Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Leicas and other Leica Mount Cameras > Voigtlander Bessa Leica Mount Cameras

Voigtlander Bessa Leica Mount Cameras Made in Japan by Cosina in partnership with Voigtlander, the many modern Voigtlander Leica Screw Mount and Leica M mount bodies offer inexpensive and often unique options into entering the world of Leica rangefinder photography.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

What else make you hate CV 35 1.4?
Old 09-15-2010   #1
eieio
Registered User
 
eieio's Avatar
 
eieio is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: BKK Thailand
Posts: 16
What else make you hate CV 35 1.4?

Flare easily.. Not quite good OOF rendering..?

Also if it's possible, could you please post those bad pictures which you get from this lens.
I'm looking for reason not to sell my 35/1.2 and buy this lens.

I do love pictures from 35/1.2, but not it weight. Carrying it around make me feel like I'm
holding the brick.
__________________
-Pong

Last edited by eieio : 09-15-2010 at 09:23.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-15-2010   #2
kxl
Social Documentary
 
kxl's Avatar
 
kxl is offline
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Sunny SoCal
Posts: 3,016
The 35/1.2 is my favorite M-mount lens, bar none. Strictly comparing IQ, the CV 35/1.4 does not even belong in the same conversation. If the 35/1.2's size/weight is an issue and you are basically looking for something smaller with excellent IQ, there are better choices than the CV 35/1.4., such as the ZM 35/2.8.
__________________
Keith
My Website
RFF feedback


"... I thought the only way to give us an incentive, to bring hope, is to show the pictures of the pristine planet - to see the innocence. ― Sebastiao Salgado
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-15-2010   #3
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 46
Posts: 20,271
Distortion as well... since you have the 1.2...why not just buy a used 35mm f/2.5 Pancake for size and keep the 1.2?
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-15-2010   #4
andredossantos
Registered User
 
andredossantos is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 41
Posts: 1,430
i always hated that horrible bokeh. An all around a horrible lens


all packed by andre dos santos, on Flickr



Untitled by andre dos santos, on Flickr


Untitled by andre dos santos, on Flickr


narrow by andre dos santos, on Flickr


Untitled by andre dos santos, on Flickr


la reina by andre dos santos, on Flickr
__________________

Website

Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-15-2010   #5
eieio
Registered User
 
eieio's Avatar
 
eieio is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: BKK Thailand
Posts: 16
I already have 'cron 35 8 elements for normal day time walk around. The reason I bought 35/1.2 is for low light - night time photo. Before I did that, I already looked around both in here and also in Flickr for samples of both 1.4 and 1.2. That's why I choose 1.2.

I know that it's faster, it's smoother, hard to flare, less distort. But when holding it, it's really like I'm holding my ex-D700. I think I loose the feeling of RF camera.

I know that it's the price I have to pay for fast glass. But now I'm not sure if it worth to sacrify convenience with IQ and half stop faster.

(BTW, I really love my chrome 1.2 on my M2. I think chrome is sexier )
__________________
-Pong
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-15-2010   #6
eieio
Registered User
 
eieio's Avatar
 
eieio is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: BKK Thailand
Posts: 16
Andre..

Seem like your hate this lens A LOT. That's why you have A LOT of pictures from this lens on your Flickr. :P
__________________
-Pong
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-15-2010   #7
photogdave
Shops local
 
photogdave is offline
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Film-filled Vancouver
Posts: 2,123
Yes, what lousy bokeh! Why anyone uses this lens is a mystery to me.

__________________
Digital - I just don't care for it.

Leica M4, M6, CL
Voigtlander lenses
Pentax Optio 43 WR
Olympus Stylus Epic
Rolleiflex TLR
Nikon F100, D70

My Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-15-2010   #8
ferider
Registered User
 
ferider's Avatar
 
ferider is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 11,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by eieio View Post
I already have 'cron 35 8 elements for normal day time walk around. The reason I bought 35/1.2 is for low light - night time photo. Before I did that, I already looked around both in here and also in Flickr for samples of both 1.4 and 1.2. That's why I choose 1.2.

I know that it's faster, it's smoother, hard to flare, less distort. But when holding it, it's really like I'm holding my ex-D700. I think I loose the feeling of RF camera.

