Not sure what can beat that currently on the market. I tried just about every 35mm lens out there. For me if the CA goes away at 2.8 and my corners look almost there at 5.6 and in this case on center it does not get any better than F2.8 than i got a winner
Little secret with Big Bronco look for the knot of wood between the lights and watch that change with aperture
Even F2.8 is not bad. As we all have talked about its F2 where the Loxia 35 shows its glow but my CV 40 and CV 50 1.2 lenses do exactly the same thing till about 1.7
Uncle Chip wrote:
Best thing about this comparison is that it has shocked Fred, this and the 21 can make for a super compact set,
Fred, where you want subject separation so the corners don’t matter, how do you think the 35 will hold up for say portraits?
The CV 21/3.5 and CV 35/1.4 have pretty much the same length and weight. (The latter is only 30 grams heavier)
So, I agree they make a great compact and light set together as long as your application does not require the highest IQ as priority.
I’m thinking the CV 21 for travel as I think from what I’m seeing here it’s closer in IQ to the Loxia 21 than the CV 35 is to the Loxia 35. So for travel I could be small . CV 15,CV 21, Loxia 35 and 85 and my option lens is the CV 50 1.2 VM .
My other area I’m looking at is 24/25 choices. I sold my Batis 25 today as I want the Sony 24 so that’s a direct replacement. The question mark is my Loxia 25. But first I want to test the Sony before I do something rash.
One other note folks if you like the CV 35 1.4 but maybe want longer the CV 50 1.2 M mount is actually better in the corners and very very similar in IQ to the CV 40 1.2 and I think it’s actually sharper on center than the 40.
So many options here but in all honesty this CV 35 1.4 is not doing much for me, so it’s a pass for me at least.
DavidBM wrote:
For portraits it’s a matter of taste.
Both have funky rendering at wide “portrait” apertures, so it’s pick your preferred funkiness. (Of course there is an extra stop for the cv). The Loxia has a lovely and not so funky look from f2.8 (don’t know about the cv)
Yes, by f/2 or f/2.2, rendering is noticeably smoother....All the fun is gone.
GMPhotography wrote:
One other note folks if you like the CV 35 1.4 but maybe want longer the CV 50 1.2 M mount is actually better in the corners and very very similar in IQ to the CV 40 1.2 and I think it’s actually sharper on center than the 40.
So many options here but in all honesty this CV 35 1.4 is not doing much for me, so it’s a pass for me at least.
Between native E-mount CV and Loxia lines, I have bought and kept 4 CV lenses (21, 35, 40, 65) and 1 Loxia (50) so far. I also bought the CV 10mm but later I sold it as I decided to use the Sony zooms (12-24/4 and 16-35/2.8) for the widest end for versatility reasons.
I prefer the look & feel, handling, pricing and size on the CV lenses in most cases. I will also probably switch my Loxia 50 to CV 50 1.2 once there is native version available and I have the 110/2.5 on pre-order as well.
In Japan this 35/1.4 classic costs 56% of the Loxia 35/2 price as new in my usual favorite Camera shops and the 2nd hand supply hasn't been priced much lower so far for either lens.
I've been enjoying the 35/1.4 a lot and I always have a lot of fun shooting with it, and I've been very happy with the results. I also think I got an excellent copy of that one which seems to behave similarly to Fred's copy.
GMPhotography wrote:
One other note folks if you like the CV 35 1.4 but maybe want longer the CV 50 1.2 M mount is actually better in the corners and very very similar in IQ to the CV 40 1.2 and I think it’s actually sharper on center than the 40.
So many options here but in all honesty this CV 35 1.4 is not doing much for me, so it’s a pass for me at least.
Fred thanks for the tests
I think if you like the CV 1.4/35 then the CV 1.2/40 or CV 1.2/50 will be too well behaved for your taste!
Juha Kannisto wrote:
Very nice comparison review, Fred!
Between native E-mount CV and Loxia lines, I have bought and kept 4 CV lenses (21, 35, 40, 65) and 1 Loxia (50) so far. I also bought the CV 10mm but later I sold it as I decided to use the Sony zooms (12-24/4 and 16-35/2.8) for the widest end for versatility reasons.
Juha, if you had to choose between the 35 or 40, which would you choose?
azhenley wrote:
Juha, if you had to choose between the 35 or 40, which would you choose?
Tough question but based on the enjoyment factor and more ideal size and weight for walk-around use, I might even choose to keep the 35/1.4 first if I had to let one of them go. 40/1.2 is better corrected and I think it works better for low light city shooting since it can be used comfortably at f2.8 for that. I think 40/1.2 is also better for portraits and people shots. However for daylight walk-around use (which is my most common use case with these lenses) I might prefer the 35/1.4 for the size/weight and fun factor. Since I got the 35/1.4 back in February I've been using it more often than my 40/1.2
Anyway, I'm planning on keeping both and will continue using both based on the shooting purpose..
For those deciding between the CV 40/1.2 or CV 35/1.4...
With both lenses set to wide open, the CV 40/1.2 is noticeably sharper and more contrasty at more optimal distances like 1m and 2m. That's impressive considering the 40mm is @ f/1.2.
The high performance after 1m when wide open is actually one of the biggest strengths of the 40/1.2 Nokton. The CV 35/1.4 does not share this characteristic while the new 50/1.2 Nokton does.
Here is a comparison:
1m distance resolution/contrast comparison with both lenses wide open
2m distance resolution/contrast comparison with both lenses wide open
Juha Kannisto wrote:
Tough question but based on the enjoyment factor and more ideal size and weight for walk-around use, I might even choose to keep the 35/1.4 first if I had to let one of them go. 40/1.2 is better corrected and I think it works better for low light city shooting since it can be used comfortably at f2.8 for that. I think 40/1.2 is also better for portraits and people shots. However for daylight walk-around use (which is my most common use case with these lenses) I might prefer the 35/1.4 for the size/weight and fun factor. Since I got the 35/1.4 back in February I've been using it more often than my 40/1.2
Anyway, I'm planning on keeping both and will continue using both based on the shooting purpose.....Show more →
It's tough to decide which one to keep but if I was forced to choose only one, it would be the 40/1.2 for its better performance for landscapes and wider aperture as a general lens.
However, I intend to keep the 35/1.4 as well just because I enjoy its unique rendering and that's very subjective. It's my only 'funky' native and I really like the 35mm FL.
Another way to look at this: If you want the OOF rendering to be part of the composition, go with the 35/1.4 but if you want a less distractive bokeh to better isolate your subject, the 40/1.2 may be a better option. The 'classic' look and overall speed and size of this lens is what's attractive to me.
