Jabberwockt wrote:
Rich, its great that you did your homework before buying your Rokkor a few months ago. I dont understand if u guys are agreeing or disagreeing with me that there are differences.
Anyways, to answer the ISO1600\'s questions. I own two of the three lenses in question. The voigtlander has f1.4 and moderately harsher bokeh combined with the the slight purple fringing tendency wide open that a lot of voigtlanders have. The rokkor/cron 40 is sharp and has decent contrast in the middle, that sharpness falls off a bit towards the edges and corners. Neither would probably be my first choice for stop down landscapes. Had both the rokkor and cron version to compare last month, the rokkor seemed to glow more than the cron (although both did it) but i think the copy i had was an outlier. With older lenses, it has been my experience that sample variation is pretty significant. Have not tried the canon 35 LTM, would like to one of these days, but i think some folks here have shots with it on the Leica image thread.
Since you have not mentioned the camera once, and it\'s a picky beast, I have to ask: have you ordered one?
I\'m afraid your vast Leica experience is pretty much useless in this context, in fact it works against you , since you seem to think you already know everything.
Here you will find the cv 35/1.4 http://flic.kr/ps/z3zDS
I have also seen the canon but I\'m going to have to dig that one up.
to be honest, if I did not already own the CVs 40/2, 35/1.2 35/1.4 and 35/2.5 (which I don\'t expect to do well), I would get the native zeiss 35 which will outperform them all expect at very low light, in which case the cv35/1.4 will do well.
the 1.2 looks to give the native a real run for the money, but it\'s big.
The camera does seem to like the cv.35/1.4 quite a bit
This might also be useful since the lens was based on the canon 35/2: HERE
Jabberwockt wrote:
Rich, its great that you did your homework before buying your Rokkor a few months ago. I dont understand if u guys are agreeing or disagreeing with me that there are differences.
Anyways, to answer the ISO1600\'s questions. I own two of the three lenses in question. The voigtlander has f1.4 and moderately harsher bokeh combined with the the slight purple fringing tendency wide open that a lot of voigtlanders have. The rokkor/cron 40 is sharp and has decent contrast in the middle, that sharpness falls off a bit towards the edges and corners. Neither would probably be my first choice for stop down landscapes. Had both the rokkor and cron version to compare last month, the rokkor seemed to glow more than the cron (although both did it) but i think the copy i had was an outlier. With older lenses, it has been my experience that sample variation is pretty significant. Have not tried the canon 35 LTM, would like to one of these days, but i think some folks here have shots with it on the Leica image thread.
Since you have not mentioned the camera once, and it\'s a picky beast, I have to ask: have you ordered one?
I\'m afraid your vast Leica experience is pretty much useless in this context, in fact it works against you , since you seem to think you already know everything.
Here you will find the cv 35/1.4 http://flic.kr/ps/z3zDS
I have also seen the canon but I\'m going to have to dig that one up.
to be honest, if I did not already own the CVs 40/2, 35/1.2 35/1.4 and 35/2.5 (which I don\'t expect to do well), I would get the native zeiss 35 which will outperform them all expect at very low light, in which case the cv35/1.4 will do well.
the 1.2 looks to give the native a real run for the money, but it\'s big.
The camera does seem to like the cv.35/1.4 quite a bit
This might also be useful since the lens was based on the canon 35/2: HERE
Nov 24, 2013 at 10:30 PM
Previous versions of uhoh7's message #11957997 « Sony A7r + Rangefinder Lenses: Images »
