35/1.4 Nokton - Advice Needed

infrequent said:
@backalley - i guess for the asking price, you expect it to be!
Click to expand...

one might think that but i think you'd be foolish to do do.

there are many stories on rff and elsewhere about the poor assembly quality of new leica lenses but they seem to be regularly ignored or glossed over.

too many 'experts' here...
 
Thanks Maggie...
I think the link you meant to give is this one:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mediawench/tags/voigtländer35mmnoktonclassic14/

The "%" (percentage) signs in the link causes issues when clicking through.

Backfocussing lenses is "common" (imho) on a number of cameras with a number of lenses. It's been well documented in the case of Canon bodies for a long, long, long time :D - it should be able to be fixed by sending the camera and lens into a tech to adjust however I don't know if this is the same "fix" for the M8.

Cheers
Dave
 
The Nokton is the only lens of mine that backfocuses; the rest of my Voigtländer glass is spot-on.

Weird about the link- there were no spaces in it, so I don't know where that came from.
 
maggieo said:
The Nokton is the only lens of mine that backfocuses; the rest of my Voigtländer glass is spot-on.

Weird about the link- there were no spaces in it, so I don't know where that came from.
Click to expand...

yes.. I figured that it was the only one that was backfocusing.
The same thing occurred with Canon cameras - it would be only one or two lenses but those lenses were different for each camera although there was some commonality when it came to the 24-70 f2.8 L lens.

For example, I've heard two people on this board complain about the Canon 50mm f1.2 L lens on the Canon 5D - they've complained that it backfocuses. I've got the same lens and on both my 5D bodies it works like a charm.

Each body and lens combination is different and, to the best of my knowledge, has to be handled as a separate case. I just don't want everyone thinking that just because one copy of a lens (regardless of manufacturer) backfocuses that every single copy in production of that lens will backfocus :D

Cheers and thanks again for posting the pics :)
Dave
 
You know, it just occurred to me that if the Nokton has a bit of focus shift as you stop down, that would explain why mine focuses perfectly at apertures smaller than f2.8!

It's not a bug; it's a feature! ;)
 
infrequent said:
what do you think of the build quality of CV 35/1.4?
Click to expand...

first of all, i wont 'compare' a lens when i have not even seen it or held it in my hand.

i will say the cv 35 seems well built compared to lenses i have or have had in the past. it reminds me of the older canon lenses in it's solidity and weight, very much like the cv 28/3.5 & 50/2.5.

my problem with statements like ted made is that they are said in such a unilateral way that there seems no room for discussion.

not all leica lenses are made as well as zeiss or cv lenses, when they have faceplates falling off, focusing that is rough etc. leitz is not above all in quality control and just because a lens costs 3 times more than a competitor's does not ensure absolute quality.

joe
 
back alley said:
<snip>my problem with statements like ted made is that they are said in such a unilateral way that there seems no room for discussion.

not all leica lenses are made as well as zeiss or cv lenses, when they have faceplates falling off, focusing that is rough etc. leitz is not above all in quality control and just because a lens costs 3 times more than a competitor's does not ensure absolute quality.</snip>
Click to expand...

I concur...

Dave
 
maggieo said:
You know, it just occurred to me that if the Nokton has a bit of focus shift as you stop down, that would explain why mine focuses perfectly at apertures smaller than f2.8!

It's not a bug; it's a feature! ;)
Click to expand...

Maggie,

On the Leica FAQ ( http://leica.nemeng.com/004f.shtml ) - about 3/5 of the way down, there's an explanation regarding the back focus issues.

Don't think that helps you but at least it explains it better than I probably could :D

Cheers
Dave
 
dcsang said:
I concur...

Dave
Click to expand...

Me too.

I would go even further and say that not all Zeiss lenses are built as well as some CV lenses :eek:

For example, my 40/1.4 is better built than the Zeiss C-Sonnar that I had. Heavier brass, well damped, etc. Compared to my older Nikkor LTMs they are both cr*p (in terms of built and QA) :D
 
ferider said:
Me too.

I would go even further and say that not all Zeiss lenses are built as well as some CV lenses :eek:

For example, my 40/1.4 is better built than the Zeiss C-Sonnar that I had. Heavier brass, well damped, etc. Compared to my older Nikkor LTMs they are both cr*p (in terms of built and QA) :D
Click to expand...

no rollie ,no!

my 50 sonnar is beautiful...
 
Hello Maggie, Dave.

I have this lens ( 35/1/4 ) and it’s nice. I’ve used it a bit, all B&W ,400 iso indoors and out but certainly haven’t put it through a rigorous test by any means.
Could either of you provide some more detail of the back focusing situation?
I’ve only recently decided to make a more serious commitment to photography and am learning a lot in the process. I’ve heard of this before but haven’t talked to anyone about the details. Any photo examples available?
Thanks
 
Back-focusing is an issue in, to the best of my knowledge, the digital realm. I've never heard of it in the analog world - that, by no means, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist or never existed with film cameras.

I can only speak to how it "appears" from an autofocus point of view since I do not (yet) have an M8 and I do not have (hopefully will never have) any lenses that back-focus.

With a number of Canon cameras (and others but I've only used Canon) what you'll find is if you focus on a particular point on a subject, specifically at larger apertures, that particular point will not be in focus but, rather, a point behind the intended focus point is in focus. If a particular point in front of the intended focus point is in focus than the lens/body combination is said to be "front-focusing".

I think, now that we're so accustomed to digital....well.. most of us save for those hard core film folk (and some Leica fans that have only recently switched to interchangeable lens digital cameras) we expect a lens, when shot wide open @ f1.4 or f1.2 at minimal focus distance (where normally the dof behind and in front of the lens is equal to 0 cm; that is, there is NO room for error) to be exactly bang on. This, still, imho, is a lot to ask in this day and age. You're asking, basically, for a machine to be akin to or equal to the human eye; a difficult thing to ask imho.

Anyway, I hope that sort of helps explain it when it comes to autofocus digital SLRs.

Cheers,
Dave
 
follow up on back focus discussion

follow up on back focus discussion

Thanks for your back focusing summary Dave.
This sort of clears it up; but it's not clear to me if Maggie’s comments are based on a digital sensor. I’m totally analog and haven’t seen any issues with the focus.

Either way, I’m good with this lens—think it’s great, and I think it’s cool the way the whole kit ( 35/1.4 and an R2A) is so incredibly portable. Haven’t shot any color film with it yet, but plan to do so this weekend. Thanks again. -john
 
back alley said:
not all leica lenses are made as well as zeiss or cv lenses, when they have faceplates falling off, focusing that is rough etc. leitz is not above all in quality control and just because a lens costs 3 times more than a competitor's does not ensure absolute quality.

joe
Click to expand...

so true. My Leica 35mm Summicron IV may have been dubbed "king..." and I love the images it makes but the focusing has never been really smooth since it was new in 1996, that despite a trip to Leica NJ and few years later a visit to Sherry. She attributes it to bad manufacturing at Solms, and bad qualit control... Now, I'm itching to try the new CV 35mm 1.4, cause I could never afford the Leica version...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom