Lotusm50 wrote:
Probably not the caption I would have chosen.
hehe, that one's in for a laugh---I missed the damn focus If you look behind the behind you can see the jupi at medium distance is pretty friggin sharp.
I have a hellva time on the hill becasue I wear contacts and need reading glasses to really see the focus, so usually I pick the least blurry, and it's good, but sometimes things happen fast.....
I just held down the shutter as she turned and I have the whole sequence.....
sebboh wrote:
looks good to me, i'd love to see some portraits from it.
here's another cloudy shot with the contax g 35/2, wide open:
Great shot, sebboh. Even though I've got a new love affair with my C-Biogon 35, I still think that Contax G 35 is nice. It may not hold up under pixel peeping scrutiny all of the time, but I think its overall rendering is appealing.
I'm a bit undecided in the 35mm lens world right now, which, as you know, is where I shoot the most of my stuff. I promised myself to sell at least one 35mm lens to help pay for the C-Biogon, and, because the Nokton 35/1.4 and Contax G 35 are so completely different, I can't seem to part with either, so I think my cool little MS Optical Perar 35 is going on the chopping block...
With the Biogon 35C, what all do you feel the Contax 35 brings to the table ?
Obviously the Nokton, while lacking in some areas (the very ones the ZM is very strong) still makes sense for those times you need a fast lens or even want a bit of its "classic" rendering style.
Between those two lens though, I'm curious what you'd pick to use the Contax for as it lacks the sheer optical quality of the Biogon, and the speed/character of the Nokton.
Likewise, not to make a tough choice tougher, but have you thought about swapping both the Contax and Nokton 1.4 for a Nokton f1.2 ??
That lens really has it all, speed, amazing sharpness, and yet a very beautiful and classic rendering as well. Its right on par with the Zeiss in terms of stopped down sharpness as well, though does lack a bit of the Zeiss punch.
douglasf13 wrote:
Great shot, sebboh. Even though I've got a new love affair with my C-Biogon 35, I still think that Contax G 35 is nice. It may not hold up under pixel peeping scrutiny all of the time, but I think its overall rendering is appealing.
I'm a bit undecided in the 35mm lens world right now, which, as you know, is where I shoot the most of my stuff. I promised myself to sell at least one 35mm lens to help pay for the C-Biogon, and, because the Nokton 35/1.4 and Contax G 35 are so completely different, I can't seem to part with either, so I think my cool little MS Optical Perar 35 is going on the chopping block...
The Contax G 35 brings two things over the C-Biogon 35: an extra stop and, when mounted on NEX, an mfd of about .43 meters (it appears to focus a little closer on NEX than on Contax cameras.) The actual working distance of the lens is around .37 meters on NEX.
Due to the way angled light hits these digital sensors, f1.4 seems to only be about a .5-.7 EV advantage over F2, so I'm actually considering just using the Contax as my lowlight option, since it has a nice, Summicron pre-asph"ish" look, but with seemingly more contrast, from what I can tell.
I've managed to bypass both the Nokton 1.2 and Nokton 1.1, up to this point, because of their size. I may change my mind in the future, but we'll see. I rarely have instances where I need to bring both the Nokton 1.4 and C-Biogon 35 together, and, when I do, I'd have a bag with me anyways, so I'd rather have two smaller lenses over one larger one.
I have a feeling the 35 Summilux ASPH would probably be a nice combo of everything for me, but I just can't spend that kind of money.
Not 100% sure why, but a fast 35mm tends to weight more than a fast 50, just like a fast 24, or even a moderately fast 24 weights more than both of them. I guess the wider you go the heavier the lens gets (im sure there are some exceptions)
The 35 1.2 and 50 1.1 really are night and day different though in terms of performance, even though they do look and weight pretty close. The 50 is very dreamy wide open while the 35 is actually very sharp even wide open. Very different overall look even though the speed is pretty close.
Both of them really handle nicely even though they are among the bigger RF lenses. The MF ring is very large on both and very, very well dampened, with a perfect amount of travel for fine tuning the focus on the LCD screen.
My Nokton 35 1.4, on the other hand, while compact and lighter, really was awful to try to focus in comparison.
That little focus tab is very awkward on the NEX, and the overall range of travel is too small and its not as well dampened either. Just a really unpleasant experience going back/forth trying to nail the focus wide open, IMHO at least.
Those are the intangibles that can't be forgotten when comparing lenses. Its easy to judge things like weight and cost, but sometimes the lighter/cheaper lens on paper, turns out to just not be as pleasant to shoot with.
35 1.2 is rather like that. Its a stout fellow for sure, but its very, very well made and a joy to shoot with. Same can be said for the 50 Nokton as well, just a nice lens to use mechanically.
