fjablo wrote:
From which angle are you looking at the lens?
Viewed from the front 0.7m sits at about 5 o'clock and 0.5m is at about 4 or 3:30. Doesn't sound too bad, but I find it uncomfortable as this is the 'close' position for the left hand and beyond where my index finger can move, so I have to re-position my hand.
But I was just on a first walk with the lens and it's a joy to use. Focus is super smooth and also very easy with the TTartisan 6-bit adapter which gives focus confirmation on my Nikon.
Haha Yeah, when I said 9 o'clock I meant looking at the cameras ide, so back of the lens
Cool. and how long is focus throw? starts at your front looking 4 or 3:30 and ends at? 7?
bjhurley wrote:
The other big value of the tab that I forgot to mention is that it gives you a physical sense of where you are on the focusing scale; over time you'll develop muscle memory that will allow you to quickly focus on subjects at different distances. You don't get that tactile feedback from a ring without a tab.
When John McPhee interviewed Bill Bradley in the 1960s for The New Yorker, Bradley moved around the basketball court, talking to McPhee with his back to the basket, and threw the ball over his shoulder into the net without looking, repeatedly. He said if you spend enough time on a basketball court you develop a sense of where you are. The tab is like that!...Show more →
Yep, that sounds great, that is I'm so looking forward to this. Using focusing ring doesn't help and E mount Voigtlanders have huge focus throw, so it always annoyed me so much going from MFD to another end. With tab it should be around 90-100 degrees max, right?
phinix wrote:
Yep, that sounds great, that is I'm so looking forward to this. Using focusing ring doesn't help and E mount Voigtlanders have huge focus throw, so it always annoyed me so much going from MFD to another end. With tab it should be around 90-100 degrees max, right?
I don't have this lens; I have the VM 35/2 Ultron. On that one, MFD is about 8:00 and infinity is about 4:00 (looking at it from the shooter's side out toward the subject). A very manageable focus throw with a finger on the tab.
bjhurley wrote:
When John McPhee interviewed Bill Bradley in the 1960s for The New Yorker, Bradley moved around the basketball court, talking to McPhee with his back to the basket, and threw the ball over his shoulder into the net without looking, repeatedly. He said if you spend enough time on a basketball court you develop a sense of where you are. The tab is like that!
This is also true, IMO, about using the optical viewfinder to frame lenses wider than the 28mm frame lines. I pretty quickly stopped using a 21mm external finder with the M9 after logging a lot of time with 21mm lenses. After a while I felt I had a pretty good feel for how much wider the angle of view was, to the point that I'd often position the viewfinder just under my shooting eye so I could look out over the camera and see the wider field of view.
Interesting comparison. The CA on the Leica FLE reminds me of the 28 Lux, which is pretty bad. I did notice his "midzone" was halfway between the center and far edge, but the midzone softness discussed here is halfway between the center and corner on the diagonal. There's a noticeable difference in performance between these two midzone areas at f/1.5.
phinix wrote:
Is it me or is this lens produce strange sunstars, like not that sharp, but smudged, especially those up close?
I'd say this is normal. The sunstars with this lens are very well defined as usual with Voigtlander lenses, but it also depends on the light source and how strong it is vs ambient, etc.
Just ordered the matte black aluminum version to pair with my M246 Monochrom. High hopes for this lens! I’m playing around with the idea of using 35mm as my standard focal length for a while. All things considered, this lens seems like a really well balanced and versatile option. Checks all of my boxes on paper, looking forward to trying it out!
Edit: Got the lens today, first impressions are great! It feels nicely weighted despite being the lighter aluminum version. Very smooth focus and aperture rings! Dead on accurate tested against my Leica glass.
I'd like to ask your advice. I am still looking for the best way to deal with the 35mm focal length. I currently have 3 CV lenses (Nokton 35/1.2 III, Ultron 35/1.7 and Ultron 35/2 II) and I can't decide how to solve my 35mm focal length problem. One option is to have 2 lenses (a large fast aperture lens and a small lens) and use the one that fits best. The other way is to use only one lens and here I would like to ask if that single lens can be this new Nokton 35/1.5?
What is the better option according to your experience?
Thank you very much for your advice and recommendations!
From what I’ve seen so far out of this lens, I’d say yes! The 35mm Ultron you have is an excellent all around lens too, f/2 is plenty fast for most work on a modern digital camera. I prefer the slightly more organic rendering of this new Nokton over the Ultron though. You could also look into a Summicron if you just want to be done with it. Haha
I bought the brass version of this lens when it first came out and am loving it.
However, the weight of the setup (M9 + CV 35/1.5) is getting to me a bit and I'd prefer if it was a bit lighter. I'm thinking of swapping the brass version for the aluminum version because of this. 192g (aluminum) vs 284g (brass) seems like it would be noticeable.
Does anyone with the aluminum version have any regrets? The brass version feels very smooth and the weight is nice for the mechanics. How does the aluminum version feel?
I have the aluminum version and bought it over the Brass version specifically due to the lighter weight.
The Aluminum version feels fantastic in the hand, plenty dense and high quality feeling, smooth focus...~200g for such a small lens still feel substantial
weezintrumpete wrote:
I bought the brass version of this lens when it first came out and am loving it.
However, the weight of the setup (M9 + CV 35/1.5) is getting to me a bit and I'd prefer if it was a bit lighter. I'm thinking of swapping the brass version for the aluminum version because of this. 192g (aluminum) vs 284g (brass) seems like it would be noticeable.
Does anyone with the aluminum version have any regrets? The brass version feels very smooth and the weight is nice for the mechanics. How does the aluminum version feel?
The aluminum version is one of the best feeling/operating M lens I've ever owned. The light weight combined with the high quality focusing feel and operation is sublime. Add to that the unique look and feel of the matte black paint, and it's a very satisfying lens to use. And once you get the aluminum matte black version, you have to get the CV 75 1.9 MC in matte black to pair with it
szwayko wrote:
Which filter POL you can use with these hoods?
By POL you mean a circular or linear polarizer?
I wouldn't use the hoods with one since you can't turn the filter ring with them attached. If you're using a polarizer, you're not shooting toward the sun and don't need the hood anyway.
highdesertmesa wrote:
By POL you mean a circular or linear polarizer?
I wouldn't use the hoods with one since you can't turn the filter ring with them attached. If you're using a polarizer, you're not shooting toward the sun and don't need the hood anyway.
Circular. But some company filters are OK. I use Haoge hood with nokton 50/1.2 and filter B+W basic POL line is OK for use with this hood - You can push them through a hood and use one finger. But with hood haoge for 28/2.0 II any 39mm B+W basic or K&F filters doesn't fix.
Yeah, when I said 9 o'clock I meant looking at the cameras ide, so back of the lens 
