maddoc
... likes film again.
That would be the W-Nikkor 35mm 1:1.8 re-issue (2005), converted to M-mount. 
ndnik
Established
For me it is the CV Nokton 35 f/1.4. Size does matter. This lens is small, fast, inexpensive, and very good optically.
ferider
Mentor
take off the hood, only put it on in evil light and when it rains/snows.
Or use a lens that is half the size with hood and does not affect the framelines at all. I can live with the half-stop "sacrifice": the Nokton 35/1.4 is plenty fast (comparable to a Noctilux for hand-holding), and a super lens that has never let me down.
But you knew that was coming, of course
umcelinho
Marcelo
I can say about the 1.4 SC and the 1.2 Noktons: The 1.4 has a great size/speed ratio, and I have no complain about how it draws or its bokeh, but under oblique light it showed a strong circular flare. With a square hood I bought at *bay the lens became flareproof, but the vf intrusion and overall lens length were similar to the 1.2's, but lighter. Most of the time I'd use it with no hood, with great results. ended up trading mine for a kowa/six kit, but have been considering getting another one. btw, i have no idea if my copy had focus shift, as it was never noticed.
I did some test shots with the 1.2 in the same conditions that the 1.4 got crazy circular flaring. took off the hood and shot: absolutely no flare. pretty impressive. I've been using it with no hood lately, makes the whole thing a bit smaller and won't interfere as much on the vf.
the 1.2 has great ergonomics, build is pretty good, quite fast, and draws nice. If size isn't the main reason you shoot rf, then it's perfect. but sometimes it's nice to have a smaller kit, and I miss the 1.4 sometimes.
I did some test shots with the 1.2 in the same conditions that the 1.4 got crazy circular flaring. took off the hood and shot: absolutely no flare. pretty impressive. I've been using it with no hood lately, makes the whole thing a bit smaller and won't interfere as much on the vf.
the 1.2 has great ergonomics, build is pretty good, quite fast, and draws nice. If size isn't the main reason you shoot rf, then it's perfect. but sometimes it's nice to have a smaller kit, and I miss the 1.4 sometimes.
Last edited:
raid
Dad Photographer
The Summilux 35/1.4 is a wonderful lens and so is the classic 35/2 Summicron. I cannot see myself leaving behind such lenses for anything else in the near future.
The CV 35/1.4 is an excellent lens too. In fact, it is small and has a good price on top of being an excellent lens optically. I don't own such a lens but I used two such lenses in one of the lens comparison projects with Roland.
The CV 35/1.4 is an excellent lens too. In fact, it is small and has a good price on top of being an excellent lens optically. I don't own such a lens but I used two such lenses in one of the lens comparison projects with Roland.
ferider
Mentor
umcelinho, to be fair, one shouldn't really compare a bad sample of one lens with a good one of another. I know about the circular flare you've seen, but my lens, and Raid's test shots never showed this, even in strong counter light.
CV lenses obviously have sample variation (not sure if better or worse than Leica, Zeiss, etc.; certainly worse than classic lenses from the 70s and earlier). Getting a bad sample is much more likely when you buy used.
CV lenses obviously have sample variation (not sure if better or worse than Leica, Zeiss, etc.; certainly worse than classic lenses from the 70s and earlier). Getting a bad sample is much more likely when you buy used.
SimonSawSunlight
Simon Fabel
I thought the circular flare came from the silver chrome ring/filter thread at the front of the lens (the 40mm f1.4 and 35mm f2.5 PII have it as well, but longer FL / smaller aperture probably make the problem disappear) and not from sample variation. I might be mistaken, but nonetheless, this is a bit of a stupid feature, you wouldn't make a lens hood with shiny silver chrome on the inside either
Last edited:
ferider
Mentor
Final word is not out on this one yet, Simon, if I remember right, umcelinho saw the flare with filter, too.
Also not sure if my good experience has to do with using the MC copy - when everybody else must get the single-coated version, for "better BW rendering" - which is hype, IMO.
Also not sure if my good experience has to do with using the MC copy - when everybody else must get the single-coated version, for "better BW rendering" - which is hype, IMO.
Last edited:
Turtle
Mentor
35 F2 Biogon.
raid
Dad Photographer
Size matters.
Colin G.
Established
Interesting. I thought there would be more Biogons here.
mike-s
Established
My own favourite is the VC 35 f1.7 Ultron. A good mix of size, speed, build and image quality and price. Has to be used with a convertor for M-mount and is now only available used.
Roberto V.
