I didn't compare them extensively but I did do a scene with a troublesome background (chaotic marble kitchen-top) with both the 40/1.2 nokton and 35/1.4 distagon and the nokton certainly had smoother bokeh. Zeiss more pop.
I like both. And I think I agree with the comment about "when the Zeiss hits...".
I think it hits often too but I've been on a sidequest sorting out film cameras and lenses since I got it and it's turning into a part-time job getting everything in place.
I watched a comparison with the fle that seemed quite detailed:
Talks about a bit smoother bokeh and less onion ring on the distagon, more muted blacks on the fle. Distagon a little sharper centrally, less mid-zone dip, little more modern and poppy, less flaring.
He also touches on this "pickup" on the highlights with the FLE and mentioned it helped with the colours in low light. I found the Simera 50 to have the same exact thing with the highlights and noted the benefit in low light too. Said the Distagon can be a bit too yellow in low light.
Says that the biggest differences are in the handling but also mentions at the end that in real world use the size difference is less apparent. I never tried the fle but it's quite a nice comparison with samples from both.
Haven't been sold on the 35 simera. This reviewer seems to like it, though he mentions the price and the fact that he's a working photographer and that things get damaged with use etc. I wasn't particularly convinced by the samples.
- For film on an M mount I'm leaning towards the summilux, maybe the nokton 1.2. Looks a bit odd though. But really, not sure. CV 35/1.5, 1.4 classic II, LLL 11873. Worry the classic and LLL not sharp enough to be all that useful at wider apertures. 1.5 a bit boring but stopped just a little should be okay. Nokton a bit weird looking. Summilux expensive. Distagon bigger. Summicron flare but is it that much worse than the fle? And the rendering a little depressing sometimes but could just be the scenes/film. No clue. CV 1.5 might be nice with the 50/1.5 as well but maybe it's a boring duo. Compact though.
In the meantime I've been starting to go through the Nikon film 35mm-or-close options: 35/1.4 AIS, mir-24h (35/f2 zeiss flektagon inspired or something - smooth bokeh, long focus throw), CV ultron 40/2. Open to eventually trying the 35/2 ais.
Maybe starting off with the LLL and treating it like a nikon 50/1.4, f2-f2.8 with people, f4+ everything else. Cause perhaps the distagon and fle are a hair too modern on film, not sure. Or just going for the nokton 1.2, the 40 and 50 are nice on Sony digital.
I didn't compare them extensively but I did do a scene with a troublesome background (chaotic marble kitchen-top) with both the 40/1.2 nokton and 35/1.4 distagon and the nokton certainly had smoother bokeh. Zeiss more pop.
I like both. And I think I agree with the comment about "when the Zeiss hits...".
I think it hits often too but I've been on a sidequest sorting out film cameras and lenses since I got it and it's turning into a part-time job getting everything in place.
I watched a comparison with the fle that seemed quite detailed:
Talks about a bit smoother bokeh and less onion ring on the distagon, more muted blacks on the fle. Distagon a little sharper centrally, less mid-zone dip, little more modern and poppy, less flaring.
He also touches on this "pickup" on the highlights with the FLE and mentioned it helped with the colours in low light. I found the Simera 50 to have the same exact thing with the highlights and noted the benefit in low light too. Said the Distagon can be a bit too yellow in low light.
Says that the biggest differences are in the handling but also mentions at the end that in real world use the size difference is less apparent. I never tried the fle but it's quite a nice comparison with samples from both.
Haven't been sold on the 35 simera. This reviewer seems to like it, though he mentions the price and the fact that he's a working photographer and that things get damaged with use etc. I wasn't particularly convinced by the samples.
- For film on an M mount I'm leaning towards the summilux, maybe the nokton 1.2. Looks a bit odd though. But really, not sure. CV 35/1.5, 1.4 classic II, LLL 11873. Worry the classic and LLL not sharp enough to be all that useful at wider apertures. 1.5 a bit boring but stopped just a little should be okay. Nokton a bit weird looking. Summilux expensive. Distagon bigger. Summicron flare but is it that much worse than the fle? And the rendering a little depressing sometimes but could just be the scenes/film. No clue. CV 1.5 might be nice with the 50/1.5 as well but maybe it's a boring duo. Compact though.
In the meantime I've been starting to go through the Nikon film 35mm-or-close options: 35/1.4 AIS, mir-24h (35/f2 zeiss flektagon inspired or something - smooth bokeh, long focus throw), CV ultron 40/2. Open to eventually trying the 35/2 ais.
Maybe starting off with the LLL and treating it like a nikon 50/1.4, f2-f2.8 with people, f4+ everything else. Cause perhaps the distagon and fle are a hair too modern on film, not sure. Or just going for the nokton 1.2, the 40 and 50 are nice on Sony digital. A visual redesign would be great though.
I didn't compare them extensively but I did do a scene with a troublesome background (chaotic marble kitchen-top) with both the 40/1.2 nokton and 35/1.4 distagon and the nokton certainly had smoother bokeh. Zeiss more pop.
