Folly? Get rid of 35 f1.4 and 50 f1.8 Nikkors for CV 40 f2

Hi Robert,

Definitely CV 40 f2 is a little gem... and I'm not biased by KR review... great build quality, small, smooth functioning and very good IQ. It seems that 40 / 60 mm makes a good combo so I do not think you'll go wrong with this option. But... if you'll handle a little bit CV 58 f1.4 Nocton I'm afraid you'll sell the micro 60mm too!

I've built recently a great film kit: FM3a and three CV's: 20mm f3.5; 40mm f2 and 58mm f1.4... It's unbelievable good.

The 35/1.4 is a curiously unexciting lens to own, but it does have excellent image quality from 2.8 on. 40mm is an interesting FL, but I think 35 is more useful. Is your 50/1.8 one of the good ones? I had a good 50/1.8 way back when they first came out in the early 1980's; I dumped it, and later bought another, but it's not as good. If you've got one of the good 50/1.8's, don't get rid of it.

Robert--sell everything but the 35/1.4.
It is a very unique lens and you will regret it--and have a hard time finding a reasonably priced relplacement!
Hang on to it--there are very few other lens like it.
Paul

The 50 1.8 is a good one from about 1983. It's from the generation before the last, flatter AIS one (which carries on in today's AF lens). In fact, from about 2.8 onwards, it's great. It has no distortion. The problem with this lens and the 35 1.4 is that focusing is done wide open. That's where these lenses have the lowest contrast, as well as the least amount of depth of field. The 35 also is great from 2.8 onwards, but below this, there's a fair amount of vignetting and low contrast. Also, there's always barrel distortion on the 35. Having said that, I've made some very nice pictures with both of these lenses, so that's why I'm reluctant to part with them without contemplation.

I didn't really appreciate how low the contrast was on these lenses until I compared my 50 1.8 at f/2 to a Leitz Summicron 50 collapsible at f/2 at 1m distance, using a tripod. Both had high resolution, but the contrast on the Nikkor was noticably lower than the 1950's Leitz lens. Both were tested on Kodak Ektar 100.

I've started using Voigtlander lenses on the Leica camera bodies because even old Leitz lenses are CO$TLY! I've been impressed with their construction and image quality. I have the 15 f/4.5, 21 f/4, 35 f/2.5, Heliar 50 f/3.5, and 90 f/3.5. You can shoot these wide open with minimal image quality loss. You don't really need to stop down except for depth of field. I'm hoping that the 40mm Ultron can do the same for my Nikon F3.

It all depends in your photographic needs&tastes... certainly some Nikkors could show some softness, distortion, etc. There will be always a lens that will improve another one.
If you don`t mind about the f1.4 aperture, and you dislike that softness, get rid of it; maybe it will end inside a closet. If you know you want the performance of that Voigt lenses, certainly go for them. I bet many people really don`t know their tastes at all... I`d say trust your preferences.
In the other hand, I keep and like my 35/1.4... even being also owner of a latest Cron 35 ASPH (as you mention there is a difference between them!). I like to use that Nikon softness and wide aperture for fun (creative purposes). Maybe I know better the Nikkor. The only reason that makes me to take the Leica is that smaller package.
It`s all matter of taste, and it should be in this way, I believe. Don`t ignore yours.

BTW, Leica lenses have a different mechanical design... and a different helicoid handling feel in comparison to MF Nikkors. I have never used a Voigtlander lens; I wonder if it could be the same difference between a "L39" and "F" Voigt versions.

Why spend a penny when you've got perfectly good lenses already? 40 has always been an oddball compromise focal length more often seen on a fixed-lens rangefinder camera than on an SLR. It's not wide enough to be useful as a wide angle, not quite "normal" either. And if you had trouble focusing a 1.2, going to a slower lens with a dimmer image in the viewfinder is going to be worse. If you think the 35 isn't as sharp as you'd like wide open, stop down, but stick with the 1.4 aperture for the brighter focusing image. I've used Nikon/Nikkor lenses for over 30 years and published thousands of images in newspapers and magazines, others for weddings, and portraits and PR. There might be measurable differences in performance on an optical bench but nothing I've ever been able to see in the final product on a printed page, customer's album or framed print on the wall.

100% what Jose says in the first post. If I'd ever loose gear, the 35 f/1.4 would be top of the list to get is back; but I love it for its optical quirks (esp. at f/1.4 it's a miracle thing). If I wanted optical perfection, I'd eye the Zeiss 35 f/2; but this Nikon just has more character.
But as said, not all people love that. A 35 f/1.4 in a good state does raise a considerable amount in that case.

If KR rates Cosina's 40mm f/2 - so what? He also says the 28mm f/2.8 MF Nikkor is one of the best Nikon wideangles ever. I can tell you that my example's a pile of crap and the f/2 version stomps all over it. Go figure!

What focusing screen have you got fitted to your F3 Robert? You may find that a change of screen makes focusing and composition a lot easier, and a "new" screen for your camera would be a lot cheaper than buying and selling lenses. Personally, I prefer a plain type B screen, which removes the clutter of split images and needless circles in the middle of the viewfinder, but the microprism centre spot (type D, IIRC) is a good choice for quick and easy focusing. I have never been a fan of split-image finders, and find them both distracting and inaccurate. Neither am I tempted by the dubious attractions of so-called "pancake" lenses that leave themselves open to flare unless a deep hood is fitted - which kind of defeats the object!