panda81
Member
Does anyone have photos of the Nokton 35mm f/1.2 paired up with a Zeiss Ikon? I read a lot of people saying that the lens is "too hefty," but coming from shooting DSLRs, I'm wondering if the heftiness will be easy for me to deal with or not. Can anyone compare how the size of the Nokton 35mm f/1.2 lens compares with any of the Nikkor F-mount lenses?
Still, even if I could deal with the heftiness, my original reason for wanting to buy a rangefinder is to have a small compact film camera to carry around with me, and it seems like buying a lens like this defeats that purpose. What is everyone else's thoughts?
Thanks in advance!
Still, even if I could deal with the heftiness, my original reason for wanting to buy a rangefinder is to have a small compact film camera to carry around with me, and it seems like buying a lens like this defeats that purpose. What is everyone else's thoughts?
Thanks in advance!
mllanos1111
Well-known
I have this same setup and oddly enough I'm also a Nikon shooter. When everyone had said that the lens was huge I was thinking "is it the size of my 85/1.4 Nikkor?.
Well I bought it and Love it! to me the lens isn't that big and I don't feel that it's much larger than a Nikkor 50/1.4.
The lens handles very well and the focus is smooth and perfect. I actually put my Planar 50/2 on the other day and I didn't feel that it handled as nicely.
The combination is absolutely perfect for me and I use it as my everyday setup.
Here is link to my setup but not sure if it shows you as much as you like.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mllanos/3331819314/
Well I bought it and Love it! to me the lens isn't that big and I don't feel that it's much larger than a Nikkor 50/1.4.
The lens handles very well and the focus is smooth and perfect. I actually put my Planar 50/2 on the other day and I didn't feel that it handled as nicely.
The combination is absolutely perfect for me and I use it as my everyday setup.
Here is link to my setup but not sure if it shows you as much as you like.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mllanos/3331819314/
kxl
Social Documentary
No picture, but the CV 35/1.2 is very, very close to the size (length and diameter) of the Nikon 35mm/1.4 AIS. The CV feels more dense and is in fact a little bit (very, very little ) heavier.
thomasw_
Well-known
I love the 35/1,2...I use it with both a M2 and a MP. No problems with the lens on either M, even ub spite of the fact that my MP has a .85x VF. I like the tight framelines for the 35.
Jason Sprenger
Well-known
Here's a couple of pictures of a ZI wearing the CV 35/1.2 next to a 5D sporting the Canon EF 35/1.4 L for comparison. A Nikon wasn't immediately available to me to compare.
The CV 35/1.2 is a lens I reserve for when I know I will be taking photographs at night in dark places where the "slap-buzz" of a DSLR or its size would be inappropriate.
FWIW, the CV 35/1.4 Nokton is noticeably smaller and more compact than the CV 35/1.2, making it a nicer walking-around lens. It is not quite equal to the CV 35/1.2 wide-open; nevertheless, it offers f1.4 where an f2 lens won't and that can be useful.
To me, the difference is the CV 35/1.4 is for when I might find myself in a dimly lit place, and the CV 35/1.2 is for when I set out for a dimly lit place.
The CV 35/1.2 is a lens I reserve for when I know I will be taking photographs at night in dark places where the "slap-buzz" of a DSLR or its size would be inappropriate.
FWIW, the CV 35/1.4 Nokton is noticeably smaller and more compact than the CV 35/1.2, making it a nicer walking-around lens. It is not quite equal to the CV 35/1.2 wide-open; nevertheless, it offers f1.4 where an f2 lens won't and that can be useful.
To me, the difference is the CV 35/1.4 is for when I might find myself in a dimly lit place, and the CV 35/1.2 is for when I set out for a dimly lit place.
Attachments
thomasw_
Well-known
There is more to the f1,2 than just half a stop in speed over the nokton f1,4. It has a remarkable signature. I love its rendering. It is very different than the f1,4. But check the flickr m-mount group for image sample comparisons between the lenses.
mfogiel
Veteran
The ZI with the 35/1.2 Nokton in comparison to DSLR's will feel like a nice carry around camera, but what it really is, is THE DE LUXE low light shooting combo: ZI's viewfinder and focusing precision together with the Nokton's performance at large apertures are simply the best on the market. If you really want a SMALL carry around rig, get the Minolta CLE with the 40/2 Rokkor or C Summicron and be done with it.
panda81
Member
wow, thanks everyone for your replies and photos for comparison!
from jason's photos, it doesn't really look like a terribly large combination. my objective isn't to be super stealthy so no one will know i'm even taking pictures, but rather have a setup where i can have a camera that's less intrusive and intimidating than my DSLR.
however, my original idea was to buy just one RF and one lens, and that's it, but now it seems like it would be nice to have a second lens for when i want a smaller setup. looking at everyone's photos in RFF, i really like how the 35/1.2 can perform wide open. and i usually end up shooting indoors anyway, which is why i would like the largest aperture possible (within reason).
i guess maybe i should think about what's another good lens to complement the ZI and 35/1.2 setup. buying another lens, what a slippery slope...
from jason's photos, it doesn't really look like a terribly large combination. my objective isn't to be super stealthy so no one will know i'm even taking pictures, but rather have a setup where i can have a camera that's less intrusive and intimidating than my DSLR.
however, my original idea was to buy just one RF and one lens, and that's it, but now it seems like it would be nice to have a second lens for when i want a smaller setup. looking at everyone's photos in RFF, i really like how the 35/1.2 can perform wide open. and i usually end up shooting indoors anyway, which is why i would like the largest aperture possible (within reason).
i guess maybe i should think about what's another good lens to complement the ZI and 35/1.2 setup. buying another lens, what a slippery slope...
W
Way
Guest
I keep wanting to buy the 35/1.2 for to go along with my silver ZI (wish I had gotten a black one). My main two lenses that I carry are the 35 summicron IV and the 50 summilux asph or 50 Canon 1.4. There's a lot of great lenses out there that won't break the bank. I don't know what you're looking for but the 40/2 rokkor can be had for less than $400 (i think). I love my Canon 50/1.4 and is also priced in the same ballpark. For modern lens the CV 50/1.5 Nokton gets good comments too. The CV 40/1.4 have mixed reviews mostly for bokeh but everyone seems to agree that it is a very sharp lens. The only negative comment I have about the Canon 50/1.4 and the CV 50/1.5 is that they can't close focus to .7 meters.
mfogiel
Veteran
The right duo would be the Nokton 35/1.2 for the low light and the C Biogon 35/2.8 for outside.
kxl
Social Documentary
That would actually be a very good duo.
I myself opted for the CV 35/2.5 Skopar Classic primarily because of cost, and also since I only shoot B&W film, I don't think there would be much appreciable difference between the C Biogon and the Skopar. Now, if I shoot color film/slides, then I would go with the C Biogon.
lawrence
Veteran
CK Dexter Haven
Well-known
It IS a slippery slope.
I have the CV35/1.2 and the Ikon body. I also have a Nikon FE2 and F80.
If you really want to get into rangefinders, the Ikon is a great option. But, if you're getting into rangefinders purely because you think they're a more compact camera solution, versus your SLRs, you may want to reevaluate that. Side by side, the Ikon with 35/1.2 is practically the same size as the FE2 with a 50/1.2. the Nikon is a little taller, but only at the pentaprism part. On the sides, the SLR is smaller than the RF. The width is the same. It's really a wash.
As far as the lens goes, it's marvelous. But, it is large. Coming from SLRs and MF as i do, it's not a dealbreaker, but it does eliminate one of the more significant reasons why i wanted a rangefinder. So, recently, i bought the Leica 35/2-ASPH to use when i wanted a more compact 35mm. Slippery slope. So, now i have two 35mm lenses. And, i feel silly about it. And, the kicker is that i really don't like composing and focusing with a rangefinder....
I don't know, though, if RFs really are less intrusive and intimidating than dSLRs these days. dSLRs are soooo common. RFs are oddities. I live in Manhattan, and i don't even notice people shooting with dSLRs, but i do a doubletake every time i see a rangefinder, and even though i'm attuned to looking for them, they're still rare. I still haven't seen anyone using an Ikon in all of New York City! Besides that, if you're shooting people (where 'intimidation' might be an issue), it takes longer to frame, focus, recompose with an RF than it does with an AF SLR, or even a manual SLR. And, doing that with a moving target/person is problematic with an RF. Intimidation is mitigated by getting a shot quickly with an SLR, versus having to keep a camera trained on a subject for longer than the person is used to. If you're shooting 'street,' that's moot. But, then, the SLR can probably do that stuff quicker, more efficiently, and more accurately.
Nevertheless, if you want a rangefinder, get one anyway. Despite the 'drawbacks.' They're fun. They're beautiful little pieces of engineering. The lenses are great. But, be prepared to get 'involved.' I bought into and got out of rangefinders twice in the past. With the most recent 'buy-in' i promised myself it would only be for one lens. Now i have three, and one is 'redundant.' And, i want an 'old' lens now, that would also duplicate one of my current/modern lenses. Silliness.
fbf
Well-known
capitalK
Warrior Poet :P
No pictures, and not what you asked for but I tried this lens for the first time yesterday on my Bessa R2A (which is smaller than an Ikon) and I did find it unbalanced, even coming from using a 35mm Biogon f/2 as my main lens (which is not small). Once I slipped on my Luigi case it did feel alot better. With the Bessa anyway I think a case or a grip would be helpful. I'm looking forward to seeing the results when I develop.
FA Limited
missing in action
how's the viewfinder intrusion of the 35/1.2 on the Ikon?
Sam N
Well-known
Interesting that the 35/1.2 and the Canon 35L weigh almost the same. The 35L is MUCH bigger as seen in the photos above.
I'm curious about this too.
I'm curious about this too.
CK Dexter Haven
Well-known
On the Ikon, it's so slight that i never notice it - without the hood. I mean, if you look for it, it's there. But, in use it seems pretty insignificant. And, i'm not really an RF guy. I wouldn't let viewfinder intrusion put you off the 35/1.2, at least not with an Ikon. I think it does intrude more with a Leica M, though.
rya
Established
There was a thread about this a couple months ago but I can't find it. Someone measured exactly how visible the nokton was in different viewfinders. I think the results were that if you draw a diagonal line in the VF, the lens covers 1/10th of the ikon view and up to 1/3rd of an M6 view.
FA Limited
missing in action
think it was this one http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=69245
just wanted more opinions
just wanted more opinions