Would like to hear your thoughts

[ywenz]

I'm itching to get a fast lens for low light shooting. I'm really thinking about the CV 35/1.2 but other candidates are making my decision though, to say the least. I'm debating about these lenses:

CV 35/1.2
CV 40/1.4
Leica 35/1.4 non-ASPH

The 35/1.2 is realtively cheap and fast! However its large size and it's tendency to brass(bad to resale value?) is turning me off.

The 40/1.4 is fast, small, and even cheaper. On paper, I really like this lens! The only thing that is holding me back is the unconventional 40mm focal length. Would the 40mm cause some major confusion when framing? I assume I can eventually get used to it. Are there any 40mm users who can provide some insight?

The Leica 35 is the lens I want, if price is not of consideration. Is the $1100(avg) price worth it? I would assume it will have better resale value than the other
CV lenses? But then again, if I get the Leica, I might not ever want to sell it....

I need help. 🙁

 

[RayPA]

I recently acquired the 40/1.4 SC, but I've used it exclusively on my CLE (40mm frame lines). I think the 40mm brings up the 50 frame lines on a M. I've never met a FL that I didn't like, but the 40 is very comfortable to use. I posted some images shot with this lens HERE a couple of days ago.



.

 

[GeneW]

If you can take a one-stop hit, the CV 35/1.7 Ultron is a truly nice piece of glass, and not too dear.

Gene

 

[35mmdelux]

CV 35/1.2
CV 40/1.4
Leica 35/1.4 non-ASPH

They're all nice lenses. The 40 has a perrenial problem w/ off-the-wall VF. However, I've used the 38mm on a Contax T2, which is pretty close, and I'll say I like the focal length as it seemed really "normal."

The CV35/1.2 is for me too big and I'm told intrudes heavy into the M VF. As such I personally would not consider this lens. For 1/2 stop extra its just huge.

I picked up a 35mm/1.4 Leica last week for the going av rate, gulp. Fortunetly for me it is in Mint cond, so the hit wasn't felt that bad. I had forgotten how small the Lux is. Previously been shooting w/ 35mm Cron for 10+ years. According to data, the 35mmLux is a Summicron opened up one stop. Sure it costs more, but in the end will you be happy w/ the CV? Only you have that answer. I've owned a few CVs and found that, while they were good to excellent performers, I replaced them w/ its Leica counterparts. Tough decision. Good luck.

 

[RayPA]

If you can take a one-stop hit, the CV 35/1.7 Ultron is a truly nice piece of glass, and not too dear.

Gene

again (as in a previous thread 🙂 ), I second Gene's suggestion. This is one you should seriously consider and add to the list.



.

 

[RML]

I use the M-Rokkor 40/2. For me 40mm comes more antural than 35mm and 50mm. For framelines I can use any 35mm framelines. Framelines are usually nothing more than an estimate of the FoV anyway.

 

[Huck Finn]

The Leica 35 is the lens I want, if price is not of consideration. Is the $1100(avg) price worth it?

Are you saying $1100 for the pre-Aspherical? You should be able to get one of the versions of the Aspherical for this price.

 

[yossarian]

I became conditioned to and then very fond of the 40mm FL when I got a Ricoh 500G in 1975. The 50 has never felt quite right for me; slight variations, such as
55, 58, and 45 just worked better for me. But 40 became a favorite.

The point is, I was waiting around for CV to give us a fast 40, and it's truly a fine lens.
But if you have even the slightest reservation about the FL, I'd say pass.

The Summilux is hands-down sharpness champ (as it should be at the price). But I
defer to the others here regarding the 35/1.7--their experience suggests quite a
superior lens, and I've never read any serious criticisms of it.

Fred

 

[Nikon Bob]

If you want small and a lens that brings up the correct frame lines then the 35mm pre asph lux is the one. If you check on the web you will find that it has a rep as being soft wide open and does not deal well with flare. I don't know how the other lenses are in comparison as I have not owned them. I rarely use my pre asph lux wide open and the jury is still out on the flare bit. I find not much wrong with it in everday use. I also never use it without the proper hood.

Nikon Bob

 

[kevino]

I can't comment on the 35/1.2 or the 40/1.4. I used to own a 35/1.4 pre asph lux (the four pics in my gallery were taken with that lens) but sold it after about a year. It was quite compact and performed well stopped down. I just didn't care for it's performance wide open. Some folks rave about it.

I honestly prefer the look and performance of the Ultron 35/1.7 to the old lux - a hair slower but better in my opinion.

FWIW I've also got a 35/2 cron asph and the performance of that lens is outstanding.