I like both. And I think I agree with the comment about "when the Zeiss hits...".
I think it hits often too but I've been on a sidequest sorting out film cameras and lenses since I got it and it's turning into a part-time job getting everything in place.
I watched a comparison with the fle that seemed quite detailed:
Talks about a bit smoother bokeh and less onion ring on the distagon, more muted blacks on the fle. Distagon a little sharper centrally, less mid-zone dip, little more modern and poppy, less flaring.
He also touches on this "pickup" on the highlights with the FLE and mentioned it helped with the colours in low light. I found the Simera 50 to have the same exact thing with the highlights and noted the benefit in low light too. Said the Distagon can be a bit too yellow in low light.
Says that the biggest differences are in the handling but also mentions at the end that in real world use the size difference is less apparent. I never tried the fle but it's quite a nice comparison with samples from both.
Haven't been sold on the 35 simera. This reviewer seems to like it, though he mentions the price and the fact that he's a working photographer and that things get damaged with use etc. I wasn't particularly convinced by the samples.
- For film on an M mount I'm leaning towards the summilux, maybe the nokton 1.2. Looks a bit odd though. But really, not sure. CV 35/1.5, 1.4 classic II, LLL 11873. Worry the classic and LLL not sharp enough to be all that useful at wider apertures. 1.5 a bit boring but stopped just a little should be okay. Nokton a bit weird looking. Summilux expensive. Distagon bigger. Summicron flare but is it that much worse than the fle? And the rendering a little depressing sometimes but could just be the scenes/film. No clue. CV 1.5 might be nice with the 50/1.5 as well but maybe it's a boring duo. Compact though.
In the meantime I've been starting to go through the Nikon film 35mm-or-close options: 35/1.4 AIS, mir-24h (35/f2 zeiss flektagon inspired or something - smooth bokeh, long focus throw), CV ultron 40/2. Open to eventually trying the 35/2 ais.
Maybe starting off with the LLL and treating it like a nikon 50/1.4, f2-f2.8 with people, f4+ everything else. Cause perhaps the distagon and fle are a hair too modern, not sure. Or just going for the nokton 1.2, the 40 and 50 are nice on Sony digital. A visual redesign would be great though.
I didn't compare them extensively but I did do a scene with a troublesome background (chaotic marble kitchen-top) with both the 40/1.2 nokton and 35/1.4 distagon and the nokton certainly had smoother bokeh. Zeiss more pop.
I like both. And I think I agree with the comment about "when the Zeiss hits...".
I think it hits often too but I've been on a sidequest sorting out film cameras and lenses since I got it and it's turning into a part-time job getting everything in place.
I watched a comparison with the fle that seemed quite detailed:
Talks about a bit smoother bokeh and less onion ring on the distagon, more muted blacks on the fle. Distagon a little sharper centrally, less mid-zone dip, little more modern and poppy, less flaring.
He also touches on this "pickup" on the highlights with the FLE and mentioned it helped with the colours in low light. I found the Simera 50 to have the same exact thing with the highlights and noted the benefit in low light too. Said the Distagon can be a bit too yellow in low light.
Says that the biggest differences are in the handling but also mentions at the end that in real world use the size difference is less apparent. I never tried the fle but it's quite a nice comparison with samples from both.
Haven't been sold on the 35 simera. This reviewer seems to like it, though he mentions the price and the fact that he's a working photographer and that things get damaged with use etc. I wasn't particularly convinced by the samples.
- For film on an M mount I'm leaning towards the summilux, maybe the nokton 1.2. Looks a bit odd though. But really, not sure. CV 35/1.5, 1.4 classic II, LLL 11873. Worry the classic and LLL not sharp enough to be all that useful at wider apertures. 1.5 a bit boring but stopped just a little should be okay. Nokton a bit weird looking. Summilux expensive. Distagon bigger. Summicron flare but is it that much worse than the fle? And the rendering a little depressing sometimes but could just be the scenes/film. No clue. CV 1.5 might be nice with the 50/1.5 as well but maybe it's a boring duo. Compact though.
In the meantime I've been starting to go through the Nikon film 35mm-or-close options: 35/1.4 AIS, mir-24h (35/f2 zeiss flektagon inspired or something - smooth bokeh, long focus throw), CV ultron 40/2. Open to eventually trying the 35/2 ais.
Maybe starting off with the LLL and treating it like a nikon 50/1.4, f2-f2.8 with people, f4+ everything else. Cause perhaps the distagon and fle are a little too modern, not sure. Or just going for the nokton 1.2, the 40 and 50 are nice on Sony digital. A visual redesign would be great though.
I didn't compare them extensively but I did do a scene with a troublesome background (chaotic marble kitchen-top) with both the 40/1.2 nokton and 35/1.4 distagon and the nokton certainly had smoother bokeh. Zeiss more pop.
I like both. And I think I agree with the comment about "when the Zeiss hits...".
I think it hits often too but I've been on a sidequest sorting out film cameras and lenses since I got it and it's turning into a part-time job getting everything in place.