I know that it's the price I have to pay for fast glass. But now I'm not sure if it worth to sacrify convenience with IQ and half stop faster.

(BTW, I really love my chrome 1.2 on my M2. I think chrome is sexier )
The 35/1.4 MC flares (much) less than your 8 element Summicron. And no, your 35/1.2 does not have "less distort".

Most 35/1.4 "haters" have never used it. But you are out of luck - there is no chrome version. And you don't see it through the viewfinder ..... So it's not sexy

So much bad bokeh, flare, distortion - awful, really.


Last edited by ferider : 09-15-2010 at 10:00.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-15-2010   #9
ampguy
Registered User
 
ampguy's Avatar
 
ampguy is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 7,014
Hey Roland, that's a great photo. Posed, or Unposed??
__________________
My photo blog

  Reply With Quote

Old 09-15-2010   #10
RobertB
Registered User
 
RobertB is offline
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Amsterdam Holland
Age: 37
Posts: 78
Only thing I can think of is the handling of focus compared to the leica's. The fingerknob is a bit to small and the edge of it is to hard. Otherwise I can't help you... Good luck not buying it
__________________
Leica M8 - 18 Super Elmar - 28 Summicron - 35 C-biogon
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-15-2010   #11
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
 
shadowfox's Avatar
 
shadowfox is offline
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,798
Y'know, those who complained a lot about this lens' "badness" are strangely (but not unexpectedly) silent...

... wow, look at them tumbleweeds.

Personally, I don't care how "supreme" the IQ of a lens is, it won't automagically make my pictures good. I say good enough is good enough.

Add to that, using an RF lens that are bigger and heavier than an SLR lens is to me rather ... un-sexy (for the lack of a better word). But that's just me I'm sure.
__________________
Have a good light,
Will



Last edited by shadowfox : 09-15-2010 at 12:03.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-15-2010   #12
Brian Sweeney
Registered User
 
Brian Sweeney's Avatar
 
Brian Sweeney is offline
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 14,907
So when will the 35/1.2 appear in the classified?
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-15-2010   #13
ndnik
Registered User
 
ndnik is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Austin, TX
Age: 48
Posts: 131
Horrible lens, really. Totally wasted money. Big, heavy, soft, miserable bokeh, flares even in darkness, and wonky construction. So bad, I use it most of the time on my M4 as my standard lens.

__________________
[photoblog]
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-15-2010   #14
back alley
IMAGES
 
back alley's Avatar
 
back alley is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: true north strong & free
Posts: 49,241
get a 28/1.9 then.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-15-2010   #15
user237428934
User deletion pending
 
user237428934 is offline
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,675
In this photo you have the not so nice bookeh, flare and the colour cast in the corners that got worse through photo editing (perhaps this is even a M8 problem). But I still like that photo. The size of the lens is great. What really disturbed me was the distortion.


L1001360_web von tom.w.bn auf Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-15-2010   #16
back alley
IMAGES
 
back alley's Avatar
 
back alley is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: true north strong & free
Posts: 49,241
i find it hard to believe that size and weight are the reasons to get rid of this lens...i sold mine because i didn't really care for the look of the images i made with it...but my current fave is the 50/1.1 which is much bigger...and i love the feel of it on my little rd1.

joe
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-15-2010   #17
mathomas
Registered User
 
mathomas is offline
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 637
Sorry, I can't talk you out of trading "down" to the little 35. These shots aren't as good as the ones that others have posted, but I like my little Nokton a lot.




  Reply With Quote

Hi Dave
Old 09-15-2010   #18
ampguy
Registered User
 
ampguy's Avatar
 
ampguy is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 7,014
Hi Dave

I'm a fan of this lens, at least when it hits the $200-$300 range, like the 40/1.4 did. It would make a great backup for a 35 lux or cron, and would focus well with an EVIL camera.

Now I like this photo a lot, but am not keen on the bokeh near the headboard. That part looks like someone parked their shiny bicycle up there. The rest of the photo is great though !

Quote:
Originally Posted by photogdave View Post
Yes, what lousy bokeh! Why anyone uses this lens is a mystery to me.

