I am also a new NEX owner, but I've been dabbling in alts for a while with my 5D. I purchased an EOS-NEX adapter to try my Oly 24/2.8 with my NEX-3. The lens + EOS-OM adapter + EOS-NEX adapter measures around 60mm from the tip of the lens to the NEX lens mount. This apparently puts it around the same size as the ZM Biogon 25/2.8 without the requisite NEX-M adapter.
While the oly isn't as exciting as the Biogon, I think it shouldn't suffer from any color shifts or corner smearing.
hdan wrote:
I am also a new NEX owner, but I've been dabbling in alts for a while with my 5D. I purchased an EOS-NEX adapter to try my Oly 24/2.8 with my NEX-3. The lens + EOS-OM adapter + EOS-NEX adapter measures around 60mm from the tip of the lens to the NEX lens mount. This apparently puts it around the same size as the ZM Biogon 25/2.8 without the requisite NEX-M adapter.
While the oly isn't as exciting as the Biogon, I think it shouldn't suffer from any color shifts or corner smearing.
wow, i didn't realize the zm 25m was that big. the oly should be a lot cheaper too. the zeiss does have a very nice look to it though.
I just ordered a nex5
which of these two lenses do you guys prefer
35/2.5 Pancake II M
40/1.4 Classic Nokton, Multi-Coated
I'm going to place an order with CameraQuest including the M adapter
Gracias
r.gil wrote:
I just ordered a nex5
which of these two lenses do you guys prefer
35/2.5 Pancake II M
40/1.4 Classic Nokton, Multi-Coated
I'm going to place an order with CameraQuest including the M adapter
Gracias
well the 35 is very sweet but has colorshifts, so you need the cornerfix program for many shots.
not so the 40mm--and it is nice and fast, so all things considered, I would get the 40.
Nice shot uhoh and thanks
which of these two would you favor the 40mm 1.4 or the 35mm 1.4 nokton
Im looking for a very compact lens/camera combo that I could put in my pocket...
They are very similar in size and would't mind paying a bit more for quality...
r.gil wrote:
Nice shot uhoh and thanks
which of these two would you favor the 40mm 1.4 or the 35mm 1.4 nokton
Im looking for a very compact lens/camera combo that I could put in my pocket...
They are very similar in size and would't mind paying a bit more for quality...
the 40mm is a bit bigger and i've heard it has fewer aberrations, but i have no personal experience with either of them. not sure exactly why the 40mm is cheaper.
The Nokton 35/1.4 isn't a lens you'd buy for "technical" quality (nor is the 40mm, for that matter.) The Nokton 35/1.4 has distortion, purple fringing, field curvature (or maybe this is a product of the particular microlenses on the NEX,) questionable bokeh, and it isn't razor sharp wide open like a modern, aspherical 35/1.4.
The Notkon 35 1.4 is a lens that you buy because you are after the older style of rendering like the 35 Summilux pre-asph and the like. It is more "vibe" than "technical," if that makes any sense. I usually defer to my Contax G 35, because it is sharper, focuses closer and is lighter weight than my Voigtlander. If you want a sharper Nokton with more modern rendering, I would look at the Aspherical 35/1.2 and 50/1.5, although they are larger.
douglasf13 wrote:
Yeah, shooting square is an exercise in frustration with any digital sensor. Even the square-sensored digital backs are a significant crop from 6x6 film, making one's lens focal length's suddenly "off." .
I like the square format for the proportions of the image; cropping does not necessarily come into play here for me; I know the FLs I like but whether some FOV is cut off does not really make a difference to how I shoot with it. Nor does the loss of extra IQ.
I picked up my old Yashica TLR the other day though just to look through it and realized the biggest plus of looking through the NEX VS the TLR: there is no image mirroring, so the image moves in the direction that I move, not the opposite; it took a few shots to remember that everything is opposite
Uhoh is this the colourshift you are referring to or is it intentional? if not, GEEZ! I was just about to buy the CV 75 which I previously owned for my DRF, but not if it's like this!
On topic, is there a database anywhere on which lens has what (negative) effect on the NEX?
r.gil wrote:
Nice shot uhoh and thanks
which of these two would you favor the 40mm 1.4 or the 35mm 1.4 nokton
Im looking for a very compact lens/camera combo that I could put in my pocket...
They are very similar in size and would't mind paying a bit more for quality...
My personal opinion: 35 is better since it's not quite so long. 400 used is a good price--very easy to resell.
I have great respect for douglass, who has show me a bunch, but the 35 nokton I find plenty sharp. It's not a contax, but in my test shots it is not in any way soft.
There may be some distortion, but I don't notice it--as a distraction anyway. The lens has many rabid fans, and some equally rabid pooh pohers.
