Why CV doesn't make a 35/2.0?

How much of Cosina's output is original design, and how much is simply remakes of classic designs for the nostalgia market?
 
I have the f1.4 and am very happy with it. Possible my picture taking MO negates the possibilty of focus shift, as I've never experienced it. I've the f1.2 on loan as well, which is nice, but too big to lug around IMO. If you really want a f2.0 (and not a f1.7 or 2.5) made by CV, buy the Zeiss, but I can't quite understand why one would need it. But who said need have anything to do with GAS.
 
Cosina makes the Zeiss ZM 35mm Biogon f/2, maybe there is be a partner agreement between Zeiss and Cosina that Cosina should not make a 35mm f/2...
 
I don't get the point - why not use the 35mm Nokton at f2 if you want a CV 35/2 ? As I understand it (and I don't have this lens) that stopping down mitigates the special effects that occur when the lens is wide open. It's a small lens and nicely made (assuming its made to the same standards as my 40/1.4). I'd settle for that quite happily.
 
Austerby said:
I don't get the point - why not use the 35mm Nokton at f2 if you want a CV 35/2 ? As I understand it (and I don't have this lens) that stopping down mitigates the special effects that occur when the lens is wide open. It's a small lens and nicely made (assuming its made to the same standards as my 40/1.4). I'd settle for that quite happily.
Click to expand...

I was thinking that too. It's a compact lens for sure, and apparently from internet law, the much talked about bokeh "characteristics" disappear at f2.

Maybe someone can post some f2 shots?
 
Buy a Canon 35/2.0 instead! It was called the "Japanese Summicron", tiny, sharp, light weight and very well built.

wallace
 
Yeah, the Canon 35/2 looks nice too, last week I was tempted to buy it, but finaly I will get the 35/2.5 PII. I can't live with the 2.5, i can afford a Summicron.

About the biogon, I've never handle one, it is as big as it looks?
 
Last edited:
I think an upgrade for the Ultron 35/1.7 in M-mount should be a 35/2 but please, make one that is much smaller than the Biogon, ugh.

I am another 35/1.7 user btw, and it's a darling of a lens, if only it's the size of the 35/1.4, then it would be perfect.

4031910719_20d1594ffc_o.jpg
 
I'd really like to try a 35 Nokton and compare it to my '69 Lux. I would like sharp wide open and not glowing!!!!!!
I sold my 35 asph summicron a few weeks ago and would like something close to it without spending a fortune! The lux came my way with some other gear and I just don't think it suits me. I just don't get the €1000 euro plus price tag for a walk around lens. My 28mm AIS nikkor makes a mockery of leica prices. I paid £46 for it. Here's a sample. This is the look i'm after without having to pay over a grand for the privilege of using an M camera.

4405973967_1b6a725fc7_o.jpg
 
Last edited:
Keep the size and build quality of 35/1.4 Nokton, but fix the distortion and I would buy a f2 version immediately...
 
I recently tried out a friend's 35/1.4, we tested it out for focus shift and found little to non :D I've now seen enough proof to confirm that newer noktons don't suffer from focus shift as severe as the older ones, and I've already placed an order for one myself..can't wait :)
 
ashrafazlan, that's the problem... not all of them do suffer from focus shift... However, I bought one in November 2009 that did.
 
Jaime M said:
Yeah, the Canon 35/2 looks nice too, last week I was tempted to buy it, but finaly I will get the 35/2.5 PII. I can live with the 2.5, i can afford a Summicron.

About the biogon, I've never handle one, it is as big as it looks?
Click to expand...

The Skopar is a better lens than the old Canon f2. Just a touch slower.
 
40 is about the limit that CV can design to. Wider than that, and all kinds of compromises get tossed in the mix.

The 40/1.4 has virtually no focus shift, does have harsh bokeh that starts to get tamer @ f2.

If they made could make a 43/2 based on the existing 40/1.4, that would be a killer lens.
 
Hi Mike

Hi Mike

My understanding is pretty much the same, but independent of rf calib., and even independent (somewhat of DOF).

If you have old Nikon SLR gear, like the first 43-86 zoom, you can actually focus on something at f3.5 and without changing the focus, see the focus move as you change the aperture. No RF involvement at all here.

With an RF system, you can notice a focus shifting lens by focusing in the RF, and seeing where in the DOF window that focus is at different apertures. It's a tedious setup, but can be setup in an hour or two with electronic distance measuring laser and ultrasonic devices, and a digital M body.

Here's where I measured no discernible focus shift with a 40/1.4 CV, great lens: CV 40/1.4 1m 1.50cm steps Focus Shift Test




MikeL said:
Focus shift, as I have read it defined, is due to the optical properties of the lens.

If a lens with such optics appears to or does not appear to 'focus shift' when testing, that is due to the calibration between the lens and rangefinder, and whether the focus shift that occurs due to the optics is within the depth of field and/or acceptable to how big someone is going to enlarge something.

I doubt they changed the optics on the later ones, but they may have improved the tolerance, or the couple that were tried happened to have the right calibration for your rangefinder setting.

Edit: Someone should make a focus shift sticky so that people understand what is occurring, and not starting myths like the chrome 35mm summilux asph or other lenses don't focus shift. For example, I had a chrome one and black one at the same time. They both shifted focus. Luckily, both were calibrated such that at f1.4, the object of focus was at one edge of depth of field, and as the aperture was closed the focus shift occurred within the expanding depth of field. Also, if one looks at how much shift occurs (rather small) with a 35mm, once your subject is more than a meter away it is all moot.

If you really care, and get a lens that is not focusing correctly, put a ground glass on the film rail, focus on an object at the distance where you are seeing the problem, change the aperture, and watch what happens with a loupe.
Click to expand...
 
Hi Roland

Hi Roland

I haven't noticed focus shift with my pre-asph 35 lux or 75 lux, but as I always mention, it doesn't mean it's not there.

If you provide parameters for where you think the shifts are greatest, I'll use your distance, and steps and measure the shift.

I agree with you on distortion, the HAF has it, maybe more of it than the CV 35/1.4.

ferider said:
I'm sure if CV would make a CV 35/2 it would still be considered by many to be worse than a > 20 year old Leica lens, unless it was priced higher.

The CV 35/2.5 and 1.4 are excellent. And then there is also the very good 35/1.7. Many other highly regarded lenses have similar barrel distortion (for example CV 35/1.2, Nikkor 35/1.8, UC 35/2); others similar focus shift (pre-asph Summilux 35, 50 and 75) and nobody ever talks about it. Half a stop difference will make no practical difference in your photography.

The biggest "issue" of CV lenses is the brand. As a 22 year old student with limited funds, why worry ?

Roland.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom