Cv 35/1.4

[ErikFive]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I dont think its gonna be a challenge to the 35Lux asph unless you do a price/performance test:), but Tom Abrahamsson said something to consider. You can get the 35 1.4, 35 1.2, 35 1.7 and 35 2.5 form CV and still save money. A new 35 Biogon, 35 1.2 Which is one of my favs and the 35 1.4 would still be a very nice team for less money than a used 35 Lux asph. CV´s lenses are just getting better an better and I bet they would win a price/perfomance contest pretty clear. I dont own the 35 ASPH Lux at this time, but I actually might get one this week. I have friends that owns one and its a darn good lens, but it is large. If moneys not an option I would have 35 cron III or IV, 35 Biogon, 35 1.2 for speed, Lux ASph and cv 35 1.4 for size and speed. I really dont like to talk about lenses I dont own so I will shut up until I have both the Leica and CV in my hands

[sdai]

There's no need for CV to compete head to head against Leica ... many folks will consider this as a decent alternative because 1) they don't want to pay extra money or 2) they prefer the more compact package.

 

Remember that forum wish list for Leica lenses, folks? I think we'll see a CV 24/2 or may be a CV 28/1.8 instead. CV is here to do stuff Leica can do but don't want to.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[cbretteville]

@ Erik and Carl:

Do you really think that it's gonna challenge with the 35lux asph?Where's the nokton gonna end in this case?

 

First let me say: I have no idea, honestly.

 

I own several CV lenses from 12 to 75mm (no 35 though). I like them for what they give me compared to what I have had to give for them. I own a 35 'lux ASPH and like that lens a lot, especially on my M6 with a roll of APX100 loaded. On the M8 I use 28s more than 35s as the 35mm FOV is what I want. Had I now been in the market for a high speed 35mm, the new CV would have been high on my list simply because of my experience with their lenses.

 

If the CV35/1.4 stands up to the 35'lux ASPH as well as the 28 Ultron stands up to the 28 Cron it will do all right. Sure, there will be a difference, but so will there be in price - a big one.

 

Undoubtedly there will be comparisons published, I'll be looking forward to seeing those. I want CV to succeed, competition is healthy.

 

- C

[jlancasterd]

There's no need for CV to compete head to head against Leica ... many folks will consider this as a decent alternative because 1) they don't want to pay extra money or 2) they prefer the more compact package.

 

Remember that forum wish list for Leica lenses, folks? I think we'll see a CV 24/2 or may be a CV 28/1.8 instead. CV is here to do stuff Leica can do but don't want to.

 

I'd certainly buy a 24/2.0 if CV were to make one - especially if it came with a bayonet-mounted, vented hood like the 35/1.4

[tbarker13]

I don't think this new 35 CV lens is going to make any attempt to compete head to head with the 35 lux asph. I'm no lens expert, but I see it more as an effort to improve upon the older 35 lux non-asph. These will be very different lenses, sharing only the same maximum aperture.

I think the two lenses will appeal to different types of photography and photographers.

[stunsworth]

I see it more as an effort to improve upon the older 35 lux non-asph.

 

That was my thought too. It looks as if Voiglander have done their best to copy the look of the older lens - even down to the lugs on the aperture ring.

[Mauribix]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I don't think this new 35 CV lens is going to make any attempt to compete head to head with the 35 lux asph. I'm no lens expert, but I see it more as an effort to improve upon the older 35 lux non-asph. These will be very different lenses, sharing only the same maximum aperture.

I think the two lenses will appeal to different types of photography and photographers.

 

I perfectly second this, and this is what i previously meant in this thread.

The new CV35 lens places itself in the same direction of the ZM-C lenses:

take a look at 50's review in http://www.reidreviews.com , this will help to know what i mean.

 

Best

 

Maurizio

[Mauribix]

..Tom Abrahamsson said something to consider. You can get the 35 1.4, 35 1.2, 35 1.7 and 35 2.5 form CV and still save money...

 

I wouldn't find a reason to buy so many lenses tryin' to get what a single one could easily outperform.

And of course Tom Abrahamsson too i guess he wouldn't travel with 4 lenses in the place for one only.

 

I dont own the 35 ASPH Lux at this time, but I actually might get one this week. I have friends that owns one and its a darn good lens, but it is large. If moneys not an option I would have 35 cron III or IV, 35 Biogon, 35 1.2 for speed, Lux ASph and cv 35 1.4 for size and speed. I really dont like to talk about lenses I dont own so I will shut up until I have both the Leica and CV in my hands

 

It's always the same boring story: the 35lux asph is large:eek:

There was another past thread where we discussed about 35lux asph and 35cron asph, and every time i found someone criticizeing the 35lux asph He/She said "it's too large".

This, let me know, it's almost a urban legend usually coming out when talking about the lux.

The lens is simply stunning, it's not large or big (consider that you said you'd like to have the nokton), it's smaller than a normal 50cron, outstanding from f1.4 ... bla... bla....

 

Matter of fact it's one of the most expensive lenses in the M-market, maybe someone hate it because usually it's expensive in used condition too, but many in this forum dream or have dreamed of it at night, and when you finally bite the bullet and buy the lens, you can't be nothing but happy to know that the lens in your hand is outstanding and still preserves its value!

 

Hope this didn't hurt you, I'm sorry if I did it, but it was not my intention.

 

Best Regards

 

Maurizio

[ErikFive]

Im not hurt:)

 

It isnt the lens that outperforms, its the photographer:).