Good review--but does not show how sharp it can be:
My ZM 35 f:2.8 is small, displays no colourshift, and is a very nice, very detailed lens. I am surprised that there should be trouble with the CV 35. another very good option is the Contax G 40. Looks great!
philber wrote:
My ZM 35 f:2.8 is small, displays no colourshift, and is a very nice, very detailed lens. I am surprised that there should be trouble with the CV 35. another very good option is the Contax G 40. Looks great!
just to clarify--sure you know Philber
it's the 35 f/2.5 skopar with the colorshift
the 35 nokton f/1.4 has none.
nor the 35 1.2, which is fantastic, but huge and heavy.
Thanks douglas and uhoh
looks like its going to be between the G35 or 1.4 nokton
eventually I'll end up with both...
Douglas...which adapter do you use with your G35
To be clear, I'm not saying that the Nokton 35/1.4 is particularly unsharp, it just isn't as sharp as the ASPH Noktons, ASPH Leica's, or Contax G's, etc. As I said, it is a lens that is less about being technically good, and more about just making nice pics with a bit of a classic rendering. However, I don't love its infinity performance for landscape on NEX. Even at smaller apertures, you have to balance how much the corner sharpness you want as opposed to center sharpness.
I think the Nokton is good for shallow DOF stuff, but not so great with flat focus plain, architectural type stuff. I use my Nokton 35/1.4 for certain things, but the Contax is my everyday lens (along with the MS Optical Perar 35.) I only notice around a half stop or so of light advantage with the Nokton over the Contax, so I can usually just get away with using the Contax in low light.
I've owned both the Metabones and Kipon Contax G adapters, and I prefer the Kipon for its size and weight, although the Metabones is made better. Both are going to be a little grainy with focus, but I'm used to it, myself. I actually like having the focus ring close to the lens mount, compared to other lenses, buy YMMV.
p.s. the Olympus Pen lenses are another great option to look into, as well as various Leicas. Also, if you can deal with 45mm, the Contax G 45 is about as good of a lens as you'll ever find.
r.gil wrote:
Thanks douglas and uhoh
looks like its going to be between the G35 or 1.4 nokton
eventually I'll end up with both...
Douglas...which adapter do you use with your G35
I'd say your costs will be similar, since the contax adapters are pricer, and the M is 20USD.
Probably comes down to low light. The contax is as sharp as a 35 gets I think, but a 1.4 35 is very fast, and the contax cannot compete indoors, unless it's bright.
I'm not finding the corner center differences in focus outdoors with the nokton, but I need more experience.
on this ugly test, I crop all over but it seems fine accros the frame
Thanks again Douglas
I shoot from 2 to 5 feet and never let the "victim" know what Im doing
that's why I have to use a very small and very quiet camera
Looks like the Contax lenses do not have "distance scale"
that could be a problem for me since I hardly ever look throw the viewfinder when I take the pictures
I tend to shoot from the hip in order to disguise my shooting...
This was shot with a nikon d5000/35mm 1.8G http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5134/5530139541_bbb9eb1a66_b.jpg
And this one...I forgot what I used but I like to get on top of the subject... http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2728/4405996224_3f6c0b0336_b.jpg
r.gil, I would guess that the Nokton 35/1.4 would be a good fit for you, judging by your preferences. Granted, I will say that the distance scale of the Nokton does not seem to be accurate on NEX. Some if it may have to do with adapters, although I got the same error with both my Metabones and Voigtlander adapters, and the same adapters don't affect my MS Optical Perar's distance scale. I just got out a tripod and tape measure and figured out distances on my own for the Nokton. I actually did this with the Contax, too, and I marked the focusing ring, but, once you do that with the Contax, you can't remove the lens from the adapter, or you'll have to re-calibrate and mark it again. I have a Kipon adapter for each Contax lens that I have, so that I never have to remove them.
I would say that, judging by your style, the only technical issue of the Nokton that could possibly affect you is the purple fringing, so just be careful of brightly backlit subjects, and stop down or underexpose them a bit (if you're shooting in color.) The Nokton has some of the most purple fringing possibility I've ever seen, and Sean Reid and Steve Huff have noted it as well. I really only shoot the lens in B&W, so it doesn't affect me.
I think the Nokton is a cool lens, as long as you're prepared for its positives and negatives. Many have shot old Leica Summiluxes for years without complaints, and they may have even more technical issues than the Nokton.
Keep in mind that digital sensors don't receive light as well as film at faster apertures, so you're not really getting a full stop of extra light with the Nokton 35/1.4 over the Contax G. As I mentioned, it seems more like a .5-.7 stops'ish, from my basic tests. So, I generally prefer the Contax G 35 at ISO 600 over the Nokton 35/1.4 at ISO 400, but those differences do start separating more at higher ISO, and it doesn't take DOF differences into account.