Le surrèalisme, c'est moi
If I could only have one, it would be the 35mm f/1.2 Nokton, since I shoot a lot in low light. In reality I'm not restricted to only one though, so I might get the 1.2 and 1.4 Noktons in the future. I miss the small size and focusing tab of my old pre-asph lux, but not the 2 grand price tag . The 'glow' wide open was nice too, but not the flare.
. The 'glow' wide open was nice too, but not the flare.mtargz
Established
Best non-Leica 35mm lens?
No idea. I only tried one 35mm lens for rangefinders, and I find it to satisfy my every need excepting portraiture and low-light shooting: The CV 35/2.5PII.
It's amazingly small (though I've heard the 35/1.4 and 40/1.4 are just as small but with larger maximum apertures?), sharper than I'd ever need, and draws amazingly. Smooth, pleasant bokeh and a distinct "pop" to the in-focus areas. All-black with the hood, which, being vented, doesn't interfere at all on a Hexar RF.
No idea. I only tried one 35mm lens for rangefinders, and I find it to satisfy my every need excepting portraiture and low-light shooting: The CV 35/2.5PII.
It's amazingly small (though I've heard the 35/1.4 and 40/1.4 are just as small but with larger maximum apertures?), sharper than I'd ever need, and draws amazingly. Smooth, pleasant bokeh and a distinct "pop" to the in-focus areas. All-black with the hood, which, being vented, doesn't interfere at all on a Hexar RF.
umcelinho
Marcelo
Ferider and Simon, the circular flare would happen occasionally if the light source was just above the lens in an oblique angle (imagine shooting under a spot light or a street lamp) and when it was wide open (gone by f2). I had gotten the lens new, not used.
from what I could see, the chrome ring has nothing to do with the circular flare, I even tried adding a matte covering around it, no change. I also found images of the circular flare on MC versions. must add that it wasn't a common thing to happen, I shot for more than a year with no hood and if I missed 10 shots in a year because of having strong circular flare, it would be much. just to give a better perspective on the problem, it wasn't too common. in october last year for instance i went to europe for a trip and took no hood, the only shot that got circular flare was one in london at night on the street close to a street lamp, out of more than 300 shots...
maybe I had a dog, but if so it was quite a great one, I had a great time with it. I might give the MC version a try though, as a friend might sell his used one (selling all his gear, lens is fine).
from what I could see, the chrome ring has nothing to do with the circular flare, I even tried adding a matte covering around it, no change. I also found images of the circular flare on MC versions. must add that it wasn't a common thing to happen, I shot for more than a year with no hood and if I missed 10 shots in a year because of having strong circular flare, it would be much. just to give a better perspective on the problem, it wasn't too common. in october last year for instance i went to europe for a trip and took no hood, the only shot that got circular flare was one in london at night on the street close to a street lamp, out of more than 300 shots...
maybe I had a dog, but if so it was quite a great one, I had a great time with it. I might give the MC version a try though, as a friend might sell his used one (selling all his gear, lens is fine).
I wanted to say the 1.2 CV, but this is the more sensible all around choice for me.
jawarden
Well-known
So many excellent choices for the 35mm FL in M mount it's pretty hard to go wrong. I like using the f2.0 Biogon. This is hand held, but if you use a tripod it gets really sharp.
Last year I purchased the 2.8 and 2.0 Biogons and did an informal smackdown. The 2.0 works better for me, but they're both awfully good. Here's one of the tests with the 2.0. I think I used T-Max 400.
Last year I purchased the 2.8 and 2.0 Biogons and did an informal smackdown. The 2.0 works better for me, but they're both awfully good. Here's one of the tests with the 2.0. I think I used T-Max 400.
ampguy
Mentor
Simon
Simon
My 40/1.4 (MC) and 35/2.5 PII never showed any circular flare.
I'd like to try a CV 35/1.4, but just can never decide on the SC or MC, so I keep using the Hexar AF for 35mm and film.
Simon
My 40/1.4 (MC) and 35/2.5 PII never showed any circular flare.
I'd like to try a CV 35/1.4, but just can never decide on the SC or MC, so I keep using the Hexar AF for 35mm and film.
I thought the circular flare came from the silver chrome ring/filter thread at the front of the lens (the 40mm f1.4 and 35mm f2.5 PII have it as well, but longer FL / smaller aperture probably make the problem disappear) and not from sample variation. I might be mistaken, but nonetheless, this is a bit of a stupid feature, you wouldn't make a lens hood with shiny silver chrome on the inside either