informal test: 35mm nokton vs 35mm nokton

the_jim

the_jim

human
Local time
6:08 AM
Joined
Nov 12, 2006
Messages
391
I had a few frames remaining on a roll, so I got out my tripod and cable release. Here is a comparison between the 35mm f/1.4 Nokton at 1.4 and the 35mm f/1.2 Nokton at 1.4. The film used was Neopan SS. I am not so concerned with any differences in contrast, but rather resolving power and overall rendering.

first, the 1.4 @ 1.4:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/for...ple/jimfischer/]jamesfischer[/url], on Flickr img314 by jamesfischer, on Flickr

next, the 1.2 @ 1.4

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/for...ple/jimfischer/]jamesfischer[/url], on Flickr img320 by jamesfischer, on Flickr

100% crop of the center

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/for...ple/jimfischer/]jamesfischer[/url], on Flickr composite by jamesfischer, on Flickr
 
I find it a little disheartening that my 1.2 Nokton appears to be lower resolution than my 1.4. Overall, I like the rendering of the bigger lens more. The background really melts away.
 
The backgrounds look exactly the same to me. This is an honest question: if you see a difference can you point it out to me?
Click to expand...

Look at the tree on the right side of the picture (and overall out-of-focus background) - in the second picture it looks more pleasant, not as harsh as in the first (where they look somewhat like they were smudged with water? Not sure of my analogy here..).
 
Last edited:
i wouldn't say the first was more harsh, maybe a bit more defined with added contrast but not many 'viewers' would ever pick that up.

the 35/1.2 has more glow to it's highlights and that is what turned me off to it.

i prefer the 35/1.4 for all round lens.
 
look at the tree branches in the top left and right corners. 'the beast' is definitely softer and smoother. also the specular highlights in the top left corner: the smaller nokton forms them as doughnut-y round blobs, where as the bigger lens draws them as smooth, un-distracting ellipses.

overall though, you're right. is the added size, weight and cost of the 1.2 worth it?
 
Nice sharing... Thanks!

The difference in background rendering is huge compared to the similar foreground sharpness. The 1.2 is a gem for close to subject portraiture. Anyway, being a small size guy :) between both I'd use the 1.4...

How come their tones are that different in temperature?

Cheers,

Juan
 
the 1.2 has a smoother oof look to it, no doubt...but that edge glow to the hi-lites is a real turn off to me.
jmho...
 
OK. I see what you guys are saying, thanks. Still, IMHO, the differences in these two examples are minute.

All that being said I prefer the 1.2 because, well, it goes to 1.2! :) The size doesn't bother me much.
 
Juan, I don't know.

This isn't a super scientific comparison. The work flow was the same for both images. I guess any differences in temperature might be relative to the lenses.

I'm just upset that I spent so much money on the big Nokton and I find it disappointingly soft at 1.2 and 1.4. Or rather, it's a modern design that is being out-resolved by the vintage-inspired design of the 1.4.
 
Now, to make it even more confusing...I also shot the ZM 35mm Biogon f/2 versus the two Noktons. Here is the resulting images @f/2 with the Biogon and the small Nokton:

the 1.4 Nokton @ f/2:
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/jimfischer/5503870232/] img315 by jamesfischer, on Flickr[/URL]

now the Biogon @ f/2
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/jimfischer/5503280875/] img317 by jamesfischer, on Flickr[/URL]

100% center crop:
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/jimfischer/5503326669/] composite2 by jamesfischer, on Flickr[/URL]
 
I find the 1.2 photo definitely pleasant to look at, the oof area is "smoother". The difference is so small that it will be very hard to tell the difference if the shots are shown independently.
 
the_jim said:
Now, to make it even more confusing...I also shot the ZM 35mm Biogon f/2 versus the two Noktons. Here is the resulting images @f/2 with the Biogon and the small Nokton:

the 1.4 Nokton @ f/2:
http://rangefinderforum.com/forums/...ple/jimfischer/]jamesfischer[/url], on Flickr img315 by jamesfischer, on Flickr

now the Biogon @ f/2
http://rangefinderforum.com/forums/...ple/jimfischer/]jamesfischer[/url], on Flickr img317 by jamesfischer, on Flickr

100% center crop:
http://rangefinderforum.com/forums/...ple/jimfischer/]jamesfischer[/url], on Flickr composite2 by jamesfischer, on Flickr
Click to expand...

Interesting, very similar, though the Biogon resolves more detail than the Nokton.
 
back alley said:
smoother oof on the biogon...maybe a touch more resolution/detail...worth the price/size difference?
not to me.
Click to expand...

it's interesting that you find it smoother. to my eye, the nokton gets the prize in that category. the biogon has more 'pop' probably due to being higher resolution, higher contrast lens. I find it draws too much detail in the background though.
 
the_jim said:
Juan, I don't know.

This isn't a super scientific comparison. The work flow was the same for both images. I guess any differences in temperature might be relative to the lenses.

I'm just upset that I spent so much money on the big Nokton and I find it disappointingly soft at 1.2 and 1.4. Or rather, it's a modern design that is being out-resolved by the vintage-inspired design of the 1.4.
Click to expand...

Hey, your 1.2 Nokton is sharp, a lot sharper than any great and very sharp photograph will ever need, and those are really small differences, but its rendering is another story, and the big one: something you just can't get with other tools. To me it's one of the greatest 35s ever if not the greatest one: you should keep it and use it... Most of the times you'll be shooting with it a bit or a lot closed, but anytime you use it at 1.2 to 2, there's nothing better on earth for such a beautiful rendering, except (just possibly) a lux... I envy your 1.2!

About the differences in tone, are both grayscale? That's what I meant...

Cheers,

Juan
 
Nice test.

The overall softness of the background created by the 1.2 is extremely pleasing to me. It doesn't display even a hint of the "jittery" look that is present in the 1.4 OOF area. Looking at the OOF area in my own photos I've been in love with that feel the 1.2 creates.

The Biogon displays more contrast and resolves more detail. As a result, you get that 3-D pop that people often talk about with Zeiss lenses. I think it's very obvious in this comparison.

I think you forgot the the 1.2 @ f2! :D

Would be interesting to see how it looks.

Thanks for posting these.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom