35mm/1.4 Nokton VII compared to 35 Summilux (not the ASPH)

[Beemermark]

I have absolutely no valid reason to buy a small 35mm /1.4 for my Leica's but.... I have lusted for the 35 Summilux for longer than I can remember. I love my 35 Summicron (bought it at least 30 or more years ago) so I've never been able to justify in my mind WHY I need the Summilux. So looking at the newest Voigtlander lens how does it compare to the Leica lens. I've searched with google and came up wanting. And I'd really like to here from people who have shot with both.

 

[pyeh]

Beemermark, I have both these lenses. My Summilux is a later German-made model. There were many slight optical variations throughout its model life, according to Ghisetti and Cavina. I would say this when comparing the two:
- Summilux slightly smaller (diameter) and lighter; about 1mm shorter too.
- Summilux focuses to about 0.9m, Nokton to about 0.65m.
- Summilux has no filter thread, so needs 12504 hood and Series VII filters. 12504 hood makes accessing the aperture ring tabs fiddly, but is very necessary for glare control. With the Nokton I often go around without the hood, for compactness.
- Generally they are as sharp as each other but the Nokton has a bit better resolution in the corners.
- Summilux has much less distortion than Nokton; virtually none.
- I feel the Summilux gives me better colours than the Nokton.
- Nokton feels a bit more solid.
- Summilux is not worth the price it sells for now, when you have the Nokton as an alternative, unless distortion is a bugbear of yours.

 

[Ccoppola82]

I have to agree with the above. I had the nokton and sold it a while back. I was actually about to get the v2 nokton and I happened upon a clean glass/scratched body summilux pre asph for around 1200 or so, so I had to try it. I really enjoy it, but I don’t know if it is even worth the 2x cost of the nokton. It DEFINITELY isn’t worth 3k or whatever crazy it sells for now. The only caveat is that the nokton has visible distortion, so if that bothers you then the lens might not be for you.

 

[Erik van Straten]

I very much like the early Summilux 35mm, the steel rim. At full aperture it has a beautiful bokeh and sharpness, stopped down a bit it is extremely sharp without any distortion.

gelatin silver print (summilux steel rim 35mm f1.4) leica m5

Erik.

 

[Erik van Straten]

gelatin silver print (summilux steel rim 35mm f1.4 full aperture) leica mp

Erik.

 

[Erik van Straten]

This is with the first model after the steelrim, serial number 222XXXX, black with infinity catch. Canadian made.

gelatin silver print (summilux 35mm f1.4 at f2) leica m2

Erik.

 

[Nitroplait]

I have absolutely no valid reason to buy a small 35mm /1.4 for my Leica's but.... I have lusted for the 35 Summilux for longer than I can remember. I love my 35 Summicron (bought it at least 30 or more years ago) so I've never been able to justify in my mind WHY I need the Summilux. So looking at the newest Voigtlander lens how does it compare to the Leica lens. I've searched with google and came up wanting. And I'd really like to here from people who have shot with both.

General advice: If you lust for a Summilux, you will not be happy with something else - that is just the way it is.

If you want a small capable reasonably priced 35/1.4 and don't mind a few minor quirks, the Nokton will deliver.
I tend to use my Nokton (v.1) more than my 35mm summicron (v3). Mind you, I have only briefly used a borrowed 'lux, but I didn't see something I would pay extra for, compared to the other mentioned lenses.

 

[pyeh]

Nitroplait, you are absolutely right about the nature of lust and lenses. I fall victim to that all the time.

 

[raid]

There is something special about using a Summilux pre-asph. I also use the Summicron 35/2 (and its replica) and Canon 35/1.5 1.8 2.0 2.8. I then decided to add a more modern 35mm lens so I got Zeiss ZM 35/2 Biogon. Still. the Summilux is my favorite 35mm lens. It may not be the sharpest of all of my 35mm RF lenses, but it is special.
I tested the CV 35/1.4 many years ago, and I did not try out the latest versions of this lens. The Nikon 35mm RF lenses are excellent too.

 

[bluesun267]

I tried a Nokton V1 not too long ago. After years of resisting.

I've shot with dozens of 35 lenses (SLR, RF and Fixed lens cameras) over the years and distortion was not something I gave very much thought to before getting the Nokton. But good grief! Once I noticed it--on the first roll--I could not un-see it. I don't know if the V2 improved on this issue.

Despite the excellent handling and finish (and fast aperture), optically I place the V1 Nokton somewhere between a zoom point 'n shoot from the late 90s and a Canonet. In that respect, the Nokton is just as overpriced as the Summilux, if not more so. I know I'm probably stepping on a lot of toes with that opinion...sorry but it's just an opinion, and you know how overpriced opinions are these days as well!

 

[raid]

What type of distortion do you see in your Nokton?

 

[bluesun267]

Barrel. It was most obvious photographing someone standing in a door way from about 5 feet away. But also just any shot with a straight line somewhere

 

[hap]

This is with the first model after the steelrim, serial number 222XXXX, black with infinity catch. Canadian made.

gelatin silver print (summilux 35mm f1.4 at f2) leica m2

Erik.

I love your gelatin silver prints. Ilford Harman lab is close to me. Have some old Noblex pano negs I'd like to have printed there (silver gelatin prints only)

 

[Bill Blackwell]

I have little personal experience with either version of the Nokton, but I've owed two copies of the 35mm pre-Asph Summilux-M. Both of my copies were miserably soft wide-open. Frankly, I don't see the appeal of this lens. The Nokton 35mm f/1.4 II has been corrected for focus shift and - according to reviews - is sharper wide-open. Other than color renditions (which is highly subjective) I'm thinking - although I've never owned one - the Nokton II is probably a better choice.

The most common spin on the soft wide-open renditions of the pre-Asph Summilux is "it's hard to beat if you're after some 'glow'". Yea, right!

I owned - for a short time - the original Nokton MC version. It actually reminded me of the Summilux. If you're shooting B&W film you'd probably be hard pressed to tell the difference between the Summilux and either version of the Nokton.

 

[Erik van Straten]

Thank you, hap! My prints are all on Ilford MGFB (multigrade fiberbase).

This is with the first type Summilux 35mm steelrim, serial 177XXXX, about 1960. I also have the second type, serial 206XXXX, from a few years later. There is quite a big difference between the two, the second is better, but the first one is very nice in itself. These fast wides are excellent for portraiture indoors.

gelatin silver print (summilux steelrim 35mm f1.4 v1) leica m2

Erik.

 

[Erik van Straten]

This is with the second version of the steel rim, no. 206XXXX, maybe slightly stopped down.

gelatin silver print (summilux 35mm f1.4 steel rim v2) leica mp

Erik.

 

[brusby]

... I've owed two copies of the 35mm pre-Asph Summilux-M. Both of my copies were miserably soft wide-open.

It's interesting to me how people can have vastly different takes on things. I actually quite like the 35mm pre-Asph Summilux-M wide open and often pick it for the slight softness and glow for portraits.

But now you've got me curious whether we just define things differently or whether we are getting very different results from that lens.

This was shot wide open, would you consider it "miserably soft" (focus on the young lady)?

L 9592 by Brusby, on Flickr

 

[Bill Blackwell]

... This was shot wide open, would you consider it "miserably soft" (focus on the young lady)? ...

Miserably soft? In this case, no.

I navigated and found this particular picture on your website and was able to enlarge and look at the fine detail; and although I do like your work here very much (Erik's too), it does indeed appear soft to me. Maybe that's more desirable in cases like this. All I can tell you is at the time (it's been many years) I didn't like the results I was getting out of the copies I had.

With a sharp lens you can apply a diffuser; with a soft lens, ... well, you get the idea.

 

[brusby]

I agree it's soft wide open. But that's one of the things I like most about the lens and why I picked it. I appreciate your opinion and really was just curious to know whether we are getting different results -- maybe from copy to copy variation -- or whether we just have different tolerances for lens sharpness or should I say unsharpness.

There are a few small differences in achieving the softness directly from the lens versus using a diffuser. For example anomalies like coma that appear as little bright spots or streaks around the door in the photo I posted, are admittedly very minor things, but I like the unpredictablity and uniqueness they bring to the photo. Thanks for your input.

p.s. I know that if I miss focus even just a bit things can get way too soft and/or blurry fast.

 

[Fjäll]

Never tried the Noktons but got myself the Summilux last year and I kick myself for waiting so long. It's quite similar to my Summicron V4 in its rendering but with that convenient 1.4 aperture. I haven't experienced much of the issues described with this lens. It's sharp wide open and doesn't flare much either. It's a good looker too!