 

Sizewise I was thinking against the new CV 35 1.4. I know what the lens can do and I can afford it. Im glad I dream of naked girls instead of Leica lenses:rolleyes:

 

I have the 0.95 in M-mount and the 75 Summilux so I know what a big lens is and I am used to it. Im not trying to be an ass and say that the 35 summilux asph isnt worth the money, but the question will be if its worth 8 times more than the CV one? I can buy the cv at 450$ new and sell it for 400$?. I will probably afford the 50$ loss. If not I can sell a filter:rolleyes:

[Mauribix]

..Im glad I dream of naked girls instead of Leica lenses

 

I dream of Leica lenses beside my naked girls...

[ErikFive]

He he....

[jlancasterd]

Im glad I dream of naked girls instead of Leica lenses:rolleyes:

 

You too?

 

And are all of these young ladies also on a desert island where all of the men somehow disappeared permanently several months ago? :D

[lesliefeng]

Lux35A is not really large if you tried. I sold it for a 7 element because of the size. I bought it back by $200 more. I am going to try this compact classic 3514 too, thanks VC, it costs 559...I may keep my lux...

[dseelig]

I never thought of the 35 1.4 asph as too large but the 35 1.2 nokton that is too large. If you can find a good 35 1.4 no focus shift sharp wide open get it keep it cherish it. It will probably be chrome or titanuim \. I HOPE THE 35 VOIGT IS GOOD AND SHARP MAYBE I Wold SELL MY 35 asph, BUT I Doubt it. David

[glowie]

Samples here!

[devils-advocate]

Sean Reid's review of this lens was awfully dispiriting. But bluntly (which hefailed to do for some reason), the lens was an unmitigated piece of shit. The test images were completely soft at all aperatures. There was clearly something wrong with the lens. This so-called backfocus business cannot explain such completely unsharp results across the board.

 

I cannot believe Mr. Kobayshi would stand for this as the actual design-spec of the lens, given the superb sharpness of the rest of theCV lineup, and in particular the 35 f1.2 and 40 f1.4.

 

Has anyone else tried this lens and gotten good results?

 

- Nick.

[terrycioni]

Sean Reid's review of this lens was awfully dispiriting. But bluntly (which hefailed to do for some reason), the lens was an unmitigated piece of shit. The test images were completely soft at all aperatures. There was clearly something wrong with the lens. This so-called backfocus business cannot explain such completely unsharp results across the board.

 

I cannot believe Mr. Kobayshi would stand for this as the actual design-spec of the lens, given the superb sharpness of the rest of theCV lineup, and in particular the 35 f1.2 and 40 f1.4.

 

Has anyone else tried this lens and gotten good results?

 

- Nick.

 

Hi Nick,

 

I have Tom Abrahamson's SC at the moment and have been using it on both M4 and M8. With all respect to Sean - I am getting sharp images. Not sure what is going on but so it goes.

 

Indeed I might just have to get one - that said I own way to many 50mm and 35mm lenses already.

 

Best Regards. Terry

[devils-advocate]

Hi Terry,

 

Glad to hear it. I am biased in that I *really* want to like this lens. I'm just a 35-1-4 kind of guy. But what Sean put up = useless. I don't understand why he was so circumspect about saying that the lenses he had were paper-weights. Who, having spent $5K on a state-of-the-art digital RF would put up with that kind of quality, or lack thereof?

 

While conversations between experienced photogs on this subject are great, perhaps someone needs to bring CV or their distributors into the loop. This calls for some sort of official explanation.

 

It strikes me that a faulty cam on the lens is a much more likely explanation for what is going on than intentional design.

 

I'd buy one tomorrow if I had any confidence that it would be a good sample, but that's manifestly lacking right now.

 

- N.

 

ps. you can never have too many 35s and 50ms :-)

[sean_reid]

Sean Reid's review of this lens was awfully dispiriting. But bluntly (which hefailed to do for some reason), the lens was an unmitigated piece of shit. The test images were completely soft at all aperatures. There was clearly something wrong with the lens. This so-called backfocus business cannot explain such completely unsharp results across the board.

 

I cannot believe Mr. Kobayshi would stand for this as the actual design-spec of the lens, given the superb sharpness of the rest of theCV lineup, and in particular the 35 f1.2 and 40 f1.4.

 

Has anyone else tried this lens and gotten good results?

 

- Nick.

 

Hi Nick,

 

They were decent at F/1.4 and then again at F/8. The lens shifts focus as it stops down. The corner softness could be the result of a bad sample but it also may be field curvature.

 

I'm testing two more examples of the lens when they arrive.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[sean_reid]

Hi Nick,

 

I have Tom Abrahamson's SC at the moment and have been using it on both M4 and M8. With all respect to Sean - I am getting sharp images. Not sure what is going on but so it goes.

 

Indeed I might just have to get one - that said I own way to many 50mm and 35mm lenses already.

 

Best Regards. Terry

 

Hi Terry,

 

Have you tested for focus shift yet? I know that Tom told me he planned to.

 

With the two samples I've tested so far...Between about F/2.8 and F/5.6, the lens will give very sharp results *at some distance* but peak focus will not fall at the distance set by the rangefinder. The lens does focus at the intended distance between F/1.4 and F/2.0 and DOF largely sorts things out by F/8.0.

 

In order for us to compare results, of course, we're all going to have be quite methodical in our testing. I'm looking forward to trying the other two samples of the lens.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean