Oldwino wrote:
This is the beauty of that Nokton 35 1.4 II - you can buy the Leica FLE, and for just a little more money get the Nokton and have both. The Nokton is a better lens than the pre-asph anyway.
For the 35 Lux pre-asph and 35 Nokton, they are optical messes. Many will prefer the character of the 35 Lux pre-asph over the Nokton. So, better for some, not for others as far as images. Usability and especially price are not going to Leica’s, per usual.
nehemiahphoto wrote:
For the 35 Lux pre-asph and 35 Nokton, they are optical messes. Many will prefer the character of the 35 Lux pre-asph over the Nokton. So, better for some, not for others as far as images. Usability and especially price are not going to Leica’s, per usual.
Optical mess? Maybe, but for some it is a beautiful mess. The second version of the Nokton is heads-and-shoulders above the pre-asph Summilux. The spherical aberrations are better controlled, and the focus shift is (almost) absent.
Leica Camera USA got some of the Steel Rim re-issued lenses in stock, probably just today, and, well, I bought one. This was about noon, Central Daylight Time, in the USA, and I just checked the site, about 5:00 PM, same time zone, and it looks like there is at least one more still available.
So, it is now much less likely that I will be acquiring a pre-owned FLE anytime soon, if ever, and, buying any Nokton 35mm is still a possibility, but moved to the back burner, for a whie.
Oldwino wrote:
Optical mess? Maybe, but for some it is a beautiful mess. The second version of the Nokton is heads-and-shoulders above the pre-asph Summilux. The spherical aberrations are better controlled, and the focus shift is (almost) absent.
Neither lens could be called "modern".
The optical formula is essentially identical, and therefore the renderings and technical IQ are as well. Fred has made extensive comparison between the 35 Lux Pre-ASPH, 35 Lux Steel Rim and the CV 35/1.4. The differences reside in contrast, SA and flare resistance with the 35 Lux pre-asph being the most vintage and the CV 35/1.4 the least. All the lens are poorly corrected by modern standards. So, if you are buying this lens to shoot at 1.4, it’s for the rendering. And given that, preferences will vary with which option is “best.”
nehemiahphoto wrote:
...All the lens are poorly corrected by modern standards...
Thankfully. This is where all the fun is
And it's easier for a vintage lens with character to pull double-duty for landscape when stopped down than it is for a landscape lens to pull double-duty as a character lens when used wide open.
highdesertmesa wrote:
Thankfully. This is where all the fun is
And it's easier for a vintage lens with character to pull double-duty for landscape when stopped down than it is for a landscape lens to pull double-duty as a character lens when used wide open.
100% James!
The 35 Lux pre-asph is my 1st or 2nd favorite lens of all time
Oh man, I thought I won't be buying this lens, but now I want it really bad!
Worst thing is, I wanted that lighter version I, but I LOVE the look and feel of that black paint on version II. It would be heavy but I can't resist to that feel of thick black paint, and engraved characters on a barrel. I have 21mm 3.5 VM and I keep touching that lens all the time
I think I want that type II now...
phinix wrote:
If you had this lens and CV 40mm 1.2 - which one would you keep, if had to keep just one?
I have both, the 40 1.2 is now exclusively used on the SL for work. The 35mm f1.5 is used on the M10.
If I could only keep one, Id keep the 40mm f1.2 as I love the extra compression.
I'm fortunate to have both.
ZdevilH1 wrote:
I have both, the 40 1.2 is used now exclusively used on the SL for work. The 35mm f1.5 is used on the M10.
If I could only keep one, Id keep the 40mm f1.2 as I love the extra compression.
I'm fortunate to have both.
Why would you pick 40mm over 35mm?
How would you describe your 35mm lens - is it as sharp as 40mm? How are the colors and rendering? which you would say is better in those terms?
phinix wrote:
Why would you pick 40mm over 35mm?
How would you describe your 35mm lens - is it as sharp as 40mm? How are the colors and rendering? which you would say is better in those terms?
I'm automatically drawn to the 40mm FL.
It's my wide 50 but short 35, I don't know how else to describe it.
Both lenses are sharp but render differently. There is a massive thread here for the 40mm F1.2
ZdevilH1 wrote:
I'm automatically drawn to the 40mm FL.
It's my wide 50 but short 35, I don't know how else to describe it.
Both lenses are sharp but render differently. There is a massive thread here for the 40mm F1.2
I have 40mm lens, but was wondering how differently this renders to 35mm. Looking at those photos here on this thread I dont see the difference.
Best to stick to what you have in that case 👍
No use going 5mm wider and 0.5 stops slower if you don't see a need.
phinix wrote:
I have 40mm lens, but was wondering how differently this renders to 35mm. Looking at those photos here on this thread I dont see the difference.
thrice wrote:
Best to stick to what you have in that case 👍
No use going 5mm wider and 0.5 stops slower if you don't see a need.
I wanted to swap 40mm with this 35mm to get smaller lens - its size and focusing tab looks amazing
I dont need f1.2, dont really care about that, 1.5 will be plenty for me anyway.
Just wanted to know if 35mm lens will perform same as 40mm in terms of IQ.
phinix wrote:
I wanted to swap 40mm with this 35mm to get smaller lens - its size and focusing tab looks amazing
I dont need f1.2, dont really care about that, 1.5 will be plenty for me anyway.
Just wanted to know if 35mm lens will perform same as 40mm in terms of IQ.
Below are two images shot with each respective lens. I would not call this a fair comparison since the lenses were not shot at the same aperture. However, I think we can all conclude that the 40mm will always give you the most compression out of the two.
Revision: Added a 40mm f1.4 sample for comparison
My set up:
Leica M10- CV 35mm f1.5 / 50mm 1.5
Leica M10M - CV 40mm f1.4 MC (Love this lens for monochrome)
Leica SL- CV 40mm f1.2 (Industrial photography / video)
Just want to chime in and say that I've been using this lens on my M9 since the lens was released and I'm loving it. It's the perfect combo of image quality, size, and haptics for me. I wish the chrome ring on the front was black, but that's a small niggle. Mostly use it to take photos of family and it's really great for that.
I have the brass one (Type II?). It's a little heavy. If the aluminum version had black paint, I'd probably have that one. The weight difference is noticeable.
weezintrumpete wrote:
I have the brass one (Type II?). It's a little heavy. If the aluminum version had black paint, I'd probably have that one. The weight difference is noticeable.
Exactly that - I'm willing to get that heavy Type II only for that paint
phinix wrote:
Exactly that - I'm willing to get that heavy Type II only for that paint
Did you buy brass version for its paint?
I bought it for it's paint and because it was brass. I figured the brass version would feel more solid, dense, and quality. I tried the Type I aluminum version recently and I would switch to that immediately if it wasn't for the matte finish. The lighter weight made a big difference in my mind, but I'm shallow, so I'll keep my Type II (for now)