I watched a comparison with the fle that seemed quite detailed:
Talks about a bit smoother bokeh and less onion ring on the distagon, more muted blacks on the fle. Distagon a little sharper centrally, less mid-zone dip, little more modern and poppy, less flaring.
He also touches on this "pickup" on the highlights with the FLE and mentioned it helped with the colours in low light. I found the Simera 50 to have the same exact thing with the highlights and noted the benefit in low light too. Said the Distagon can be a bit too yellow in low light.
Says that the biggest differences are in the handling but also mentions at the end that in real world use the size difference is less apparent. I never tried the fle but it's quite a nice comparison with samples from both.
Haven't been sold on the 35 simera. This reviewer seems to like it, though he mentions the price and the fact that he's a working photographer and that things get damaged with use etc. I wasn't particularly convinced by the samples.
- For film on an M mount I'm leaning towards the summilux, maybe the nokton 1.2. Looks a bit odd though. But really, not sure. CV 35/1.5, 1.4 classic II, LLL 11873. Worry the classic and LLL not sharp enough to be all that useful at wider apertures. 1.5 a bit boring but stopped just a little should be okay. Nokton a bit weird looking. Summilux expensive. Distagon bigger. Summicron flare but is it that much worse than the fle? And the rendering a little depressing sometimes but could just be the scenes/film. No clue. CV 1.5 might be nice with the 50/1.5 as well but maybe it's a boring duo. Compact though.
In the meantime I've been starting to go through the Nikon film 35mm-or-close options: 35/1.4 AIS, mir-24h (35/f2 zeiss flektagon inspired or something - smooth bokeh, long focus throw), CV ultron 40/2. Open to eventually trying the 35/2 ais.
Maybe starting off with the LLL and treating it like a nikon 50/1.4, f2-f2.8 with people, f4+ everything else. Cause perhaps the distagon and fle are a little too modern, not sure. Or just going for the nokton 1.2, the 40 and 50 are nice on Sony digital.
I didn't compare them extensively but I did do a scene with a troublesome background (chaotic marble kitchen-top) with both the 40/1.2 nokton and 35/1.4 distagon and the nokton certainly had smoother bokeh. Zeiss more pop.
I like both. And I think I agree with the comment about "when the Zeiss hits...".
I think it hits often too but I've been on a sidequest sorting out film cameras and lenses since I got it and it's turning into a part-time job getting everything in place.
I watched a comparison with the fle that seemed quite detailed:
Talks about a bit smoother bokeh and less onion ring on the distagon, more muted blacks on the fle. Distagon a little sharper centrally, less mid-zone dip, little more modern and poppy, less flaring.
He also touches on this "pickup" on the highlights with the FLE and mentioned it helped with the colours in low light. I found the Simera 50 to have the same exact thing with the highlights and noted the benefit in low light too. Said the Distagon can be a bit too yellow in low light.
Says that the biggest differences are in the handling but also mentions at the end that in real world use the size difference is less apparent. I never tried the fle but it's quite a nice comparison with samples from both.
Haven't been sold on the 35 simera. This reviewer seems to like it, though he mentions the price and the fact that he's a working photographer and that things get damaged with use etc. I wasn't particularly convinced by the samples.
- For film on an M mount I'm leaning towards the summilux, maybe the nokton 1.2. Looks a bit odd though. But really, not sure. CV 35/1.5, 1.4 classic II, LLL 11873. Worry the classic and LLL not sharp enough to be all that useful at wider apertures. 1.5 a bit boring but stopped just a little should be okay. Nokton a bit weird looking. Summilux expensive. Distagon bigger. Summicron flare but is it that much worse than the fle? And the rendering a little depressing sometimes but could just be the scenes/film. No clue. CV 1.5 might be nice with the 50/1.5 as well but maybe it's a boring duo. Compact though.
In the meantime I've been starting to go through the Nikon film 35mm-or-close options: 35/1.4 AIS, mir-24h (35/f2 zeiss flektagon inspired or something - smooth bokeh, long focus throw), CV ultron 40/2. Open to eventually trying the 35/2 ais.
Maybe starting off with the LLL and treating it like a nikon 50/1.4, f2-f2.8 with people, f4+ everything else. Cause perhaps the distagon and fle are a little too modern, not sure.
I didn't compare them extensively but I did do a scene with a troublesome background (chaotic marble kitchen-top) with both the 40/1.2 nokton and 35/1.4 distagon and the nokton certainly had smoother bokeh. Zeiss more pop.
I like both. And I think I agree with the comment about "when the Zeiss hits...".
I think it hits often too but I've been on a sidequest sorting out film cameras and lenses since I got it and it's turning into a part-time job getting everything in place.
I watched a comparison with the fle that seemed quite detailed:
Talks about a bit smoother bokeh and less onion ring on the distagon, more muted blacks on the fle. Distagon a little sharper centrally, less mid-zone dip, little more modern and poppy, less flaring.