__________________
My photo blog

  Reply With Quote

Old 09-15-2010   #19
stupid leica
i don't shoot rf
 
stupid leica's Avatar
 
stupid leica is offline
Join Date: Aug 2009
Age: 35
Posts: 316
i love this lens. my only complaint is that it's not free.

oh wait, a real complaint? i wish the front ring was black, not silver.
__________________
Google Pixel 2
No Kimchi Please
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-15-2010   #20
maggieo
More Deadly
 
maggieo's Avatar
 
maggieo is offline
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Nebraska, USA
Posts: 3,900
Terrible lens. That's probably why it's welded to my M8.


Closing Up, Nouvelle Eve, Omaha, NE, August, 2010 by Maggie Osterberg, on Flickr


Joann, M's Pub, Omaha, NE, August, 2010 by Maggie Osterberg, on Flickr

Works on my M4-P, too.

Sue and Dad, August, 2010 by Maggie Osterberg, on Flickr
__________________
My Flickr Photostream & My Photo Blog
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-15-2010   #21
Keith
On leave from Gallifrey
 
Keith's Avatar
 
Keith is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 18,641
It's certainly sharp and the OOF is fine with me but what's with the barrel distortion? I'm surprised at how many lenses exhibit this ... I have plenty that do and while it's easily corrected in post it seems a lot more commmon than I ever realised!

Maggie's first pic really shows it.
__________________
---------------------------
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-15-2010   #22
Colin Corneau
Colin Corneau
 
Colin Corneau is offline
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Winnipeg MB Canada
Posts: 975
I recently sold my V.35/1.2, but not because it wasn't excellent, I just had a good deal on a 'Cron and can't afford both.

I keep hearing about how heavy it is, wah wah wah...it's a tiny RF lens, still smaller than most SLR lenses. It's all relative but this is not a heavy, unwieldy lens.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-15-2010   #23
photogdave
Shops local
 
photogdave is offline
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Film-filled Vancouver
Posts: 2,123
Quote:
Originally Posted by ampguy View Post
I'm a fan of this lens, at least when it hits the $200-$300 range, like the 40/1.4 did. It would make a great backup for a 35 lux or cron, and would focus well with an EVIL camera.

Now I like this photo a lot, but am not keen on the bokeh near the headboard. That part looks like someone parked their shiny bicycle up there. The rest of the photo is great though !
Thanks for the compliment! The headboard was shiny chrome and the window light was reflecting off it, so I'm not sure any lens would have handled it better.
__________________
Digital - I just don't care for it.

Leica M4, M6, CL
Voigtlander lenses
Pentax Optio 43 WR
Olympus Stylus Epic
Rolleiflex TLR
Nikon F100, D70

My Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Keith - some advice
Old 09-15-2010   #24
ampguy
Registered User
 
ampguy's Avatar
 
ampguy is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 7,014
Keith - some advice

I've found people just don't like to talk about this issue. We can talk about it all we want in the P&S forums and elsewhere, but when it comes to this lens, it is a very taboo topic, like the fact that Uncle Fred is in jail or something.

Weird.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith View Post
It's certainly sharp and the OOF is fine with me but what's with the barrel distortion? I'm surprised at how many lenses exhibit this ... I have plenty that do and while it's easily corrected in post it seems a lot more commmon than I ever realised!

Maggie's first pic really shows it.
__________________
My photo blog

  Reply With Quote

Old 09-15-2010   #25
maggieo
More Deadly
 
maggieo's Avatar
 
maggieo is offline
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Nebraska, USA
Posts: 3,900
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith View Post
It's certainly sharp and the OOF is fine with me but what's with the barrel distortion? I'm surprised at how many lenses exhibit this ... I have plenty that do and while it's easily corrected in post it seems a lot more commmon than I ever realised!

Maggie's first pic really shows it.
Ted will no doubt mock me mercilessly, but I honestly don't know what you're talking about. The photo looks great to me.

edit: you know- don't tell me; I like how my photos looks and I'm not going to get anal about it this far along...
__________________
My Flickr Photostream & My Photo Blog
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-15-2010   #26
popeye
Registered User
 
popeye is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: SoCal
Posts: 176
It's a tosser lens and I'll sell you mine for what I paid for it...

