raid
Dad Photographer
I am looking forward to your comparison. I wonder how the 50/1.2 differs from the CV 50/2 APO when used at 2.0 and smaller apertures.
I've not compared the two- My APO-Lanthar lives on the M Monochrom. The 50/1.2 has been on the M9 since I got it, unless testing lenses.
raid
Dad Photographer
Do you find the APO lens to give muted colors compared to the 50/1.2?
I've not done a direct comparison between the two, the 50/1.2 Nokton and APO-Lanthar. I did a few test shots on the M9 with the APO-Lanthar when some on another forum complained about "CA" on the M9. It was UV contamination that gets through the sensor, I showed this using a filter and a UV lamp. After that- on to the M Monochrom.
mapgraphs
Established
I just had to look up the Zunow. It will be interesting to see how the new VM Nokton is going to fit in with some of these legacy lenses or rather lenses based on legacy designs...
https://tahusa.co/lens-review/zunow-teikoku-kogaku-japan-50mm/
And...
https://imaging.nikon.com/history/story/0007/index.htm
raid
Dad Photographer
I was curious about the OOF of the 7Art compared with OOF for a CZJ 5cm 1.5. You can immediately see that the 7Art is a modern design lens (with messed up OOF) while the CZJ lens has dimmer looking colors, but it has a very smooth OOF rendering. "New" is not always "better". Each has its use for certain applications.
raid
Dad Photographer
I used the APO CV with hundreds of images on my M10, and nobody commented on CA then. Could it be that CA is seen less on the M10 than on the M9 for some reason?
raid
Dad Photographer
I have never used a Zunow, but I got on loan a Nikon 50/1.1 for one of my lens tests, and it was not an excellent performer. It certainly was/is a collector item. Rare or expensive not always translates to excellent perofmance.
rfaspen
[insert pithy phrase here]
The OOF is fine here. It was also at 1.1.
I've noticed some things in the OOF (bokeh in some other forums
). Linear artifacts are the more unpleasant. General lack of creaminess the other. It does seem to depend on the shot. Random? (Raid I know you're also a statistician, words like random or likely are sometimes funny to use).
raid
Dad Photographer
Not all OOF images taken with the 7Art lens came out looking badly. Some images were OK, I think. The ones with me shown in the mirror (OOF) look the worst to me. I have some images with birds (@ Joe Patti's), and focus was on the bird in the front, leaving many birds in the background as OOF. These ones also looked OK. Was it the use of a mirror that caused the extra issues with strange looking bokeh? Is my lens jinxed?! Yes, there was no creamy background seen. This is why I switched this morning to my CZJ 5cm 1.5 (1938) to get a creamy OOF. Randomness would maybe imply poor quality control and lack of consistency from lens to lens in the production line. Excessive variability can results in having some of the lenses being better than others from the same batch. This leads us to mention Precision and Accuracy. If a lens is produced on a line with both, precision and accuracy (to some set standards), then you usually are discussing expensive lenses.
Last edited:
The comment on CA was from someone using it with an M9: The CCD in the M9 is very sensitive to UV. They were not seeing CA, it was UV contamination. Using a UV filter solves the problem with this lens, and many others.
7Artisans, wide-open on the M9.
raid
Dad Photographer
Thanks, Brian. This makes sense. Your posted image looks very cool!
raid
Dad Photographer
Just for comparisons purposes, I am showing here similar images but taken with the CZJ 5cm 1.5 (1938) and the M10. Brian placed the Zeiss glass into a J-3 barrel. The lens is light and small, when compared with a 50mm 1.1 CV or 7Art.
raid
Dad Photographer
There is a big difference between max aperture 1.1 and 1.5. The latter looks more natural to me.
rfaspen
[insert pithy phrase here]
My 1957 J-3 that was adjusted by the legendary Brian Sweeney is the closest lens I own to a 7A 50/1.5. The J-3 in practical use can be hit or miss for me. I sure do like the results when it's a hit.
"legendary Brian Sweeney" ... I'm still alive! I really should have put some marks on the inside of the lens after working on them. I've seen the Sonnar conversion pop up as "Is this a fake" and recognize the serial number.
1957- same year as me. ZOMZ was hitting stride in 1957. I have a very early ZOMZ 1956 that took a lot of work, but is quite good. There is one 1958 ZOMZ that I sold- and regret it! was one of the first few I bought to take apart, worked on it, sold it here. It had a different coating, I think for IR film. Never seen another one.
I use a 1.25x finder for the Jupiter-3 and most lenses faster than F2. It helps the hit ratio.
1957- same year as me. ZOMZ was hitting stride in 1957. I have a very early ZOMZ 1956 that took a lot of work, but is quite good. There is one 1958 ZOMZ that I sold- and regret it! was one of the first few I bought to take apart, worked on it, sold it here. It had a different coating, I think for IR film. Never seen another one.
I use a 1.25x finder for the Jupiter-3 and most lenses faster than F2. It helps the hit ratio.
jonal928
Well-known
Leica M8 with Voigtlander Nokton 50mm f/1.1 @ f/1.4 by Jeri Leibovits, on FlickrAttaches a photo I made with Voigtlander Nokton 50mm f/1.1 @ f/1.4
If you ask in to my opinion, then this is a great lens for my taste. And although I do not use it,
I do not see any personal need of mine, to upgrade to the new Nokton 50/1.0 lens. All I have
to do - and for that very reason this post was born - is to remind myself, to take out the
VC Nokton 50mm f/1.1 lens from the back of my closet, where I buried it ...
raid
Dad Photographer
Would the IR lens show different looking images from a regular lens? These old lenses can have very interesting stories to tell if we know such pasts.
raid
Dad Photographer
There hardly ever exists a real need to get yet another 50mm lens, but it may provide some extra happiness and excitement until another 50mm lens is “ needed” again!