CV 35/1.4 Nokton Classic SC Review Up

[BrianPhotog]

I finally found the time to finish a review on the new CV 35/1.4 Nokton Classic SC. You can find it here:

Dead Link Removed

I'm currently finishing up a comparison article between the 35 Ultron and 35 Nokton Classic to aid those are looking at a similar decision. I should have it ready within a couple of days.

 

[Donald Boyd]

Pricey plastic?

 

[BrianPhotog]

Pricey plastic?

"Pricey" compared to...?

Nah, the only plastic components are the ap/focus rings and that's a design requirement (needed for the tabs and the tabs are needed due to the compact size of the lens). Everything else is brass & glass. I've had mine (after playing with my friends I sold my ultron and bought this one) for a week or so and adore it so far.

We'll see how it does over time with my abuse.

 

[Donald Boyd]

I read your review and was shocked to see that the lens has plastic parts. I also read about Reid's review on the R F forum which didn't have anything good to say about it. By the way, I enjoyed your review. Thank you for posting the link.

 

[BrianPhotog]

I read your review and was shocked to see that the lens has plastic parts.

I don't have copies but I believe all of the CV pancake designs do the same thing (moulded tabs), i.e. the new 21 and 25 pancakes, the 35 pII, the 40/1.4, and this one. It's not new development.

I also read about Reid's review on the R F forum which didn't have anything good to say about it.

I did too (I'm banned but still lurk from time-to-time ). Many of the "faults" seem more digital or M8-related. So far I've only shot and processed 2 rolls using my friend's and shot 3 rolls using mine (I'll dev all the rolls tonight or tomorrow), so my thoughts on its performance may evolve. So far I'm impressed by its wide-open sharpness (compared to the Ultron wide open). The bokeh still suffers the same "weirdness" as the 40 Nokton when shot @f1.4 with a close focus point against a busy background full of highlights although the highlights seem slightly more subdued.

By the way, I enjoyed your review. Thank you for posting the link.

No prob and thanks for the compliment. The Nokton Classic vs. Ultron comparison I'm working on will have some comparison minimum aperture shots with 100% crops to demonstrate my point about the improvement in sharpness.

 

[Alex Bishop-Thorpe]

I have the opportunity to buy this lens from my local store at cost, so your review was pretty helpful - I'm leaning towards a yes
Era Pan is a great film too.

 

[BrianPhotog]

I have the opportunity to buy this lens from my local store at cost, so your review was pretty helpful - I'm leaning towards a yes
Era Pan is a great film too.

I don't think you'll regret the decision, especially with a discount like that (I got a similar one). And yeah, ERA100 is a great film, almost like FP4 with it's exposure range.

 

[BrianPhotog]

Okay, I finally wrapped up the Ultron vs. Nokton Classic comparision review. It can be found here:

Dead Link Removed

Now back to my students midterms...

 

[Chaplain Jeff]

Hello,

What is "Reid's Review"?

Thanks,

Jeff M

 

[BrianPhotog]

Hello,

What is "Reid's Review"?

Thanks,

Jeff M

Dead Link Removed

Sean Reid runs a subscription-based review website and has posted a review of the same lens (he will be posting a second review of it later on). Unfortunately, you have to buy a subscription in order to read his reviews.

 

[Alex Bishop-Thorpe]

I looked it up as well after all the talk, but didn't sign up (You can get plenty of opinion on the internet without paying for it), but there seems to be a divide between people who quite like it and the people who say to steer clear and buy a Leica lens. Personally I'm gonna give it a whirl and if I don't like it I can always resell it, I figure. Your example shots help, the 35/1.7 was on my list too.

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

I'm leaning towards the 35/1.2 Nokton

with plastic rings, this lens should look spic-and-span for a long time. there were complaints about black paint chipping off on earlier lenses. lowers weight, too.

I am leaning towards buying either the Chrome Voigtlander 35/1.2 Nokton(a big, fast, heavy lens).

Or the Zeiss Biogon T* 2/35 ZM.

 

[BrianPhotog]

with plastic rings, this lens should look spic-and-span for a long time. there were complaints about black paint chipping off on earlier lenses. lowers weight, too.

I really don't have any complaints about the plastic anymore. I understand the design need (for molded tabs which are required due to the compactness of the lens) and in-use it doesn't bother me.

 

[cotdt]

is this lens any decent wide openner?

 

[BrianPhotog]

is this lens any decent wide openner?

In my Dead Link Removed review I have a f1.4 sample with 100% crop showing that the center sharpness wide open is excellent (better then the Ultron, more akin to the 50/1.5 Nokton). There is a fall-off in sharpness at the edges.

It's similar at f2. There seem to be some back focus issues at f2.8 to f4.

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

is this lens any decent wide openner?

The test results and photos I have seen for the 35/1.4 Nokton show good results at f1.4.

However, results with the 35/1.2 Aspheric Nokton at f1.2 are outstanding (as they also are with the 35/2 Zeiss Biogon at f2 ).

 

[cotdt]

WOW very interesting...thanks!

 

[BrianPhotog]

There seem to be some back focus issues at f2.8 to f4.

I took a series of test pics from f1.4 to f8 to try and see the backfocus at f2.8-f4 that Sean Reid and a few others claimed to be getting but didn't see any. Either:

Maybe the additional DOF with film makes it a non-issue for film users like me? :confused:

The test shots are Dead Link Removed. The focal point is the paper flower.