leitz_not_leica Posted September 18, 2007 Share #1 Posted September 18, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) I had this lens...It's HUGE...I now happily use the CV 40/1.4...It's roughly 1/3 the size, weight and cost of the 40...The 40 is about the size of my ver. 1 35 'cron , Why bother with the 35? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 18, 2007 Posted September 18, 2007 Hi leitz_not_leica, Take a look here To CV 35/1.2 Users: Why?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
leitz_not_leica Posted September 18, 2007 Author Share #2 Posted September 18, 2007 The edit function is not working...The 40/1.4 is approx. 1/3 the price of the 35/1.2. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtodrick Posted September 18, 2007 Share #3 Posted September 18, 2007 Uhhh...why not? Different strokes for different folks... Variety is the spice of life... Really...the TriElmar does a whole lot (kinda slow admittedly), but if it all boils down to bang for the buck lenses like the TriElmar is all that would be out there. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iron Flatline Posted September 18, 2007 Share #4 Posted September 18, 2007 The Noctilux is too long on the M8 - the 35mm of that particular Nokton is wider, while still being extremely fast. It is easy to use and focus (easier than the Nocti) and it captures a nicely-dreamy image when wide open. By the same token, I could ask you why the 40mm Nokton? Why not the 35mm Ultron? It's nice and small, effectively just as fast, and actually has working matching frame-lines... to the degree that there is such a thing as matching frame-lines these days. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gravastar Posted September 18, 2007 Share #5 Posted September 18, 2007 At f1.4 the 35mm 1.2 has a lot less light falloff in the corners compared to the 40mm Nokton. On the M8 its effective focal length is similar to that of the Noctilux on full frame. With my sample it's resolution at f1.2 is much better than that of the Noctilux at the same aperture. I use the 1.2 on the M8 as a Noctilux substitute. As Iron Flatline says it's easy to focus and I like the look of out of focus areas at full aperture compared to the 40mm. However the compact size of the 40mm is very appealing. Bob. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicabug Posted September 19, 2007 Share #6 Posted September 19, 2007 1.2 and different lens fingerprint. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leitz_not_leica Posted September 19, 2007 Author Share #7 Posted September 19, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) I had the 35/1.2 and a Noct. After some testing/dry firing on my M7, I discovered these lenses were only as advertised in the center...I rarely place the subject(s) in the center. Quite a size/weight penalty for only a small fraction of a stop...only in the center. BTW, I did not lose money selling these lenses. "... to the degree that there is such a thing as matching frame-lines these days." Good point...my 40 is modified to bring up the 35 lines...a little tricky up close...fine at infinity. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.