Which 35?

[Gareth2]

Here's the problem, I have a Summicron 35/2 Asph and a Nokton 35/1.2 but even though I like the Nokton I find that it stays home more often than it should simply because I rarely anticipate that I need the extra stop and a bit. The weight may be a factor but if it is then I'm not sure how big a deal it is.

I love the way the 35/2 draws. I generally prefer higher contrast lenses.

In general, my favourite focal lengths are 18, 24, 28, 35, in that order.

I read Sean's reviews.

Would you sell these two for a Summilux 35/1.4?

And yes, I know it's a personal decision, you can't decide for me ya da ya da. Just asking for some input, for some other points of view.

[stunsworth]

Originally Posted by Gareth2

Would you sell these two for a Summilux 35/1.4?

No.

[hdrmd]

No. DR

[Jeff S]

[quote=Gareth2;952859]

I rarely anticipate that I need the extra stop and a bit.

I love the way the 35/2 draws.
quote]

Then, clearly no.

Jeff

[Printmaker]

I've seen some wonderful work done with a 35 lux. It looks like when you've got a good copy, it really sings. I'd say if you are willing to take the chance and, if necessary, test a lens or two for focus before finding a copy that works, then why not? Whatever makes you happy.

Like you, I have two 35 mm lenses and find myself always taking my summicron and leaving my CV home. I doubt if I'd ever trade or sell my type IV 35 summicron though. My daughter may have to pry it out of my cold dead hands.

Tom

[Walt Calahan]

No, I have a Summilux can count on one hand the times I've shot at f/1.4.

I'd get rid of the Nokton, and stick to the Summicron.

Use the sale money on something new such as a 75 mm, or so.

[lars_bergquist]

I bought a Summilux ASPH in 1998. Before that I owned a pre-ASPH. Both are wonderful lenses, and the panic about focus shift has a lot more to do with the users than the lens. Why did nobody rant about the focus shift of the predecessor?

But I did recently buy a C/V Color-Skopar Pancake II lens, which is a remarkably nice little optic. This is for use as a 'walking around' or 'outdoor' or 'summer lens'. The distinction is meaningful up here at 60 degrees north, where it is light nearly around the clock in June, and equally dark in December. Sean Reid changes between high contrast and low contrast lenses, according to the quality of the light -- he speaks of 'sunny day lenses'. The Color-Skopar has lower contrast than the Summilux. Horses for courses.

The old man from the Age of the 3.5cm Elmar

[Marquinius]

Gareth,

Perhaps this helps: R-D1, ISO 400, RAW, PhotoRaw Conversions at Default Settings (overview of all kinds of lenses with photos to see for yourself)

[delander]

I have the 35 Summicron ASPH but no Nokton. Often thought about but now I think I would just trade in the cron for the lux. So in your position I would trade them both for a Summilux or just sell the Nokton.

Jeff

[Ecar]

I own and use all three.

If I really had to choose - and although I love the Lux's bokeh and the Nokton's rendering - I'd keep only the Cron (the smallest and most versatile of them).

[ptarmigan]

Surely the main questions is "would I use f1.4". From what I have read the 35 lux and cron ASPH are quite close in contrast/sharpness at f2- f4, the lux being slightly better the wider you go. If you need to shoot at f1.4 get the lux if not I'd go for the cron.

I have the 35 cron ASPH, its my only lens at present.

[adli]

First of all you have to decide which attributes of the lens that is important to you.

I have the pre-ASPH 35 cron and I love it because of its small size. It is the lens I have that builds the least out of the camera body, thus makes me able to carry the camera in my pocket. And of course, it is a great lens.

[wattsy]

Originally Posted by ptarmigan

From what I have read the 35 lux and cron ASPH are quite close in contrast/sharpness at f2- f4, the lux being slightly better the wider you go.

I have both and don't think the lenses are as alike as you suggest - even between F2-F4.

Incidentally Lars, your comment that "focus shift has a lot more to do with the users than the lens" is, frankly, bollocks.

[sean_reid]

Originally Posted by Marquinius

Gareth,

Perhaps this helps: R-D1, ISO 400, RAW, PhotoRaw Conversions at Default Settings (overview of all kinds of lenses with photos to see for yourself)

I don't remember giving permission for those pictures to be reproduced on another site. Whose site is that?

[MitchoIankov]

Yes. The best pictures are made with the lens you have on the camera. Buy the Lux and sell the other two. Then you will have no choice for 35mm lens and use the Lux.

It is excellent lens.

[Marquinius]

Originally Posted by sean_reid

I don't remember giving permission for those pictures to be reproduced on another site. Whose site is that?

Sean,

I sent you a pm with details (as far as I could find out, I just stumbled upon it).

