CV 40/1.4 vs Biogon 25/2.8

What?

What?

How could a 40mm Nokton be pitched against a 25mm Zeiss?

Their optical designs are way different.

A more proper test would perhaps be Voigltander 25/4 against Zeiss 25/2,8 at F4.
 
mr_phillip said:
The bokeh is quite nasty wide open, but I've found that from f2 onwards improves hugely – it really does get pretty sweet. I'll post some shots once I get 'round to scanning them.
Click to expand...

Mr Phillip here is way correct.

I would agree, always shoot the Nokton 40/1,4 at no less than F2 save where necessary.

Whereas with Zeiss, shoot it wide open. It will yield creamy images.
 
I have little to complain about the 40/1.4 wide open. I think it's another of those Internet memes that get reproduced to no end. See the recent Nokton thread for some images.

Better still, get the lens and try it out if it works for you. Relying on others and on Flickr images when buying a lens is like relying on aerial photos and on what the neighbours say about each other when buying a house.

Philipp
 
I do admit the bokeh of the Nokton in Aaron's shot is a bit jarring, but the b&w shots I've seen wide open don't look so bad, as I recall. I think the saturated colours don't help in the example.
 
Mr Phillip here is way correct.
Click to expand...

He's not even close. The 40/1.4 isn't "nasty" wide open, and 'bokeh' is purely a matter of taste, anyway. This is just internet pack mentality. The same sort that gave us the "bokeh king" Ver IV Summicron that really isn't any better than the 40 Summicron, but 5x the price. :rolleyes:

As has been said, try the lens and see if it meets your needs. It's that simple.
 
the bokeh of the 40mm Nokton lens reminds me of the bokeh from the rf Nikkor 5cm f1.4 lens.
not my favorite , but there is more to life than bokeh.
 
The CV 40 mm 1,4 Nocton is the only lense for the M-system that really gets mediocre test results from major 'testers' on the Net when testing resolution and contrast.
Click to expand...

This guy, for instance. His 'conclusion' is a long list of 'better alternatives': http://www.reidreviews.com
Click to expand...

I have never read any such thing either. Certainly because the Nokton has the edge on the Summicron C/Rokkors in resolution and has higher contrast as well. The only negative comments I read are about its bokeh. Sean Reids reviews are only useful to those that use M8's as how they interact with lenses differs vastly from a full frame film camera. Even when he does Epson RD-1 tests its results differ from the M8's. I get surprised how often he gets quoted here as if his results are applicable to full frame film users. If you use M8's its useful to pay for that service to determine which lenses work with the sensor in the M8 and which dont but thats about it.

The Nokton pics I always see that highlight the bad bokeh (just like the one above) are always harsh conditions with strong back lit highlights. Those same conditions are just as tough for the Summicron C and 50mm Nokton and most other lenses for that matter. Virtually any lens can be induced to produce bad bokeh when pressed. Was is AWilder (?) or Ferider (?) that did a comparison that showed that the Summicron/Rokkors has the same out of focus rendering as the Nokton at the same apertures indicating that if the Summicron/Rokkors were extended to 1.4 they too would be the same.

When it comes to the question of this thread I dont think these 2 lenses can be compared. If you want the fastest 40 for your CL then the 25mm Zeiss isnt it. If you want that low distortion wide angle to squeeze in that little bit more then the 40mm Nokton isnt it.
 
Almost all fast lenses have harsh bokeh wide open with challenging backgrounds. As posted up earlier in this thread, Roland Ruehl has done some nice comparisons showing this lens to be at least a match for the Summicron-C WRT bokeh. That link, again, is here. Jürgen Kook also did some nice bokeh testing for this lens, in his case the comparison was a 35mm Summilux-M (actually 2 of them). His tests can be found here. Although the 1972 Lux did a nicer job with bokeh when the two were compared at f/1.4, I think that advantage was essentially gone by f/2. The 35 Summilux M ASPH had the nicest bokeh at f/1.4 but wasn't in the f/2 comparisons.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom