Nokton vs Nokton? (35/1.2 vs 40/1.4)

[steve_chan5]

Has anyone got any experience with these 2 lenses, side by side? I

may have some extra money to waste on lenses soon, and I was

considering the 35/1.2 Nokton as a really fast, modern lens. But I

wonder what, if anything, it offers over the 40/1.4 that I already have.

 

Nicer bokeh? More exercise from lugging it around?

[thomas_t]

The 35/1.2 has much smoother bokeh in my eyes, faster speed, and a similar look wide-open to the noctilux at 1/3 the price. However, it is also very much on the large and heavy side ala Noctilux. I own a 40/1.4, it is quite competent from 2.8, but I find the signature wide open up to 2.8 to be unpleasant relative to the 35/1.2.

 

If you like your 40/1.4's signature wide-open at 1.4, 2.0 ... then you have little to gain from getting the 35/1.2. Only you can answer that question ;-)

[didjiman]

Sorry Steve, I don't have direct experience, but consider:

a) the 35/1.2 is much bigger and heavier and more difficult design (10 elements blah blah blah)...

b) your camera likely either has framelines for 35 or 40, but not both. It may or may not matter, depending on how accurate the framelines are and whether you care about precision framing.

c) That 1/2 stop difference may not really exist in real life.

 

My advice is to stay with your 40/1.4 and either save up for a real Leica, for whatever that is worth, or save up for a different focal length.

[jerry_lehrer]

Steve-- The only 40mm lens that floats my boat is the Summicron-C. Till

I discovered that, the 40 of choice was the f2.8 Sonnar. Wow!

 

Jerry

[mattalofs]

The CV 35 1.2 is nice. I've got a review of it on my site:<a href="http://www.1point4photography.com/cv35nokton.php" target=_blank>http://www.1point4photography.com/cv35nokton.php</a><br><br>

<center>

<img src="http://www.1point4photography.com/images/01320033.jpg"><br>hexar rf, cv 35 1.2, nph</center>

[andrew robertson]

I like the 40 because it is very light and small for the speed.

 

I chose it over the 35 mainly because of the size of the 40. Also, with 20 air to glass

surfaces it is likely to have a similar t stop anyway. Undoubtedly the 35 has less DOF and

consequently shallower DOF wide open because of its greater f stop, but it might not let in

much more light.

 

I use the 35mm framelines.

[andrew robertson]

Nokton wide open...<div></div>

[andrew_hall1]

Dunno about exact T-stops, but the 35 is a 7-group design while the 40 has 6 optical groups, a minimal difference in air-glass surfaces.

[steve_chan5]

Thanks for the feedback. The only Leica lenses I'm particularly interestedin right now would be one of the new ASPH lenses (I already have a DR cron and had a Cron-C), but I have yet to convince myself to shell out that kind of money for the boost in wide-open performance.

 

I think I'll sit tight with my 40/1.4 nokton for now. It has ring bokeh, and maybe some doubling wider than f2.8 but I'll survive (or else whip out the cron or the Canon 50/1.2).

[simonpg]

I tested a Nokton 40mm f1.4 and loved it. Optical correction is excellent and the bokeh is attractive. IMHO the ASPH design give a nice "pop-out" effect (some Leica officiandos don't like that effect) of sharp subject from the background. Colour rendition is quite superb on trannies.

 

I have never used the 35mm Nokton. I think reviews of the VC lenses by people like Puts suggest the 40mm is optically stronger than the 35mm (or their comments about the 40 are better than comments about the 35 without direct comparison) but the 35mm is a very high standard.

 

Personally I would buy the one that has the focal length you prefer - no point having one that is a great performer in a focal length you rarely use. I did not buy the 40mm simply because not having framelines for 40mm annoyed me.