He also touches on this "pickup" on the highlights with the FLE and mentioned it helped with the colours in low light. I found the Simera 50 to have the same exact thing with the highlights and noted the benefit in low light too. Said the Distagon can be a bit too yellow in low light.
Says that the biggest differences are in the handling but also mentions at the end that in real world use the size difference is less apparent. I never tried the fle but it's quite a nice comparison with samples from both.
Haven't been sold on the 35 simera. This reviewer seems to like it, though he mentions the price and the fact that he's a working photographer and that things get damaged with use etc. I wasn't particularly convinced by the samples.
- For film on an M mount I'm leaning towards the summilux, maybe the nokton 1.2. Looks a bit odd though. But really, not sure. CV 35/1.5, 1.4 classic II, LLL 11873. Worry the classic and LLL not sharp enough to be all that useful at wider apertures. 1.5 a bit boring but stopped just a little should be okay. Nokton a bit weird looking. Summilux expensive. Distagon bigger. Summicron flare but is it that much worse than the fle? And the rendering a little depressing sometimes but could just be the scenes/film. No clue. CV 1.5 might be nice with the 50/1.5 as well but maybe it's a boring duo. Compact though.
In the meantime I've been starting to go through the Nikon film 35mm-or-close options: 35/1.4 AIS, mir-24h (35/f2 zeiss flektagon inspired or something - smooth bokeh, long focus throw), CV ultron 40/2. Open to eventually trying the 35/2 ais.
I didn't compare them extensively but I did do a scene with a troublesome background (chaotic marble kitchen-top) with both the 40/1.2 nokton and 35/1.4 distagon and the nokton certainly had smoother bokeh. Zeiss more pop.
I like both. And I think I agree with the comment about "when the Zeiss hits...".
I think it hits often too but I've been on a sidequest sorting out film cameras and lenses since I got it and it's turning into a part-time job getting everything in place.
I watched a comparison with the fle that seemed quite detailed:
Talks about a bit smoother bokeh and less onion ring on the distagon, more muted blacks on the fle. Distagon a little sharper centrally, less mid-zone dip, little more modern and poppy, less flaring.
He also touches on this "pickup" on the highlights with the FLE and mentioned it helped with the colours in low light. I found the Simera 50 to have the same exact thing with the highlights and noted the benefit in low light too. Said the Distagon can be a bit too yellow in low light.
Says that the biggest differences are in the handling but also mentions at the end that in real world use the size difference is less apparent. I never tried the fle but it's quite a nice comparison with samples from both.
Haven't been sold on the 35 simera. This reviewer seems to like it, though he mentions the price and the fact that he's a working photographer and that things get damaged with use etc. I wasn't particularly convinced by the samples.
- For film on an M mount I'm leaning towards the summilux, maybe the nokton 1.2. Looks a bit odd though. But really, not sure. CV 35/1.5, 1.4 classic II, LLL 11873. Worry the classic and LLL not sharp enough to be all that useful at wider apertures. 1.5 a bit boring but stopped just a little should be okay. Nokton a bit weird looking. Summilux expensive. Distagon bigger. Summicron flare but is it that much worse than the fle? And the rendering a little depressing sometimes but could just be the scenes/film. No clue. CV 1.5 might be nice with the 50/1.5 as well but maybe it's a boring duo. Compact though.
In the meantime I've been starting to go through the Nikon film 35mm-or-close options: 35/1.4 AIS, mir-24h (35/f2 zeiss flektagon inspired or something - smooth bokeh, long focus throw), CV ultron 40/2. Open to eventually try the 35/2 ais.
I didn't compare them extensively but I did do a scene with a troublesome background (chaotic marble kitchen-top) with both the 40/1.2 nokton and 35/1.4 distagon and the nokton certainly had smoother bokeh. Zeiss more pop.
I like both. And I think I agree with the comment about "when the Zeiss hits...".
I think it hits often too but I've been on a sidequest sorting out film cameras and lenses since I got it and it's turning into a part-time job getting everything in place.
I watched a comparison with the fle that seemed quite detailed:
Talks about a bit smoother bokeh and less onion ring on the distagon, more muted blacks on the fle. Distagon a little sharper centrally, less mid-zone dip, little more modern and poppy, less flaring.
He also touches on this "pickup" on the highlights with the FLE and mentioned it helped with the colours in low light. I found the Simera 50 to have the same exact thing with the highlights and noted the benefit in low light too. Said the Distagon can be a bit too yellow in low light.
Says that the biggest differences are in the handling but also mentions at the end that in real world use the size difference is less apparent. I never tried the fle but it's quite a nice comparison with samples from both.
Haven't been sold on the 35 simera. This reviewer seems to like it, though he mentions the price and the fact that he's a working photographer and that things get damaged with use etc. I wasn't particularly convinced by the samples.
For film on an M mount I'm leaning towards the summilux, maybe the nokton 1.2. Looks a bit odd though. But really, not sure. CV 35/1.5, 1.4 classic II, LLL 11873. Worry the classic and LLL not sharp enough to be all that useful at wider apertures. 1.5 a bit boring but stopped just a little should be okay. Nokton a bit weird looking. Summilux expensive. Distagon bigger. Summicron flare but is it that much worse than the fle? And the rendering a little depressing sometimes but could just be the scenes/film. No clue. CV 1.5 might be nice with the 50/1.5 as well but maybe it's a boring duo. Compact though.
In the meantime I've been starting to go through the Nikon film 35mm-or-close options: 35/1.4 AIS, mir-24h (35/f2 zeiss flektagon inspired or something - smooth bokeh, long focus throw), CV ultron 40/2. Open to eventually try the 35/2 ais.
I didn't compare them extensively but I did do a scene with a troublesome background (chaotic marble kitchen-top) with both the 40/1.2 nokton and 35/1.4 distagon and the nokton certainly had smoother bokeh. Zeiss more pop.
I like both. And I think I agree with the comment about "when the Zeiss hits...".
I think it hits often too but I've been on a sidequest sorting out film cameras and lenses since I got it and it's turning into a part-time job getting everything in place.
I watched a comparison with the fle that seemed quite detailed:
Talks about a bit smoother bokeh and less onion ring on the distagon, more muted blacks on the fle. Distagon a little sharper centrally, less mid-zone dip, little more modern and poppy, less flaring.
He also touches on this "pickup" on the highlights with the FLE and mentioned it helped with the colours in low light. I found the Simera 50 to have the same exact thing with the highlights and noted the benefit in low light too. Said the Distagon can be a bit too yellow in low light.
Says that the biggest differences are in the handling but also mentions at the end that in real world use the size difference is less apparent. I never tried the fle but it's quite a nice comparison with samples from both.
Haven't been sold on the 35 simera. This reviewer seems to like it, though he mentions the price and the fact that he's a working photographer and that things get damaged with use etc. I wasn't particularly convinced by the samples.
For film on an M mount I'm leaning towards the summilux, maybe the nokton 1.2. Looks a bit odd though. But really, not sure. CV 35/1.5, 1.4 classic II, LLL 11873. Worry the classic and LLL not sharp enough to be all that useful at wider apertures. 1.5 a bit boring but stopped just a little should be okay. Nokton a bit weird looking. Summilux expensive. Distagon big. Summicron flare but is it that much worse than the fle? And the rendering a little depressing sometimes but could just be the scenes/film. No clue. CV 1.5 might be nice with the 50/1.5 as well but maybe it's a boring duo. Compact though.
In the meantime I've been starting to go through the Nikon film 35mm-or-close options: 35/1.4 AIS, mir-24h (35/f2 zeiss flektagon inspired or something - smooth bokeh, long focus throw), CV ultron 40/2. Open to eventually try the 35/2 ais.
I didn't compare them extensively but I did do a scene with a troublesome background (chaotic marble kitchen-top) with both the 40/1.2 nokton and 35/1.4 distagon and the nokton certainly had smoother bokeh. Zeiss more pop.
I like both. And I think I agree with the comment about "when the Zeiss hits...".
I think it hits often too but I've been on a sidequest sorting out film cameras and lenses since I got it and it's turning into a part-time job getting everything in place.
I watched a comparison with the fle that seemed quite detailed:
Talks about a bit smoother bokeh and less onion ring on the distagon, more muted blacks on the fle. Distagon a little sharper centrally, less mid-zone dip, little more modern and poppy, less flaring.
He also touches on this "pickup" on the highlights with the FLE and mentioned it helped with the colours in low light. I found the Simera 50 to have the same exact thing with the highlights and noted the benefit in low light too. Said the Distagon can be a bit too yellow in low light.
Says that the biggest differences are in the handling but also mentions at the end that in real world use the size difference is less apparent. I never tried the fle but it's quite a nice comparison with samples from both.
Haven't been sold on the 35 simera. This reviewer seems to like it, though he mentions the price and the fact that he's a working photographer and that things get damaged with use etc. I wasn't particularly convinced by the samples.
For film on an M mount I'm leaning towards the summilux, maybe the nokton 1.2. Looks a bit odd though. But really, not sure. CV 35/1.5, 1.4 classic II, LLL 11873. Worry the classic and LLL not sharp enough to be all that useful at wider apertures. 1.5 a bit boring but stopped just a little should be okay. Nokton a bit weird looking. Summilux expensive. Distagon big. Summicron flare but is it that much worse than the fle? And the rendering a little depressing sometimes but could just be the scenes/film. No clue. CV 1.5 might be nice with the 50/1.5 as well but maybe it's a boring duo. Compact though.
In the meantime I've been starting to go through the Nikon film 35mm-or-close options: 35/1.4 AIS, mir-24h (35/f2 zeiss flektagon inspired or something), CV ultron 40/2. Open to eventually try the 35/2 ais.
I didn't compare them extensively but I did do a scene with a troublesome background (chaotic marble kitchen-top) with both the 40/1.2 nokton and 35/1.4 distagon and the nokton certainly had smoother bokeh. Zeiss more pop.
I like both. And I think I agree with the comment about "when the Zeiss hits...".
I think it hits often too but I've been on a sidequest sorting out film cameras and lenses since I got it and it's turning into a part-time job getting everything in place.
I watched a comparison with the fle that seemed quite detailed:
Talks about a bit smoother bokeh and less onion ring on the distagon, more muted blacks on the fle. Distagon a little sharper centrally, less mid-zone dip, little more modern and poppy, less flaring.
He also touches on this "pickup" on the highlights with the FLE and mentioned it helped with the colours in low light. I found the Simera 50 to have the same exact thing with the highlights and noted the benefit in low light too. Said the Distagon can be a bit too yellow in low light.
Says that the biggest differences are in the handling but also mentions at the end that in real world use the size difference is less apparent. I never tried the fle but it's quite a nice comparison with samples from both.
Haven't been sold on the 35 simera. This reviewer seems to like it, though he mentions the price and the fact that he's a working photographer and that things get damaged with use etc. I wasn't particularly convinced by the samples.
For film on an M mount I'm leaning towards the summilux, maybe the nokton 1.2. Looks a bit odd though. But really, not sure. CV 35/1.5, 1.4 classic II, LLL 11873. Worry the classic and LLL not sharp enough to be all that useful at wider apertures. 1.5 a bit boring but stopped just a little should be okay. Nokton a bit weird looking. Summilux expensive. Distagon big. Summicron flare but is it that much worse than the fle? And the rendering a little depressing sometimes but could just be the scenes/film. No clue. CV 1.5 might be nice with the 50/1.5 as well but maybe it's a boring duo. Compact though. Meantime been starting to go through the Nikon film 35mm-or-close options: 35/1.4 AIS, mir-24h (35/f2 zeiss flektagon inspired or something), CV ultron 40/2. Open to eventually try the 35/2 ais.
I didn't compare them extensively but I did do a scene with a troublesome background (chaotic marble kitchen-top) with both the 40/1.2 nokton and 35/1.4 distagon and the nokton certainly had smoother bokeh. Zeiss more pop.
I like both. And I think I agree with the comment about "when the Zeiss hits...".
I think it hits often too but I've been on a sidequest sorting out film cameras and lenses since I got it and it's turning into a part-time job getting everything in place.
I watched a comparison with the fle that seemed quite detailed:
Talks about a bit smoother bokeh and less onion ring on the distagon, more muted blacks on the fle. Distagon a little sharper centrally, less mid-zone dip, little more modern and poppy, less flaring.
He also touches on this "pickup" on the highlights with the FLE and mentioned it helped with the colours in low light. I found the Simera 50 to have the same exact thing with the highlights and noted the benefit in low light too. Said the Distagon can be a bit too yellow in low light.
Says that the biggest differences are in the handling but also mentions at the end that in real world use the size difference is less apparent. I never tried the fle but it's quite a nice comparison with samples from both.
Haven't been sold on the 35 simera. This reviewer seems to like it, though he mentions the price and the fact that he's a working photographer and that things get damaged with use etc. I wasn't particularly convinced by the samples.
For film on an M mount I'm leaning towards the summilux, maybe the nokton 1.2. Looks a bit odd though. But really, not sure. CV 35/1.5, 1.4 classic II, LLL 11873. Worry the classic and LLL not sharp enough to be all that useful at wider apertures. 1.5 a bit boring but stopped just a little should be okay. Nokton a bit weird looking. Summilux expensive. Distagon big. Summicron flare but is it that much worse than the fle? And the rendering a little depressing sometimes but could just be the scenes/film. No clue. CV 1.5 might be nice with the 50/1.5 as well but maybe it's a boring duo. Compact though. Meantime been starting to go through the Nikon film 35mm-or-close options: 35/1.4 AIS, mir-24h (35/f2 zeiss flektagon inspired or something), CV ultron 40/2. Might eventually get around to trying the 35/2 ais.
I didn't compare them extensively but I did do a scene with a troublesome background (chaotic marble kitchen-top) with both the 40/1.2 nokton and 35/1.4 distagon and the nokton certainly had smoother bokeh. Zeiss more pop.
I like both. And I think I agree with the comment about "when the Zeiss hits...".
I think it hits often too but I've been on a sidequest sorting out film cameras and lenses since I got it and it's turning into a part-time job getting everything in place.
I watched a comparison with the fle that seemed quite detailed:
Talks about a bit smoother bokeh and less onion ring on the distagon, more muted blacks on the fle. Distagon a little sharper centrally, less mid-zone dip, little more modern and poppy, less flaring.
He also touches on this "pickup" on the highlights with the FLE and mentioned it helped with the colours in low light. I found the Simera 50 to have the same exact thing with the highlights and noted the benefit in low light too. Said the Distagon can be a bit too yellow in low light.
Says that the biggest differences are in the handling but also mentions at the end that in real world use the size difference is less apparent. I never tried the fle but it's quite a nice comparison with samples from both.
Haven't been sold on the 35 simera. This reviewer seems to like it, though he mentions the price and the fact that he's a working photographer and that things get damaged with use etc. I wasn't particularly convinced by the samples.