As someone said already, it's welded to my M8 and as Keith mentioned the distortion is easily corrected in post (LR3-brilliant!).

No hate here... wait I hate the 43mm filter thread.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-15-2010   #27
mathomas
Registered User
 
mathomas is offline
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 637
The lens does have barrel distortion. With people, you won't see it. Here's a shot of mine that exhibits it (I think I even corrected it a touch, but didn't want to go crazy with correction).



I still like the lens.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-15-2010   #28
Krosya
Konicaze
 
Krosya's Avatar
 
Krosya is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 3,484
I think I remember reading that this lens also has a focus shift issue. Does it? I dont hate this lens - its just too much of a "plain jane" to me. While maybe not posted here - I have seen many shots from it with poor bokeh. Distortion is there too. Plus to me - I can have a as sharp or sharper, as small, as fast and much cheaper lens, without all the issues of CV 35/1.4 in a CV 40/1.4. Ok - 40 is not 35, but close enough IMO.
__________________
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
35mm Rangefinders : Leica M5 and RD1S w/ many M and LTM lenses

Folders
:
Welta Weltur 6x6/645, Welta Weltur 6x9/645


flickr
  Reply With Quote

Hi Maggie
Old 09-15-2010   #29
ampguy
Registered User
 
ampguy's Avatar
 
ampguy is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 7,014
Hi Maggie

I wouldn't mock you at all, and it doesn't manifest in most photos. One of my favorite lenses, the Hexar AF lens (Nikkor-W based, much like the UC Hexanon) has it much worse.

Quote:
Originally Posted by maggieo View Post
Ted will no doubt mock me mercilessly, but I honestly don't know what you're talking about. The photo looks great to me.

edit: you know- don't tell me; I like how my photos looks and I'm not going to get anal about it this far along...
__________________
My photo blog

  Reply With Quote

Old 09-16-2010   #30
kossi008
Photon Counter
 
kossi008's Avatar
 
kossi008 is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Dresden, Germany
Age: 53
Posts: 927
As usual, barrel distortion on the CV 35/1.4 depends strongly on subject distance. Try some indoors shot at close ranges with doorframes etc. in the picture and you will know what I mean.

I still don't hate this lens, in fact I bought it to supplement my C-Biogon for low-light shooting. I opted for this one over the 35/1.2 because of its size, for travel...
__________________
Photon Counter
My flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-16-2010   #31
Brian Sweeney
Registered User
 
Brian Sweeney's Avatar
 
Brian Sweeney is offline
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 14,907
Maggie- the barrel distortion of the lens is visible on the frame of door window. A straight line that appears "bowed". Many lenses have it, the old 9-element Zoom-Nikkor 43~86 F3.5 was infamous for distortion. One of Nikon's most popular lenses anyway. A real concern is some fields such as architectural photography or scientific/technical photography. Some feel much more strongly about it than others.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-16-2010   #32
myM8yogi
Registered User
 
myM8yogi is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Copenhagen
Age: 43
Posts: 204
If the 35/1.2 is too big for you, then it's just too big. End of story.
I can understand that. I have one. I think it takes really superb images, but I do hate carrying it around my neck. In fact, I will no longer carry it is a single lens single body outfit - it is so big and heavy that it defeats the purpose of such a minimalist kit. But if I have a camera bag with me, it's always there. Amazing lens.

I did look long and hard at the CV35/1.4 before buying the 1.2, but I saw too many images from the former that had very choppy distracting bokeh. Yes, and distortion. I knew there would be plenty of times when these characteristics would not bother me, but I compromised on weight to elliminate those "wasted" photo opportunities. I can well understand how someone else might choose differently because they find backgrounds less distracting and/or their primary goal is a teeny tiny camera kit. In which case, it makes a great choice for a fast standard lens as all other members of the kit are likely to pretty slow lenses to keep size down.

As an alternative small, light, fast lens, I can recommend a 50/1.5 sonnar (current or legacy) if you are lucky enough to get one at a decent price.