[ljclark]

I was batting around a similar issue a few months ago, but more along the lines of what to get -- not what to keep.

I had two CV 35s -- the Skopar Pancake II and the Ultron 1.7.

The little Skopar is a keeper because there is just no reason to get rid of it (and now it is coded). The Ultron has to be stopped down 1 to 1 1/2 stops to deal with CA in some lighting conditions -- which means it is only "f/1.7" some of the time.

I ended up purchasing the 35mm Summicron ASPH. I wanted to keep the size of the lens reasonable, and I also wanted to have no hesitation using it wide open. Everything I've done with it validates my choice. If it was my only 35mm lens, I'd be quite happy.

(The Ultron needs to get onto eBay one of these days...)

[noah_addis]

In your situation it doesn't seem to make much sense to spend the cash on a new lens if you're happy with what you have. Sell the Nokton and put the money towards something else. Could be gear, or better yet go somewhere interesting to shoot for a few days.

Having said that, I had both the 35 'Lux and a 35 'Cron. I had the 'Lux first and got the 'Cron as a backup. But I never really used it. Also, my 'Cron was black paint, so while it was beautiful it actually felt heavier than the 'Lux.

The 'Lux without a hood, or with a metal screw-on hood, isn't that large really, so even when I wanted to travel light I often chose it over the 'Cron in case I needed the extra stop. My 35 'Lux doesn't seem to have focus problems.

In your case, if you don't need f1,4, and you like the high contrast look of the 'Cron, and if the 35mm is your least used focal length, it seems like the small 'Cron is perfect for your needs. It's a lot of cash to spend on your least-used lens.

So if I were you I'd sell the Nokton and take a shooting trip, or failing that put it towards a lens you'll use more. But of course, this is a personal decision and I can't decide for you

[ampguy]

Same here. Used the asph and v4 cron together for a year, and couldn't see enough difference to justify the larger size of the asph. Both are great lenses (v3 cron is great too).

Originally Posted by adli

First of all you have to decide which attributes of the lens that is important to you.

I have the pre-ASPH 35 cron and I love it because of its small size. It is the lens I have that builds the least out of the camera body, thus makes me able to carry the camera in my pocket. And of course, it is a great lens.

[lars_bergquist]

Originally Posted by wattsy

I have both and don't think the lenses are as alike as you suggest - even between F2-F4.

Incidentally Lars, your comment that "focus shift has a lot more to do with the users than the lens" is, frankly, bollocks.

I did never imply that focus shift ("aperture error") does not exist. It is an effect of spherical aberration, which all spherical optical elements produce. The question is, how much, and how important is it in practical picture taking?

Nobody whined about the focus shift of the 35 Summilux ASPH as long as film was all we had. The reason for the hysterics was twofold. (1) was real, (2) was psychological. (1) was the fact that a digital sensor does not have the forgiving depth of the film emulsion. So it is sharper. That means that what would have passed for good sharpness on film, suddenly didn't. The problem was really the absence of an AA filter, which would have filtered out the offending extra definition ...

The psychological part was that all of a sudden, we had instant feedback down to the pixel level. That changed a lot:

--Our focusing is imperfect, because man is imperfect. But when our Kodachromes came back from the lab, time had passed and we did no longer have an exact recall of what we intended and what we did when we took the picture. That is the 'instant' part. Here comes the 'pixel part':

--No print or screen image is normally scrutinized down to pixel level. Field observations in museums and art galleries tell me that when people want to see a picture as a picture, and not in order to examine some technical detail, they chose a viewing distance about equal to the diagonal of the picture. So the criterion is not absolute size, but a certain angle of view. If the image is accepted as sharp at that angle, you can enlarge it to any absolute size, *because the viewing distance will be adjusted to preserve the optimal viewing angle*. But pixel-peeping is like printing to two-by-three feet size and then assaulting the picture with a 8x magnifier. Of course you do find imperfection, like lack of sharpness, maybe lateral colour, and in the bad old days, grain. Grainchasing was a popular spectator sport in the days of film. Exhibition prints had to be shown under glass in order not to be ruined by the nose grease of eager grain chasers. Is that relevant to the image?

The point is this: Much of the fuss was about normal 'pilot error'. Most of the rest was due to applying criteria -- pixel level criteria -- that were completely irrelevant. The only realistic criterion is actual pictures of realistic subjects, viewed under realistic conditions. The focus shift of my Summilux has not ruined one single picture for me. Not because I happen to own 'a good specimen' but because I judge for myself, and resist being swayed by temporary panics. And also because half a century of picture-taking has taught me a sane attitude to 'sharpness'. There is more to a picture than resolution. Or there should be. But sharpness is the fetish of boring photographers. -- Also, I don't blame my own mistakes on the lens.

The old man from the Age of the Cooke Triplet