Quick Comparison: 35mm Cron ASPH vs 35mm Nokton CV (f1.4) on the M8

[dcsang]

Now, I had posted, I think, in the "Leica M" forum initially asking if anyone had samples - no one really responded and a lot of folks told me to check out Sean Reid's reviews.

I had my suspicions that the CV 35mm f1.4 Nokton couldn't be "that bad" (or "that good") so I decided to get one for myself to run a quick test on it.

I think I'll take my time and do a proper "non-scientific" review for my blog at later date.

I set up a quick test, at ISO160, on my balcony. Sun was in the west (i.e. behind me) and hitting the building facing me (to the east) so with that in mind I set up my quickie test using an empty deodorant spray can, future floor polish and my old Nokia 6020 Cell phone

The images were shot as follows: camera on a tripod, f2.0, 1/250, ISO160. Both lenses were shot in a naked state; that is, no UV/IR filters - and yours truly remained fully clothed . In lightroom, auto white balance, auto exposure and then exported.
In photoshop, just cropped and/or resized for web.

Here's the over all shot at f2.0.
First the Summicron

Now the Cosina/Voigtlander

Ok ok .. now.. before I look at 100% crops (two of them) I gotta say that the Cron seems to be showing some flare in the upper left hand corner - (or at least light drifting in from the reflected sun light) where as the Voigtlander does not.
Secondly, note the difference in the pincushioning (I think that's the right term; anyone can correct me if I'm wrong here) in the Voigtlander versus the Cron. The Cron seemed to render the image "as is" where as the Voigtlander seems to have a bit of a "bend" to it.

Now the two 100% crops - one for "detail" and one for bokeh.
First the detail.
Again, Cron goes first.

Now the Voigtlander

The words "Durable" and "Family" on the Future Floor Wax bottle can be discerned from the Voigtlander image but not from the Cron image. The black colour in the Old Spice canister is deeper in the Voigtlander image than the Cron image. I don't know whether these things are "good or bad" but right now.. the Voigtlander don't look so bad @ f2.0

Now the bokeh crops.
Cron first

Voigtlander next

Ahhh.. the Cron clearly has the round, circular bokeh goin on versus the decahedron look of the Voigtlander. The decahedron doesn't exist in the Voigtlander @ f1.4 but the resulting bokeh is a whole other story

So.. is that Cron worth that much more? (Something like $2700 vs $650)
Who knows - right now, that Voigtlander looks like it may have found a new home.

Dave

 

[J J Kapsberger]

I'm a Leica owner (and a 'cron ASPH owner), so doubtless I'll be accused of bias. But on my monitor, the tonality is much, much richer in the 'cron image--the blues in particular, the clear plastic above the 'Future' label and running down the left side of the bottle, and the richer palette of colors in the silver on the 'Red Zone' can--and there's more detail in the reflections on the table of the bottles (likely superior flare-suppression). Overall, the 'cron has tamed the brightness of the table. It's more blown in the CV image.

"So.. is that Cron worth that much more? (Something like $2700 vs $650)"

A very contentious and purely subjective issue and certainly not one that can be settled with the two images you provided, as interesting as this comparison might be. There's something artificial about the look of the two images. With better post processing--one which could yield better tonality--a truer image stamp could be revealed.

As for the close up, it does seem that the CV's acutance is higher, but that could be due to misfocusing. Did you bracket your focusing? If not, then your detail might only serve to show the limits of consistently focusing a lens wide open on the M8.

The 'flare' you mention is, strictly speaking, glare; that is, washing out due to light bouncing around inside the lens. That, admittedly, is the 'cron's Achilles Heel. As for flare, the tendency of a lens to scatter specular highlights, the 'cron ASPH takes a back seat to no other lens (at f/2.0 it'll outperform the Biogon in such regard). I think the slightly richer hues on the bottles and can in the 'cron image show this nicely.

I don't see pincushioning in the VC image. I see barrel distortion. The bars bend outwards in the middle (with pincushioning, the middles would bend inwards).

 

[back alley]

to my untrained eye and fuzzy mind i do not think there is 4 times the difference in quality let alone price.

but what do i know, i like the zm 35/2.8!

 

[dcsang]

JJ,

Thanks for that - I'm not that familiar with the terminology so ya, I guess barrel distortion versus pincushioning is what I'm looking at.
And ya... glare versus flare - that's more accurate as I have seen the 'cron handle flare well wide open. This is merely an initial shot based on only getting the Voigtlander in my hands today.

I'm not as sold on the richer colour rendition but hey.. that's possible too. In that case, "better post processing" could do a lot for some things in any lens no? Not the barrel distortion mind you.

With respect to focusing; both were focussed to the close focus distance on the Red Zone can, to the top right of the can where the red "swirl" comes down from the red cap into the silver area.

I guess, what I'm looking at here, is the "value" factor with respect to a lens that has been, for the most part, 'passed' on by some folks versus a well known, well respected lens.

Thanks for your input on this

Cheers,
Dave

 

[dcsang]

Well Joe,

To some folks, they may see the justification. I'm not "tied" to either lens really - but I do like what I see at f2.0 so far.
Further tests beyond f2.0 may reveal something different for all I know.

But my eye is not that of Sean Reid's eye - and I guess performance will depend on the viewer unless I want to shoot stuff like that all the time

I will, hopefully, have a chance to try the Biogon again (f2.0) on Saturday - I too enjoyed the Zm lens when I had it - I don't know how it will compare on the M8 - my initial tests were done on B&W film b/w the 'Cron and ZM and while the ZM seemed to fare better overall, I still gave it up for one reason or other.... hmmm.. maybe it should have stayed in my arsenal...

Dave

 

[photogdave]

To my somewhat trained and critical eye there is not much difference. I think I'd need a grid overlay to really see the barrel distortion - it's just not apparent to my naked eye. Sure you can see a bokeh difference in the crops, but who really looks at magnified out of focus areas?
I had a Nokton on order forever and it just came in the other day. I couldn't afford it any more but bought it anyway and had a really fun time shooting with it this weekend. Once I get the films back I'll decide if it stays and the Ultron goes or vice-versa. So far I prefer the handling of the Ultron (no tab) but the close (not) focus was killing me!
Either way from the images I've seen so far I think this lens is getting a bad rap. Most of the so-called flaws won't be noticeable for the type of photography I typically do. If I was more into landscape or architecture I might have a different opinion.

 

[tmfabian]

Dave,
How does the VC feel?
From what I can see, the image quality is pretty nice...not quite as good as the cron, but not that bad either...and for only $600 it's pretty amazing.

i'm really looking into this lens, and seeing your quick test is taking me one step closer to buying one.

 

[Bill Blackwell]

I am a Leica fanatic - have been for many years. But the Nokton image (to my eye) has a bit more snap to it with visually higher contrast. Only the bukeh produced by the Summicron appears (to my eye) more pleasing compared to the Nokton.

This was my experience too, when I tested a 40mm Nokton (IMHO, the best bargain in an M-mount RF coupled lens) against the 35mm Asph Summilux - both at f/1.4. Overall I thought the Nokton (at 10% the cost of the Leica) was sharper overall.

Go figure!

 

[sepiareverb]

I've found the edges to be the place where the Leica lenses easily and most noticeably outshine the competitors- with greater legibility of finer detail in enlargements (yes I know- my same old saw, but important to my subject matter & print sizes- and no enlarging lens isn't the final arbiter in large prints if greater detail reads between different taking lenses). I'd be more curious to see these two compared on film (what I shoot) and both wide open and at 5.6.

It does come down to personal preference, subject matter and pocketbook; if you're largest print is an 1114, you shoot an M8 and can post-process the less vibrant colors then perhaps the CV is your lens. I certainly choose lenses on different grounds, shooting film and printing larger. Bokeh and color seem to be the main differences here- I prefer both the bokeh and the color rendition the current Leica coatings give, especially as shown here in the OOF greens, more noticeable to my eye in the full frame version where they really stand out- something which, as I think of it, may blow some of my print size argument away...

 

[dcsang]

I really should test these lenses on people.. as that's what I'm shooting for - using it in a "people" (i.e. weddings etc.) situation - I mean, I can use it on vacation for "landscapes" but that's not mainly what I shoot with my cameras.

Good points made by all so far imho - there are clearly different benefits to each lens, in this minor and simple test - I'm now dying to get out there with both this coming weekend and see which one is the one for me.

As for the feel - initially the Nokton seems a bit "stiff" in the focus throw but then again, I didn't own the Cron "brand new" - it came to me via Cindy Flood - and the throw on the cron is "like buttah" - I'm sure the Nokton will come up about the same over time.
It's obviously not as heavy as the Cron but it is no slouch either. Rear element wise, you can see there's a difference between the two - the Cron being concave versus the Nokton being more convex in the rear. The Nokton is a bit shorter than the Cron (both without the hood).

I think Dave from Vancouver is correct though - the lens got a bad rap based on the few minor reviews online so far and, I think, people have stayed away from it because of that. Note, that I said "I think" and not "I believe"

Cheers,
Dave

 

[aizan]

i'd say they have different inclinations. the nokton classic is more for people and in bw, where the chromatic aberration will be good and the barrel distortion irrelevant, while the summicron is more for architecture and still lifes in color.

 

[ChipNovaMac]

For myself looking at the samples you posted I would give the CV the thumbs up! The colors looked more "real" to me.....

 

[Doug]

The Nokton pic seems lighter overall, as if given a bit more exposure, whether on film or in the scanning. This would affect the color intensity and highlight detail, of course. I do see a bit of barrel distortion in the Nokton too; see the bit of curve of the table edge along the bottom edge of the image. Interesting comparison, Dave, and I like your choice of using f2 for both.

I haven't used the f1.4/35 Nokton enough to get a good sense of its qualities yet, but it surely is amazingly compact for its speed, and handy in use.

 

[nzeeman]

interesting test - people were divided here on rff about this lens. one group say it is very bad lens and other thinks its great. imho on f2 nokton wins easily. no glare, it is much sharper, nicer contrast. only thing where it lose against cron is barrel distortion. but it is still 3:1 for nokton. and also nokton seems very compact for 1.4 lens. i wonder if it will win so easy on f1.4 too...

 

[Turtle]

The images show the cron to be somewhat sharper, but not necessarily enough to matter. The impression of sharpness of the CV is from contrast/exposure. Look at the 's' in aerosol and you can see there is much less fuzz on the leica image. Close however in terms of real world perception. where this might matter more is not where you have block like delineation (as with this graphic subject) but fine details such as with grass, tree branches, distant detail etc. The test was perhaps most relevant to shooting people and in this regard the central subject with a lack of fine details is perhaps appropriate. The test is the opposite to a landscape type image or even a street scene with brickwork that would show distortion and fine details possibly present towards the edge of the frame.

I am not knocking the test as it does what it does just fine - for centralised subjects up close the CV looks just fine. I would be interested to see what they both look like at other apertures shooting a scene with edge to edge detail. Thats probably irrelevant to some of you, but important to others.

 

[nzeeman]

other f stops can be interesting, but when someone buy f1.4 lens i think he wants to use it wide open. if someone need smaller apertures it is better to use some tessar or something like that...

 

[Matt(1pt4)]

What looks like a bit of barrel distortion on the M8, looks like a whole barrel full of barrel distortion on film. Vignetting too:

But, you can put those things to use . . .

And you can even still shoot architecture . . .

Hexar RF, CV 35 1.4 SC, TriX

 

[sepiareverb]

other f stops can be interesting, but when someone buy f1.4 lens i think he wants to use it wide open. if someone need smaller apertures it is better to use some tessar or something like that...

This is one thing that I don't understand- why?

I shoot my lenses at various apertures depending on what I'm after, and since they all have adjustable apertures I would guess they were designed to shoot at more than one. Sure, I'll shoot the Summilux at 1.4 sometimes, but I'll just as often shoot it at 2.0, 2.8, 4, etc. And the longer the lens, the more likely I'll shoot it at 11 or 16, whether it is an f2 or an f1.4.

 

[dcsang]

This is one thing that I don't understand- why?

I shoot my lenses at various apertures depending on what I'm after, and since they all have adjustable apertures I would guess they were designed to shoot at more than one. Sure, I'll shoot the Summilux at 1.4 sometimes, but I'll just as often shoot it at 2.0, 2.8, 4, etc. And the longer the lens, the more likely I'll shoot it at 11 or 16, whether it is an f2 or an f1.4.

Ya.. well.. that's the thing - I know people say the Cron is "better" but if I want to shoot at f1.4, I ain't using the Cron I'm going to have to go out and snag a Lux (at a premium too I would think) and/or use the f1.4 on the "other" Nokton that Voigtlander produces.

Does that mean, however, that I would never use the lenses at deeper f-stops? Of course not. It merely means that I want to shoot it at f1.4 "most" of the time but not necessarily "all" of the time and, like a lot of stuff in life, it all comes down to affordability.

I can afford the Cron but I want the f1.4 fast speed.

Go figure

Matt.. thanks for those on film - I still have my M7 so it's good to see what those are like... I don't think it's that bad of lens really..

Dave

 

[CK Dexter Haven]

Interesting test. The Nokton 'wins' for me, in this example, if the focus was accurate for both lenses. The Nokton image seems a hair brighter, and that may account for the eensy weensy differences perceived in response #1.

As for bokeh, isn't the reason that the Summicron-ASPH produced round circles because it was wide open at f2? The Nokton was closed to f2 from 1.4, so it has the edges of aperture blades to 'square off' its circles? If the Nokton were shot at 1.4, wouldn't its circles also be perfectly round?

But, at 1.4, i've seen some ghastly bokeh from the Nokton. That was the primary reason i never considered that lens. But, if you treat it as an f2 lens, maybe its value, ironically, increases quite a bit?

I used to have a 35-CronASPH, so i know how fantastic that lens is. Of course, there are sample variations, so who knows if this performance is entirely representative.