Voigtlander 35/1.4 Nokton -- underrated?

The distortion can be very obvious, I never noticed it till someone pointed it out and now I see it all the time. But for the price and speed, can't complain! It's also very tiny which I like a lot.

It's my most used lens on the M8. 2nd most used on my M6 after 50 1.5.
 
8084147780_c2e45c6b4d_c.jpg


What barrel distorsion? Nokton 35f1.4 SC on a MP.
 
8084147520_966a98c1a9_c.jpg


Another shot with the Nokton 35f1.4 SC. This time stopped down to f16.Slight curve on the left hand side - but certainly not disturbingly so. It is one of the best 35's that I have (and I have many - including Zeiss/Leica/Canon/Nikon) - it does exactly what it is supposed to do - work in just about any light condition, no flare, sharp and compact.
 
I'm with Tom. I use the 35/1.4 SC constantly and I ain't never seen no distortion. Also, bokeh? I'm not one who believes bokeh is all that important most of the time (jangly OOF patches of light or distinct light sources are to be watched out for, but otherwise, F8 and be there baby....) Anyway here's some 35/1.4 bokeh; I'm no connoisseur of this stuff so instruct me what's so bad about it? Obviously second is more problematic than the first, but it don't bother me none...)


white bokeh by balsosnell58mm, on Flickr

and


dark lily by balsosnell58mm, on Flickr
 
I guess what I mean about the second, above, is the bokeh problem is more the bad decision of the photographer not the lens's fault. No lens would eradicate that problem, I don't think. But again, I'm willing to take instruction on the matter. Eager, in fact.
 
What people don't like about the bokeh from this lens (as I understand it) is its hard edges from point light sources ... Circles with brighter circumferences than centres bascically. You can see it in the photo I posted of my daughter on her birthday. Top left hand corner.
This also has the effect you can see in the same image where large areas of oof can have distracting edginess especially where there are areas of high contrast eg where the curtain goes over the window. A lens with "good" bokeh would soften that transition. Like more people than I expected ... These are the things I like this lens for!
I perhaps would think twice before taking a photo that had a lot of our of focus backlit foliage ... But even then the result might still be pretty, just not conventionally good!
As it goes, I should add that my images have had a touch of pp the lens isn't as "bad" as I have made it look...
 
sparrow6224 said:
I'm with Tom. I use the 35/1.4 SC constantly and I ain't never seen no distortion.
Click to expand...
Well, it's there. This lens gets a bad reputation about it mostly because RF lenses are generally such good performers in terms of having minimal distortion. Many people happily use (SLR) zooms that often behave much worse than the 35/1.4. I see some distortion in Tom's photos, I certainly see it in many of my own, don't see any in yours due to the content.

At one point, being spoiled by some other RF lenses, I was seriously considering replacing this lens with one that doesn't have such heavy distortion. But it doesn't bother me anymore, although I always see it in my own pictures. Now, I would just like to have a few hundred extra to buy another one. This is too good a lens to need to switch between bodies. :cool:
 
Hamish -- yes I can see what you're talking about; even more so in a couple of Cris Rose's pictures. And yet -- I've been looking carefully and critically at photographs since 1980 or so, far longer than I've been trying to take any -- this is not what matters to me aesthetically. I believe I've seen six or seven photographs in my life in which the smoothness of the out-of-focus area was significant enough for me to say that it adds profoundly to the beauty of the photograph. And mazel tov for those occasions. Taking a great or a good photograph does not rely on bokeh quality in my view. On the other hand I'm a stickler for many things in many other aesthetic enterprises so I should merely bow and say nothing to the "bad bokeh" charge.
 
There seem to be two factions when it comes to bokeh...
One side have a distaste or anything other than the most smooth silky etc ...
The other just don't find it a factor in image aesthetic...
I am inbetween the two I do think it plays a factor in the quality of a photo, but that part is not only a positive part if it is smooth and "creamy". It can be aesthetically pleasing if its swirly, hard edged, incorrectly coloured ... Whatever!
Aesthetic is aesthetic ... If somthing looks good it looks good... bad, bad.
For the sort of subject matter I shoot I often find an unusual bokeh pleasing! It can be such a large portion of an image then why not worry about it? Why not choose a lens that renders 60%(?) of your image in a way that appeals to you?
But dont get me wrong I'm not saying everyone should have this pov ... I know many photogs who don't think or care for what's not in focus ... After all, it's out of focus so it doesn't matter ... Right?
Different strokes for different folks! I guess that's why threads like this show such polar point of views! Really what it comes down to are different prioities and ultimately different perspectives on aesthetic.
That's how I see it anyway
 
When I first bought it I hated it 3 times in a row..

Not fair to the camera but Adaroma or whatever it's named kept selling me used ones as new... they had 15 specks of dust , saliva marks , grease on the optics and cosmetic condition had some scratches. Went for a used summilux pre asph at 1500 usd , liked it needed a repair , went back to nokton from bh photo loved it.


the thing that changed my mind most was there is a post here where the guy shows a direct comparision between summilux pre asph and nokton 1.4 sc and the bokeh actually seems nicer its at a balcony bw
 
Might have just landed a new job! Please keep not liking this lens so I can get mine back for ~400.

Thanks :angel:
 
I agree it's an interesting lens, but at the end it didn't work for me, couldn't get over the coma it displayed wide open.

Savvas

5357415149_5b46d6824a.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom