daylight, but it is not nearly as sharp as a Planar , Summicron or Summilux, and the focus shift issue makes it little practical for fast operation in my opinion. For example, this shot , made at f 8.0 is lacking in sharpness because of the focus shift:

3844075229_84e017fa83_b.jpg
Click to expand...

mfogiel,

I see your shot and it looks totally sharp. From closest lines on the floor near the lens to infinity... By the place kids are, everything is sharp too (even the tennis ball to the extreme right...)

I guess no one can judge, in any shot, a focus shift at f/8 when focusing meters away from camera... I feel :eek: too...

Any other member? Am I missing something?
 
mfogiel said:
With this lens, if you want something sharp, you cannot focus on the contour of the object, but on its closest element, which at times is difficult - you should have focused on the elbow..
Click to expand...

Wat you say is true, but it is true for all fast lenses. When shooting portraits you always have to focus on the nearest eye. That is common sense.
Maybe @ f/8 diffraction comes into play. At small apertures diffraction kills all sharpness. This is also true for the very fine Color Skopar 50mm f/2.5. When shooting at small apertures, you better mount an old Elmar 50mm f/3.5 or an old Summaron 35mm f/3.5. The only fast lens that is sharp @ small apertures is the pre asph Summilux 50mm f/1.4, but that one suffers from barrel distortion.

Erik.
 
Last edited:
Depth of field extends more behind the point of focus than closer to us, so it's usual to focus just a little bit closer than desired, specially when using large apertures. Other factor is how accurate your camera's telemetry is... When I started testing my 90 f2 focusing at 1 and 2 meters wide open (1.5 centimeters of DOF at f2!), I thought the lens was back focusing 2 or 3 centimeters (only visible by f2 at 1 mt)... Then yesterday, for curiosity, I repeated the test on my other Bessa T, and results scanned today are incredibly precise... So as both cameras are identical, I learned that the large lens must always be on the large serial number camera, so I'll never get confused.
 
For me, the decision is simple: I'm not perfect at focusing, so I like having a little depth of field to work with. At f/1.4, 35mm has a bit more depth of field than 50mm at 1.4—to me that is enough reason.
Besides, 50mm might be the standard for SLRs, but RFs need 35mm. Just works better that way.
 
a fifty is for me.
Actually, i have a very user canon old 50/1.2 and am totally happy with it!
I just wish i had a hood and a proper cap for it. Anybody?
 
thomasw_ said:
Neither of these options. Both are too big for all-round day to day use. In terms of focal length, though, if I were able to work with only one FL, a 35 or 50, I'd go with a 50mm as my one and only focal length.
Click to expand...

I have used the 1.2/35 as an all-round, any-time, any-where lens. it works great and it's not like it weighs 4 pounds or something!
sure a smaller lens is smaller and a lighter lens is lighter. but it doesn't make the heavier lens unusable.
 
I absolutely agree with you, Simon. 35 and 50 Noktons are not big, and are not heavy. They're great for everyday use. AND they are AMAZING LENSES !
 
Mostly I shoot with tiny little 50mm Sonnars. When I voted in this poll I put the 50/1.1 because 50mm is my preferred tool. Now I have the 50/1.1 and like it very much (thanks hiromu) (mine has no focus shift BTW) so now I would have to say I would like to try the 35/1.2. For a day. One day. That would be enough, I think.
 
How big is it?

How big is it?

Hey guys,
I don't have either lens and frankly I'm thinking about getting a 35 nokton 1.2 for low light condition. Now, several posts mentioned about the size of the nokton. I saw pictures of this lens next to other 35 lenses on Reid Reviews, and I think it's not that big.

How big is this lens actually? Does anyone here have a picture of it mounted on an M camera? Or compared to SLR lens for instance?

When I shoot DSLR, my all purpose lens is a canon 24-70 L which is big and really heavy, and my other L lenses are not small either, I have no problem with that. So when I read the comments about the size (and weight) I wonder how big the nokton 35 f/1.2 is.
Thanks in advance,
Bob
 
You should look on flickr for an image (I can't remember where it is) that shows the frame line intrusion. From my use, I no longer notice that I can see the lens through the VF unless I am framing to keep something in that corner. If you shoot an Ikon it will not be as bad. Cameraquest also has several comparisons to other CV lenses.

Weight-wise, I don't care since more weight often means more durable, but many people do. It is heavy and I use a Luigi case with a built in grip mostly when I have the 1.2 attached.

Size-wise I feel like my leica becomes an SLR when I attach the nokton. But if you usually shoot a 24-70 on a dslr from any company the nokton will be nothing in comparison. It is a bit bigger than a 50 prime (but feels much heavier).
 
Just bought the 35/1.2. The size and weight don't bother me so far, but actually help me keep the camera stable.

Don't have the 50/1.1, but do have the Nokton 50/1.5 and Zeiss ZM Planar 50/2. If I had to choose, I'd opt for the latter, but so far I do not have to choose.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom