Voigtlander Nokton 50mm F/1.1 -- Worth it?

P

Pirate

Guitar playing Fotografer
Local time
11:34 PM
Joined
Sep 27, 2009
Messages
1,864
I have a chance to buy the Voigtlander Nokton F/1.1 50mm lens (M Mount) for $959 in Like-New Condition. Seems like a good deal, but is an F/1.1 lens really worth that money? I've read that a lot of people like the various 1.4 lenses better that sell for $600-$700.

What do you think?
 
I've seen the Nokton 50mm 1.1 go for right around $800 here in the classifieds. I can think of three within the past month. I don't have any experience with the Nokton 1.1, but just got a hold of the Nokton f/1.5. I'll follow-up with my experience with the latter when I get the first roll developed.
 
Any CV lens is world class and more than enough for professional assignments... You can pick any of their 50's without any risk... Pick the 1.1 if you shoot a lot in low light and don't care about really narrow depth of field... The 1.5, 2, 2.5 and 3.5 are great too... Usually, better wide open than older Leica lenses...

Cheers,

Juan
 
Last edited:
Maybe you should ask if the f0.95 50mm Noctilux is worth $10 000!!!! I have shot with it and the "regular" Noctilux 50f1.0 and I do have the Nokton 50f1.1. It is a very good "super speed" 50 and the reason for having one is to be able to continue shooting when the f1.4's have gone to bed.
If you like narrow depth of field and /or shoot extensively in low light - yes it is worth it (more so than the Nocti's - as it is as good as those - for a fraction of the money).
It is also compact enough to be used as an all round 50 - albeit a biggish one. I frequently use it as my main 50 when travelling. Mid range performance is on par with any of the current crop of 50's.
However, ANY lens with an f-stop in the 0.95-1.2 range is not a simple piece of glass. It requires a well set up camera, it needs practice as you have NO tolerance for errors with one and unless you plan to use it at its widest aperture a fair bit of the time - it is optical overkill.
 
Last edited:
I have not used the 1.1 Nokton but the first time I used a high speed lens (55mm 1.2 Cannon FD--great lens btw!) I was amazed at how much more light it was able to gather in comparison to a 1.4.

I'm not sure if you've used other fast glass before and if you have maybe you know what I'm talking about. If you have not ever used anything faster than 1.4 than I would definitely go for the 1.1 especially if you want to shoot in low light. It makes a huge difference.
 
Last edited:
I've heard good things about it and the price is right. I'm renting one, along with a CV 35mm 1.4 next week to see if I'll be buying one in the future. Personally this kind of lens is something I'd say if you can, rent before buying.
 
I have the Nokton F1.5, and it is a great lens. I wish I had purchased the F1.1 though...

I may have to let the F1.5 go soon if the GAS gets to me.
 
question: worth it?
answer: yes.

this is the nokton (in the first one I added vignetting):


5547863_8c001c9204a47110a8e62a94423df346_large1k.jpg



spglc8.jpg



54g4dg.jpg
 
Name one famous photographer who did memorable work with an f1 lens, I will name 10 who did it without one. There's a reason, and the reason being that f1 visually takes over your photography, it is predictable, unimaginative, restrictive and annoying: people will look at the photo and comment on the lens.

I would avoid it unless you need it for paid work or want to attract this type of comment, ie show off on flickr.
 
Last edited:
Spyro said:
Name one famous photographer who did memorable work with an f1 lens, I will name 10 who did it without one. There's a reason, and the reason being that f1 visually takes over your photography, it is predictable, unimaginative, restrictive and annoying: people will look at the photo and comment on the lens.

I would avoid it unless you need it for paid work or want to attract this type of comment, ie show off on flickr.
Click to expand...

But then again, an f/1 can do an f/4 type of photograph. Not the same the other way around.
:rolleyes:
 
I like mine. I think the answer to these sorts of questions is difficult to come to for someone else. In my context, it allows a lot of low-light flexibility. For for me: worth it.

Ben Marks
 
hamustar said:
But then again, an f/1 can do an f/4 type of photograph. Not the same the other way around.
:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

True that. But historically it doesnt, its usually a case of "woohoo I got an f1 lens, now I'm gonna shoot wide open until Xmas 2050" :D

Also, although it can (theoretically) do f4, it cant do small and light, not to mention cheap.
 
Spyro said:
Name one famous photographer who did memorable work with an f1 lens, I will name 10 who did it without one. There's a reason, and the reason being that f1 visually takes over your photography, it is predictable, unimaginative, restrictive and annoying: people will look at the photo and comment on the lens.

I would avoid it unless you need it for paid work or want to attract this type of comment, ie show off on flickr.
Click to expand...

I've employed a similar argument, but i don't think it's valid here.
1) I CAN name a number of photographers who have done memorable work with f1 lenses, or medium format 'equivalents.' It doesn't matter that these people may or may not be a sufficient level of "famous" to you. It matters that i like their work and certain of their photographs. And, the fact that you can name 10 to 1 on the side of not using an f1 lens sorta indicates the potential for doing more unique work. Why buy what's common unless you're hoping to replicate what's already commonly done?
2) There's nothing more unimaginative than stopping down and getting everything in focus. That's also the mark of a point and shoot digital.
3) Only other photographers will comment on the lens.

Besides that, this particular lens isn't the same as a Noctilux. It images much more on the neutral side. Bokeh isn't extreme. It's more natural. And, just because you shoot at f1 or 1.1 doesn't mean you're going to get a lot of bokeh. Camera to subject distance matters. Suppose you just like low-light work? Whatever. If you're used to SLRs or MF, the lens isn't so huge that you couldn't use it the same as any 1.4 lens.
 
CK Dexter Haven said:
. Suppose you just like low-light work?
Click to expand...

Exactly, I notice there is the tendency to immediately assume everyone wants this type of lens in order to keep it wide open all the time, blasting backgrounds out of focus.

Personally, I could care less about bokeh and would want this lens in order to shoot in the dark. For me is just a by product of having to open up.

I have the 35mm f/1.2 Nokton and its my only 35mm lens. I use it at smaller apertures most of the time and when I need to open up due to the light I love having that option.
 
got my Nokton for $800 shipped and pp with a UV filter in pristine condition, so I would re check that price.

I would say, get the Nokton, but not this one :)
 
For lenses like this, I would spent the extra couple of dollars, buy two new ones at B+H, and return the one I like less.

Sample variation is a fact, and not only for CV lenses. Buying such a lens without easy option to return is a risky proposition.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom