Jump to content

David Bailey likes Nokton 40/1.4


nugat

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I heard Salgado did not rate the 40 1.4 though, so who comes out on top. Seriously, in a fight, who would win? :D

 

I think, if anything, this shows that pros use all sorts of stuff. If they enjoy it and get shots they like, they keep using it. Does not mean it is the bees knees.

 

The fact that salgado has moved to Canon DSLRs does not mean that Leicas or pentax 645s are no good!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 43
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I was in Classic Camera the other day, actually not even enquiring about lenses but looking at a Zeiss finder and the sales person started on about how Leica lenses were an appalling waste of money and that Zeiss lenses were as good, if not better, for a realistic price. Fair enough, I suppose, however he then said that all the celebrities they get in the shop were buying Zeiss lenses and foregoing Leica. I told him I was not in the market for new lenses and asked him whether they were still an official Leica dealer and he said "Yes", although I had heard that Leica had dumped them, which could explain some of the Zeiss comments....

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was in Classic Camera the other day, actually not even enquiring about lenses but looking at a Zeiss finder and the sales person started on about how Leica lenses were an appalling waste of money and that Zeiss lenses were as good, if not better, for a realistic price. Fair enough, I suppose, however he then said that all the celebrities they get in the shop were buying Zeiss lenses and foregoing Leica. I told him I was not in the market for new lenses and asked him whether they were still an official Leica dealer and he said "Yes", although I had heard that Leica had dumped them, which could explain some of the Zeiss comments....

 

CC are definately not an official Leica dealer anymore! As you say, explains the push on Zeiss and other makes instead (although they presumably still sell s/h Leica).

Link to post
Share on other sites

The OP's first mistake was to post any kind of comment praising "other brands" on this website. It only serves to inflame all the insecure types who only accept praise for Leica's and scorn on others. Poor fellow never had a chance...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was in Classic Camera the other day, actually not even enquiring about lenses but looking at a Zeiss finder and the sales person started on about how Leica lenses were an appalling waste of money and that Zeiss lenses were as good, if not better, for a realistic price. Fair enough, I suppose, however he then said that all the celebrities they get in the shop were buying Zeiss lenses and foregoing Leica. I told him I was not in the market for new lenses and asked him whether they were still an official Leica dealer and he said "Yes", although I had heard that Leica had dumped them, which could explain some of the Zeiss comments....

 

Thanks for bringing that up. I have somewhat the same experience with them. Don't like them and don't trust them a bit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Had I known how it was going to evolve...

The original post was supposed to be a fairly innocent remark on one perfect (for me) London afternoon, a short story of a famous ("notorious" some here will say) photographer's preference for a piece of glass, and how the Antonioni film "fame/notoriety" managed to sell another piece of it.

Instead I provoked a jihad.

My , my......

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Ha ha

 

As said earlier - and made even clearer now - I believe a piece of equipment that has a story and/or a special meaning and significance to one can do remarkable better photos than one that doesn't.

 

Photography is all about love factor.

 

So your new lens and you are going to make stellar photography :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not discussing the merits of the CV 40/1.4 here? Looks like a sharp lens with a not so smooth bokeh at first glance. Does it have the same focusing problems as the CV 35/1.4 or 28/2?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was today at my favourite London Leica shop, just to look around...

A nice 40/1.4 Nokton caught my attention. The shop Leica consultant commented:

"Yes, good taste. David Bailey uses this on his Leica, he says it's excellent glass...".

What could I do, I bought one.

 

I bet he uses anything when he is paid enough to use it

Link to post
Share on other sites

See here for the TV ad...

 

 

Didn't the Olypus Trip have a 40mm lens? Perhaps he's a 40mm guy.

 

Steve, I missed the link before, just watched it, great eh! Was that Phil Daniels big break? Yes the Trip had a 40mm lens (I have a broken one somewhere) so clearly Mr Bailey was getting nostalgic for the old days when he bought his Nokton.

Link to post
Share on other sites

David Bailey - wasn't he the man who said an Oly zoom point and shoot was as good as a Nikon SLR? I therefore would take his opinion of the CV lens with a large pinch of salt. The other issue is that the 40 doesn't match any frameline.

 

CV lenses are very good for the price. I have currently got a 35/2.5 Skopar Classic + JM mount sitting on my M8 but they don't have an overall performance as good as Cosina's own CZ lenses or Leica glass. In certain areas, their lenses will perform equally e.g. mid aperture corner definition and other areas for other lenses but when you add everything up, Leica glass is nearly always best, with Zeiss a close second. Whether Leica represents the "best bang for your buck" is a quite different equation.

 

Wilson

 

Hi Wilson,

 

Interesting, what don't you like about the 35/2.5?

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Wilson,

 

Interesting, what don't you like about the 35/2.5?

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

 

Sean,

 

Mine is just not terribly sharp. At f2.5, it is not surprisingly less sharp than my 35 ASPH Summilux at say f2. It is also less sharp than my MATE at 35mm at smaller apertures on the Skopar, which I would not have expected. I have done front/back focusing tests and whereas it is not perfect (it is a fraction better on the original adapter than the JM coded one), with a touch of back focus, the error is well within DOF, even with reduced COC. The top corners of the photo seem fractionally sharper than the bottom corners, so maybe the optical cell is slightly de-centered or tilted inside the barrel. I (unlike you I think) am a "high contrast" person and the contrast of the 35/2.5 is on the low side of what I like, although better than the 35/1.2 that I had. You and I have had the discussion before, of the perception of the eye confusing contrast and sharpness and I think I may be guilty of this here, to some extent.

 

However, when one takes into account that I only paid £130 for the lens plus about £50 for the JM mount, the price/perfomance ratio is perfectly acceptable. I mount it when I have my M8 in the very small front mudguard pouch for quad bike trips, as I feel the vertical G's are too high if I put the M8 on the rear carrier and after reading about horrible tales of injuries caused by hard objects in back packs, I won't do that.

 

Wilson

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...