mdarnton
Well-known
This series of tests demonstrates why I've always been more concerned about the handling characteristics of a lens and body than the quality of the lens.
raid
Dad Photographer
I did an extensive 35-40mm lens comparison project with twenty five lenses or so with film a while ago. The Canon 35/1.5 came out as a surprisingly good performer. I also did not see differences between the 50mm SC and the MC versions of tne CV lens. Roland's website still has the results.
This lens comparison is useful to affirm or challenge the results for older comparisons.
This lens comparison is useful to affirm or challenge the results for older comparisons.
As I stated above, I can see differences between the MC and SC Noktons but the differences are subtle and less than I expected.
Also, I don't think your test included the Summilux 35/1.4 FLE, Raid.
Lss
Well-known
The difference this test shows is probably the largest I have seen between the two versions (I only have the 35mm SC myself). I remember Raid's comparison indicating a very minor difference. It may have been the 40mm Nokton in that test, though.
All four lenses are good. As expected, the wide-open performance of the Summilux is at much higher level than the competition, and it is overall the best lens here.
raid
Dad Photographer
No, it did not include the FLE. Having multiple tests completes the overall picture. The more, the better.
I had the 35/1,4 ASPH in my tests.
The Canon 35/1.5 flared like in your test. It is interesting for me to see the old Canon 35/1.5 have similar flare sensitivity as the modern but single coated CV lens. It will also depend on how clean of internal haze each lens is. Canon lenses can display haze over time. This example of the 35/1.5 may be very clean.
Yes, I never used a 35 CV since it was either not out then, or it was barely out. Also, many of my photos were taken indoors, and we see here outdoor images for the 35mm CV lenses in Jon's lens comparisons.
This particular Canon 35/1.5 is indeed very clean.
Brian Legge
Veteran
I'm glad you posted that first series of crops. The Asph is obviously sharper but either all of the other lenses distort the exact same way or the Asph has a bunch of distortion? At least to me, the lanterns look much more 'square' in the other frames and have less tilt to them?
I didn't expect the Canon to hold up so well over all. It looks like focus variation makes up much of the differences between the last VCs and Canon. The very first frame in the series is the only shot where the Asph really blows away the competition. Its obviously better throughout but not by as much as I expected.
Edit: I take back what I said about distortion. The other lenses at 2.8 look geometrically similar to the Asph at 1.4. The flare of the other lenses must have thrown me off.
I didn't expect the Canon to hold up so well over all. It looks like focus variation makes up much of the differences between the last VCs and Canon. The very first frame in the series is the only shot where the Asph really blows away the competition. Its obviously better throughout but not by as much as I expected.
Edit: I take back what I said about distortion. The other lenses at 2.8 look geometrically similar to the Asph at 1.4. The flare of the other lenses must have thrown me off.
It would be interesting to post a shot of the lenses lined up, the size and ergonomic feel would probably sway the choice as much as these differences.Not to mention the cost.
Just added some pics of the lenses to my first post!
ChrisLivsey
Veteran
And that difference is greater " in the hand" , in my opinion
" I think we're seeing field curvature (and slight front focusing in the case of the Canon lens) at work."
Indeed that is a possibility. Not easy to "standardise" the focus either in testing, not a criticism just fact. We mustn't minimise sample variation either as you say the Canon was cherry picked, and why not, given the chance.
Interesting so few comment on the colour? Is it because it can so easily be manipulated perhaps but flare is "fixed" ?
Ansel
Well-known
Thanks for doing this¡
When you focus on the details you can see the difference between the lux and the rest, but if you look at the image as a whole (which is how most people look at pics) they all look pretty much the same.
Very good illustration of the law of diminishing returns....
When you focus on the details you can see the difference between the lux and the rest, but if you look at the image as a whole (which is how most people look at pics) they all look pretty much the same.
Very good illustration of the law of diminishing returns....
fireblade
Vincenzo.
coming back to view the colour/daylight images, i do like the Nokton MC.
maddoc
... likes film again.
I am just wondering why the ようこそ is sharper in the Nokton SC and Canon compared to the Nokton MC given the selected focus point (most right lantern in the full frame). The cropped part of the frame is not in the outermost corner, focusing issue ?
@ wide open
Possibly, but while the Nokton MC is a bit softer on the right side of the frame (behind focus point) it does seem a bit sharper on the left side of the frame (in front of focus point). I noticed in other shots that when focused on the same target the Nokton MC's DOF was a bit closer than the Nokton SC's DOF (focus points both within the DOF but the spread of the DOF not quite the same). You can see it in the scooter shot for example. Caused by a slight difference in how the lenses are adjusted/collimated maybe?!
Andrea Taurisano
il cimento
************************************************** ************************************
Leica Summilux 35mm F1.4 ASPH FLE
Voigtlander Nokton 35mm F1.4 MC
Voigtlander Nokton 35mm F1.4 SC
Canon 35mm F1.5 LTM (not quite F/1.4 but close enough!)
All shots taken with a Zeiss Ikon in manual mode on a tripod with a cable release. The B&W film is Efke 50 and the colour film is Ektar 100. All film was scanned with a Coolscan 5000. Post processing on each image is identical except for bumping up the brightness of the wide open Canon 35/1.5 shots a bit to match the other wide open shots.
Pixel peepers can click on any photo to see a larger version. Sharpness differences are more obvious in the larger versions.
Very interesting comparative test, indeed. Especially cause you provided objective facts for each to judge the way they want. For instance, I'm not sure I prefer the Leica when it comes to flare resistance and behaviour under strong back light. And when I sum this to the very first picture you posted (size) and the price tag of the lenses, I know at least where I will NOT be putting money in the near future.
Just one more set of shots to finish off the thread. I forget which particular branch I focused on, but did focus on the same spot for all photos.
I placed the late afternoon sun just outside the frame on the right with the intention of inducing flare in the shots, but the sun was a bit too weak to do much. Contrast and bokeh differences are visible though.
Summilux 35/1.4 FLE @ f/1.4
MC Nokton 35/1.4 @ f/1.4
SC Nokton 35/1.4 @ f/1.4
Canon 35/1.5 LTM @ f/1.5
I placed the late afternoon sun just outside the frame on the right with the intention of inducing flare in the shots, but the sun was a bit too weak to do much. Contrast and bokeh differences are visible though.
Summilux 35/1.4 FLE @ f/1.4
MC Nokton 35/1.4 @ f/1.4
SC Nokton 35/1.4 @ f/1.4
Canon 35/1.5 LTM @ f/1.5
sanmich
Veteran
Very interesting test. Thanks, Jon.
I had a Canon 1.5 in great condition. I liked some of its aspects: very sharp, compact, very well built. Other characteristics were a pain: min focus distance, long throw. But what made me sell it in the end was its sheer ability to randomly add enormous half moon blobs to some of the pictures taken with the sun close to or in the frame. The small flare around the lights in this test is not too disturbing in my eyes, but what I'm talking about was really a deal breaker.
The Nokton? It sounds like a winner but it shows a hefty distortion, which I personally hate.
Also, I've seen so many strongly diverging opinions about it, that my understanding is that it has been plagued by QC problems.
I had a Canon 1.5 in great condition. I liked some of its aspects: very sharp, compact, very well built. Other characteristics were a pain: min focus distance, long throw. But what made me sell it in the end was its sheer ability to randomly add enormous half moon blobs to some of the pictures taken with the sun close to or in the frame. The small flare around the lights in this test is not too disturbing in my eyes, but what I'm talking about was really a deal breaker.
The Nokton? It sounds like a winner but it shows a hefty distortion, which I personally hate.
Also, I've seen so many strongly diverging opinions about it, that my understanding is that it has been plagued by QC problems.
Sure. It all comes down to personal preference in the end, and its nice to have choices eh?
Thanks Michael. Its interesting to hear about the flare you experienced with your copy of the Canon 35/1.5. Did it have any internal haze at all?
The Nokton's barrel distortion seems to be one of those you can live with it (correct it in post processing etc.) or you can't situations. And of course its obvious in some photos but not others.
Regarding Cosina and QC, judging from the recent production lenses I've owned and handled it seems Cosina have tightened QC considerably over the last year or two as all those recent production lenses have been great (no wobble, smooth focus and aperture action, correct RF alignment at infinity, correctly collimated etc.). Something else I've noticed with the very latest lenses is that they now have "Cosina Co. Ltd." and the serial number engraved on the lens mount (example below).
Attachments
sanmich
Veteran
Jon, the lens had been cleaned by DAG and was as haze free as can be.
I remember another thread confirming the bad flare resistance.
I was using it with filter (which obviously didn't help) and original hood.
I remember another thread confirming the bad flare resistance.
I was using it with filter (which obviously didn't help) and original hood.
kiss-o-matic
Well-known
The most noticeable difference to me is the bokeh on the Lux - much less shakey than the other 3. Apparent in the daylight color shots (moped, and flowers).
I've got the Canon 35/2 which for all intents and purposes has served me pretty well, although I've not used it extensively. Can't go wrong w/ the price though. I would like to see how it holds up.
I've got the Canon 35/2 which for all intents and purposes has served me pretty well, although I've not used it extensively. Can't go wrong w/ the price though. I would like to see how it holds up.
littlemax
Member
I love my Canon 1.5. Very very sharp wide open. The glow is typical on your images. Yet probably some front or back focus as per the first image as it is really tack sharp wide open.
Never experience any half moon blobs, even without any hood on.
Summilux though indeed stands out thanks to its bokeh. Just superb.
Never experience any half moon blobs, even without any hood on.
Summilux though indeed stands out thanks to its bokeh. Just superb.