Once the lens is on the camera and I'm shooting, the size doesn't make much difference to me. It is the carrying around and pocket stuffing size/weight that I'm more concerned about. I'm mostly a single standard prime kinda guy, and I can put the NEX-5 + Nokton 35/1.4 or C-Biogon 35 in just about any pocket on every coat or bag that I have. Once the depth of the camera starts nearing DSLR size, I may as well just bring an A900 with a fast 50, but I'll keep the Nokton 1.2 in mind.
millsart wrote:
Not 100% sure why, but a fast 35mm tends to weight more than a fast 50, just like a fast 24, or even a moderately fast 24 weights more than both of them. I guess the wider you go the heavier the lens gets (im sure there are some exceptions)
The 35 1.2 and 50 1.1 really are night and day different though in terms of performance, even though they do look and weight pretty close. The 50 is very dreamy wide open while the 35 is actually very sharp even wide open. Very different overall look even though the speed is pretty close.
35 1.2 is rather like that. Its a stout fellow for sure, but its very, very well made and a joy to shoot with. Same can be said for the 50 Nokton as well, just a nice lens to use mechanically....Show more →
A fast 35 weighs more than a fast 50? Is there a 50/1.4 lighter than the nokton 35/1.4? I thought fast got heavier longer, but more technically difficult shorter.
I think they make them heavy because they are afraid they will be fragile and get a reputation as such, if lighter. The canon puts the lie to that--there are tens of thousands of them hoarded accross the globe. Also I think it would be more expensive to make them lighter, and they need a price point to live.
Is there a 50 1.1 that is sharper than the nokton? It somewhow has picked up a reputation for fuzziness, not helped by Ken Rockwell's idoitic review, which I think is explained by the following:
1) it's hard to hold steady. You better shoot at 1/80 at least if you are concerned about sharpnesswith this lens.
2) the DOF is like a sliver. It's crazy how much tighter than the canon LTM 1.2, and that means its WAY tighter than the 35/1.2
3) it cannot be used properly on an m8 or m9 without calibration.
all of which speaks to the more practical nature of the 35, which may well be sharper, but perhaps the 50/1.1 is alot better than given credit for,
Fast 50 have always generally been smaller than just about any other fast lens. Look at 24/1.4 lenses compared to 50/1.4. Of course, the Nokton 35 and 40 1.4 are an exception, but they're not corrected like modern lenses tend to be. I believe the Nokton is the first and only 35 f1.2 lens made.
I believe fast wide angles, even those designed for rangefinders, are retrofocus designs and thus will necessarily have more elements than a standard lens, and hence more weight. Most current rangefinder wide angles are actually slight retrofocus designs anyway but it may become even more important due to extreme vignetting and aberration issues with faster lenses (retrofocus designs allow for more corrections). Finally, most current wide angle rangefinder lenses are also more retrofocus, and thus more tele-centric, in order to work better with digital sensors.
I simply don't think the 50 Nokt was designed to be that sharp wide open, its a copy of the earlier generation Noct after all, which is prized for its "dreaminess" and for less than 1/10th the cost, the Nokton 1.1 achieves much of that same look.
Saying its a bit soft wide open isn't a fault, rather an observation of its character. Same can be said for a Zeiss 50 1.5 Sonnar. We all know that lens has a bit of softness wide open, yet its next to impossible to find in stock. Softness/glow is not a fault, but rather a classical way of rendering, and for some peoples style of photography, its an intentional trait they seek out.
I had both the ZM 50 Planar and the Sonnar, and by all accounts the Planar is the better lens. Sharper, no focus issues, very smooth bokeh, cheaper et al. Its what I personally preferred but some Sonnar photos wide open still look darn cool, and simply work better than the Planar would of rendered them.
Photography we must remember is as much art as it is science. Optical perfection does not always make the best photo. Sure, in some cases such as a landscape shot, I doubt many people want distortion, soft corners, etc, but how about a street shot ? A particular way of drawing, a signature look of the out of focus transitions, etc can work really well.
My 50 of choice is a Nokton 1.5. I find for what I like its the perfect blend of sharpness yet with a classical rendering style, very much like a Lux. Others might like a 50 1.1 for that Noct look, and others still might like a Planar's flawless modern rendering with all the signature Zeiss color, contrast and "3d". Someone else might want a plastic optic brand X for a toy camera look.
Best lens is the one that gives you the look your after, and that you find pleasing. I'd personally own probably 5 of each given focal length if I had the means lol
millsart wrote:
Best lens is the one that gives you the look your after, and that you find pleasing. I'd personally own probably 5 of each given focal length if I had the means lol
i don't have the means, but i still end up doing this.
If you look behind the behind you can see the jupi at medium distance is pretty friggin sharp.