But if you really want a fast 35mm that is also small... well, you have no choice in that price range - you have to get the CV35/1.4.
Just to be safe, don't sell the 1.2 to pay for it.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-16-2010   #33
rbsinto
Registered User
 
rbsinto is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Thornhill, Ontario, Canada Thornhill is a suburb of Toronto
Posts: 1,610
What I hate most about the CV 35 1.4 is that it's not available in a Nikon S mount version.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-16-2010   #34
efix
RF user by conviction
 
efix's Avatar
 
efix is offline
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 739
For what it's worth, my two cents of hate for the CV 35/1.4:

- Focus shift is gruesome! You don't get an f/1.4 lens to not be able to use it at that aperture, do you?
- Bokeh: horrible! Jittery, doughnutty, highly unpleasant.
- Barrel distortion. Lots of!
- Not very nice colours.
- Not very much contrast.
- Not very sharp wide open.

Keep that 35/1.2, or send it to me, where it'll find a nice home ;-)
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-16-2010   #35
Lss
Registered User
 
Lss is offline
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,803
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krosya View Post
I think I remember reading that this lens also has a focus shift issue. Does it?
It sure does. Kicks in at the latest at f/2 and is pretty much gone by f/5.6. It's reality, but whether it will bother you is something you will only figure out by trying it.
__________________
Lasse
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-16-2010   #36
Lss
Registered User
 
Lss is offline
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,803
Quote:
Originally Posted by efix View Post
- Focus shift is gruesome! You don't get an f/1.4 lens to not be able to use it at that aperture, do you?
Another focus shift post... But there is no focus shift at f/1.4! Focus shift is... well, focus shifting when you stop the lens down. At f/1.4 the lens should focus correctly, and my copy seems perfect in this respect.
__________________
Lasse
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-16-2010   #37
efix
RF user by conviction
 
efix's Avatar
 
efix is offline
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 739
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lss View Post
Another focus shift post... But there is no focus shift at f/1.4! Focus shift is... well, focus shifting when you stop the lens down. At f/1.4 the lens should focus correctly, and my copy seems perfect in this respect.
Have to object there, mine had backfocus from f/1.4 to f/2, and frontfocus from f/2.4 onwards - or was it the other way round? Anyway, I had to twist my rf alignment to get in-focus shots at f/1.4 so that it then was off at infinity. I don't say it's a bad lens, it might indeed be a great lens for what it is, and there are people who love it to death. I hated it and sold it again within days, got the Biogon 2/35 and was happy :-)
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-16-2010   #38
ferider
Registered User
 
ferider's Avatar
 
ferider is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 11,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by ampguy View Post
I've found people just don't like to talk about this issue. We can talk about it all we want in the P&S forums and elsewhere, but when it comes to this lens, it is a very taboo topic, like the fact that Uncle Fred is in jail or something.

Weird.
Not for me anyways, Ted.

What bugs me is that it only gets mentioned for this lens, but that many of the other "cult lenses" also distort similarly but it doesn't seem to be an issue; including 35/1.2, 35/2 UC Hex, Nikkor 35/1.8 (LTM and S-Mount), 50/1.4 Summilux, etc.

Roland.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-16-2010   #39
Lss
Registered User
 
Lss is offline
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,803
I would guess it was the other way, since this lens should exhibit backfocus when you stop it down. Your copy must have been incorrectly calibrated if it was not focusing correctly wide open, and I can understand that it can be twice as frustrating with a lens that has this sort of fairly strong focus shift. In that case the focus will seem almost random. But these are really two different issues: incorrect focusing (sharp place wide open) and focus shift (sharp plane moves when you change the aperture).
__________________
Lasse
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-16-2010   #40
eieio
Registered User
 
eieio's Avatar
 
eieio is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: BKK Thailand
Posts: 16
Whoo... Lots of hate and love in this lens so far.

Actually, I just won bidding on Nikkor S.C 5cm in LTM and it will be my fast lens (I know... it's not that great and it also has "Nikon glow" wide open, but I would love to see if it can give me "Sonnar" character as my tiny Rollie 35s can or not). I will just keep my 35/1.2 for a little while, try it couple more rolls. And I will decide later whether I will keep it or not.

Is there any good fast 35 lenses out there rather than 'lux 35 and this Nokton 1.2? I cannot afford the lux for now and I don't know how soon this Nokton will break my neck.
__________________
-Pong

Last edited by eieio : 09-16-2010 at 06:34.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 00:23.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.