Lord Fluff
Established
Leaving aside the focal length difference, how do you all feel these compare? Financially the Nokton has a distinct advantage, but then, is the pre-asph Lux one of those 'keep for life' kind of lenses that brings something very special to its images? Or in reality, is the Nokton pretty much its equal?
Thanks all
Thanks all
sleepyhead
Well-known
I've owned and used both, and eventually sold both. They are very different. The properties of the pre-ASPH summilux are well-described in other threads. It's a special lens, and I loved it's compactness, but the flaring (coma type especially) got on my nerves after a while. The 40mm was WAY SHARPER wide opn, but produced images that were kinda sterile looking. The bokeh of the pre-ASPH lux is better than the Noktonj, but once closed down a stop or so, this is negligible. I ended up buying a 35mm Summilux ASPH, and I'm very happy, although poorer....
If I was going to buy a 40mm lens again, it would be the 40mm M-Rokkor for the CLE. That's one lens I regret selling.
If I was going to buy a 40mm lens again, it would be the 40mm M-Rokkor for the CLE. That's one lens I regret selling.
tomasis
Well-known
I tried only preasph lux. But when I look at nokton pictures at web. I notice immediately the unpleasant bokeh. I suppose Nokton 35mm version can do it better. F1.4 and f1.7 from preasph lux, are so different that you get two different signatures from each one. F1.4 is producing a true l**** gl*w which is better way to describe coma, flare. This signature kinda works on soft portraits. The skin and eyes of subject glow 
40mm rokkor/c-cron is interesting alternative indeed. I tried rollei 35 with 40mm sonnar. this sonnar is very interesting. Too bad that there are no many 40mm sonnars at M mount.
40mm rokkor/c-cron is interesting alternative indeed. I tried rollei 35 with 40mm sonnar. this sonnar is very interesting. Too bad that there are no many 40mm sonnars at M mount.
Last edited:
ferider
Veteran
1) at f2 the rokkor is very hard to distinguish from the Nokton. Further more, at f2, the OOF performance of the Nokton is better than the 35/2 v4 (bokeh king )
2) the Nokton and pre-asph Summilux have almost identical design. The more modern coating of the Nokton causes less problems with flare. Also, the compromise between resolution and OOF performance wide open is done a bit differently (the Nokton has higher resolution).
Check for photos of both lenses in the flickr M mount forum. Which you prefer will be highly subjective.
)2) the Nokton and pre-asph Summilux have almost identical design. The more modern coating of the Nokton causes less problems with flare. Also, the compromise between resolution and OOF performance wide open is done a bit differently (the Nokton has higher resolution).
Check for photos of both lenses in the flickr M mount forum. Which you prefer will be highly subjective.
Lord Fluff
Established
I already have the 40mm summicron - it's ok, but I'm not that taken with it so far. I'd also like the extra stop that both the above lenses have over the Summicron 40 too.
Samsam
Established
Here is a shot taken with the pre asph summilux
i also own the ASPH version and the summicron 4th
Definitely, the best lens for me is the pre asph, so beautiful tones, glow at f/1.4, so nice bokeh
Just buy it !
35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
get the 35 cron ASPH instead of the Lux pre-Asph. The Lux pre-asph has the 1-stop advantage but the image resolution by 35 cron ASPH is superior. I have owned: 35mm/1.7 Nokton, 35mm Cron III, 35mm IV, 35mm Lux Pre-asph, and 35mm Lux ASPH. The best by far is the 35mm Lux ASPH, simply no comparison -- best $2000 I ever spent.