For film on an M mount I'm leaning towards the summilux, maybe the nokton 1.2. Looks a bit odd though. But really, not sure. CV 35/1.5, 1.4 classic II, LLL 11873. Worry the classic and LLL not sharp enough to be all that useful at wider apertures. 1.5 a bit boring but stopped just a little should be okay. Nokton a bit weird looking. Summilux expensive. Distagon big. Summicron flare but is it that much worse than the fle? And the rendering a little depressing sometimes but could just be the scenes/film. No clue. CV 1.5 might be nice with the 50 as well but maybe it's a boring duo. Compact though. Meantime been starting to go through the Nikon film 35mm-or-close options: 35/1.4 AIS, mir-24h (35/f2 zeiss flektagon inspired or something), CV ultron 40/2. Might eventually get around to trying the 35/2 ais.
I didn't compare them extensively but I did do a scene with a troublesome background (chaotic marble kitchen-top) with both the 40/1.2 nokton and 35/1.4 distagon and the nokton certainly had smoother bokeh. Zeiss more pop.
I like both. And I think I agree with the comment about "when the Zeiss hits...".
I think it hits often too but I've been on a sidequest sorting out film cameras and lenses since I got it and it's turning into a part-time job getting everything in place.
I watched a comparison with the fle that seemed quite detailed:
Talks about a bit smoother bokeh and less onion ring on the distagon, more muted blacks on the fle. Distagon a little sharper centrally, less mid-zone dip, little more modern and poppy, less flaring.
He also touches on this "pickup" on the highlights with the FLE and mentioned it helped with the colours in low light. I found the Simera 50 to have the same exact thing with the highlights and noted the benefit in low light too. Said the Distagon can be a bit too yellow in low light.
Says that the biggest differences are in the handling but also mentions at the end that in real world use the size difference is less apparent. I never tried the fle but it's quite a nice comparison with samples from both.
Haven't been sold on the 35 simera. This reviewer seems to like it, though he mentions the price and the fact that he's a working photographer and that things get damaged with use etc. I wasn't particularly convinced by the samples.
For film on an M mount I'm leaning towards the summilux, maybe the nokton 1.2. Looks a bit odd though. But really, not sure. CV 35/1.5, 1.4 classic II, LLL 11873. Worry the classic and LLL not sharp enough to be all that useful at wider apertures. 1.5 a bit boring but stopped just a little should be okay. Nokton a bit weird looking. Summilux expensive. Distagon big. Summicron flare but is it that much worse than the fle? And the rendering a little depressing sometimes but could just be the scenes/film. No clue. CV 1.5 might be nice with the 50 as well but maybe it's a boring duo. Compact though. Meantime been going through the Nikon film 35 or close options: 35/1.4 AIS, mir24h (35/f2 zeiss flektagon inspired or something), ultron 40/2. Might eventually get around to trying the 35/2 ais.
I didn't compare them extensively but I did do a scene with a troublesome background (chaotic marble kitchen-top) with both the 40/1.2 nokton and 35/1.4 distagon and the nokton certainly had smoother bokeh. Zeiss more pop.
I like both. And I think I agree with the comment about "when the Zeiss hits...".
I think it hits often too but I've been on a sidequest sorting out film cameras and lenses since I got it and it's turning into a part-time job getting everything in place.
I watched a comparison with the fle that seemed quite detailed:
Talks about a bit smoother bokeh and less onion ring on the distagon, more muted blacks on the fle. Distagon a little sharper centrally, less mid-zone dip, little more modern and poppy, less flaring.
He also touches on this "pickup" on the highlights with the FLE and mentioned it helped with the colours in low light. I found the Simera 50 to have the same exact thing with the highlights and noted the benefit in low light too. Said the Distagon can be a bit too yellow in low light.
Says that the biggest differences are in the handling but also mentions at the end that in real world use the size difference is less apparent. I never tried the fle but it's quite a nice comparison with samples from both.
Haven't been sold on the 35 simera. This reviewer seems to like it, though he mentions the price and the fact that he's a working photographer and that things get damaged with use etc. I wasn't particularly convinced by the samples.
For film on an M mount I'm leaning towards the summilux, maybe the nokton 1.2. Looks a bit odd though. But really, not sure. CV 35/1.5, 1.4 classic II, LLL 11873. Worry the classic and LLL not sharp enough to be all that useful at wider apertures. 1.5 a bit boring but stopped just a little should be okay. Nokton a bit weird looking. Summilux expensive. Distagon big. Summicron flare but is it that much worse than the fle? And the rendering a little depressing sometimes but could just be the scenes/film. No clue. CV 1.5 might be nice with the 50 as well but maybe it's a boring duo. Compact though. Meantime been going through the Nikon film 35 or close options. 1.4 AIS, mir24h (35/f2), ultron 40/2. Might eventually get around to trying the 35/2 ais.
I didn't compare them extensively but I did do a scene with a troublesome background (chaotic marble kitchen-top) with both the 40/1.2 nokton and 35/1.4 distagon and the nokton certainly had smoother bokeh. Zeiss more pop.
I like both. And I think I agree with the comment about "when the Zeiss hits...".
I think it hits often too but I've been on a sidequest sorting out film cameras and lenses since I got it and it's turning into a part-time job getting everything in place.
I watched a comparison with the fle that seemed quite detailed:
Talks about a bit smoother bokeh and less onion ring on the distagon, more muted blacks on the fle. Distagon a little sharper centrally, less mid-zone dip, little more modern and poppy, less flaring.
He also touches on this "pickup" on the highlights with the FLE and mentioned it helped with the colours in low light. I found the Simera 50 to have the same exact thing with the highlights and noted the benefit in low light too. Said the Distagon can be a bit too yellow in low light.
Says that the biggest differences are in the handling but also mentions at the end that in real world use the size difference is less apparent. I never tried the fle but it's quite a nice comparison with samples from both.
Haven't been sold on the 35 simera. This reviewer seems to like it, though he mentions the price and the fact that he's a working photographer and that things get damaged with use etc. I wasn't particularly convinced by the samples.
For film on an M mount I'm leaning towards the summilux, maybe the nokton 1.2. Looks a bit odd though. But really, not sure. CV 35/1.5, 1.4 classic II, LLL 11873. Worry the classic and LLL not sharp enough to be all that useful at wider apertures. 1.5 a bit boring but stopped just a little should be okay. Nokton a bit weird looking. Summilux expensive. Distagon big. Summicron flare but is it that much worse than the fle? And the rendering a little depressing sometimes but could just be the scenes/film. No clue. CV 1.5 might be nice with the 50 as well but maybe it's a boring duo. Compact though.
I didn't compare them extensively but I did do a scene with a troublesome background (chaotic marble kitchen-top) with both the 40/1.2 nokton and 35/1.4 distagon and the nokton certainly had smoother bokeh. Zeiss more pop.
I like both. And I think I agree with the comment about "when the Zeiss hits...".
I think it hits often too but I've been on a sidequest sorting out film cameras and lenses since I got it and it's turning into a part-time job getting everything in place.
I watched a comparison with the fle that seemed quite detailed:
Talks about a bit smoother bokeh and less onion ring on the distagon, more muted blacks on the fle. Distagon a little sharper centrally, less mid-zone dip, little more modern and poppy, less flaring.
He also touches on this "pickup" on the highlights with the FLE and mentioned it helped with the colours in low light. I found the Simera 50 to have the same exact thing with the highlights and noted the benefit in low light too. Said the Distagon can be a bit too yellow in low light.
Says that the biggest differences are in the handling but also mentions at the end that in real world use the size difference is less apparent. I never tried the fle but it's quite a nice comparison with samples from both.
Haven't been sold on the 35 simera. This reviewer seems to like it, though he mentions the price and the fact that he's a working photographer and that things get damaged with use etc. I wasn't particularly convinced by the samples.
For film on an M mount I'm leaning towards the summilux, maybe the nokton 1.2. Looks a bit odd though. But really, not sure. CV 35/1.5, 1.4 classic II, LLL 11873. Worry the classic and LLL not sharp enough to be all that useful at wider apertures. 1.5 a bit boring but stopped just a little should be okay. Nokton a bit weird looking. Summilux expensive. Distagon big. Summicron flare but is it that much worse than the fle. And the rendering a little depressing sometimes but could just be the scenes/film. No clue. CV 1.5 might be nice with the 50 as well but maybe it's a boring duo. Compact though.
I didn't compare them extensively but I did do a scene with a troublesome background (chaotic marble kitchen-top) with both the 40/1.2 nokton and 35/1.4 distagon and the nokton certainly had smoother bokeh. Zeiss more pop.
I like both. And I think I agree with the comment about "when the Zeiss hits...".
I think it hits often too but I've been on a sidequest sorting out film cameras and lenses since I got it and it's turning into a part-time job getting everything in place.
I watched a comparison with the fle that seemed quite detailed:
Talks about a bit smoother bokeh and less onion ring on the distagon, more muted blacks on the fle. Distagon a little sharper centrally, less mid-zone dip, little more modern and poppy, less flaring.
He also touches on this "pickup" on the highlights with the FLE and mentioned it helped with the colours in low light. I found the Simera 50 to have the same exact thing with the highlights and noted the benefit in low light too. Said the Distagon can be a bit too yellow in low light.
Says that the biggest differences are in the handling but also mentions at the end that in real world use the size difference is less apparent. I never tried the fle but it's quite a nice comparison with samples from both.
Haven't been sold on the 35 simera. This reviewer seems to like it, though he mentions the price and the fact that he's a working photographer and that things get damaged with use etc. I wasn't particularly convinced by the samples.
For film on an M mount I'm leaning towards the summilux, maybe the nokton 1.2. Looks a bit odd though.
Jan 25, 2026 at 06:42 AM
Previous versions of Yogifi's message #16973831 « Zeiss 35mm 1.4 zm still my preferred 35 »