I don't think you can go wrong with any of the Voigtlanders. They have the best bang for the buck in my opinion.

 

[taffer]

You could find the following link useful...

http://www.pbase.com/juergenkook/leica_voigtlander&page=all

 

[rich815]

After exploring all the "fast" alternatives I've come up with my best solution as this: shoot faster film. Once you go under the f/2 lenses the quality in contrast, sharpness (sometimes) and bokeh drops fast. I've found I can hand hold easily down to 1/30th with my Leicas and that at f/2 with 400 speed seems enough in most night city street situations. See here:

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=64703365&size=o

And if you need faster than that shoot Neopan 1600 or Delta 3200 (which I rate at 1600). Those give you two more stops on top of the 400 films. Two stops darker than my above shot is getting pretty darn dark. Both of those are unbelieveably fine grained for their speed (with proper developing) and/or you can use NeatImage or Noise Ninja to clean up the grain as well, if you scan, as I do.

The extra cost of these faster lenses is not altogether worth it IMO. I have the 40/1.4 Nokton S.C and like it well enough. But if I had had my 50/2 Summicron DR and realized how well I could hand-hold my MP and M3 I would not have bought it after the fact.

I considered the 35/1.2 but after reading reports and seeing the results online was not altogether impressed. Not for the money or the size and weight anyway. Plus I hear the throw is long. Not good for fast RF photography IMO.

So, my recommendation is to really think about why you need a faster lens. If it's because you want narrow DOF then of course that's reason enough. If it's because you want to shoot in darker situations then I suggest you see how well you can handhold with an f/2 lens using 400 speed film and then also try the Neopan 1600 or Delta 3200 and see if those give you the speed you want.

 

[wtl]

I do not have any experience with CV lens but there will be time you shoot at f1.4 with 1/8 @ even ISO1600 so I will go with Lux and be done with it. Years ago I traded my "cron 35/2 ASPH for a 'lux 35/1.4 pre-ASPH. Never look back. $1200 for this lens is about right (if it's in good condition) and worth it.

Just my humbled 2 cents.

 

[kevino]

Rich -

Excellent comments. Thanks for sharing your perspective. I agree.

 

[rich815]

...there will be time you shoot at f1.4 with 1/8 @ even ISO1600....

1/8th, f/1.4 at 1600? Really? That's a 6 stop difference overall to my night shot I posted above. I have never found myself shooting that and I've shot in some real dark situations.

Can you post an example of an image shot under those parameters? Perhaps a black cat in a coal mine? 😉

 

[JohnL]

I use a 35/1.2 with an M7 (.72x) for low light work. It intrudes noticeably into the viewfinder, but I can live with it - YMMV. The lens is an acceptable performer for its speed - even wide open. I'm not very keen on super-fast film, so the speed is useful to me.
No doubt slower lenses are sharper at smaller maximum apertures, but that's not really a fair comparison. I would not choose this lens for general purpose outdoor use, even though it's a good performer at middle apertures. It's just too big. I don't have a slower 35 (except for the Nikonos, which I only take when it's *very* wet) - I have a 28 and a 50. Maybe someday, but I don't believe it would really be necessary.

 

[ywenz]

Are you saying $1100 for the pre-Aspherical? You should be able to get one of the versions of the Aspherical for this price.

Where are you seeing it for so cheap? Ebay's price is around $1100 for the non-asph.

 

[35mmdelux]

I hear flaring is prone on the 35mmLux but IMO it also has alot to do w/ how you shoot too. For instance, even outside no matter what lens or f stop I use I always try to take a step back/forward and take advantage of any shade available. Often I find that opportunity, unless of course I'm on the beach.

I prefer slower film emulsions, going for fast emulsions only on demand. For some time now I've found myself readily hitting f2 on my pre-asph cron. So the 35Lux was my solution. Funny thing is that in none of the 10 Leica lenses I've owned have I ever experienced much of any flare. I experience far more flare from my M6TTL VF!!

For the guys (and gals) that don't have issue w/ fast film, then consider the 35mm Asph Cron or the 35mm/1.7 VC Asph. I loved mine but I needed the smaller Lux for what I do.

 

[35mmdelux]

You won't find a 35mmLux Aspherical for $1100, not in decent cond anyway. A 35mmCron Asph yes, but not the Lux.

You might get lucky ......but I wouldn't hold my breath.

 

[ywenz]

Arghh! Now more I htink about it, the CV 40/1.4 is much more cost effective. I don't think I can justify spending almost over 4 times the cost of the CV40 for the Leica..

CV35 I'm afraid won't be used too much because of the size.