35mm Comparison: Nokton 1.2, Nokton 1.4 MC, Hexanon 2.0

[back alley]

i have to stop reading these posts...

one person likes the pics and will be buying the lens

another person hates the pics and will not be buying the lens

some feel impassioned enough by web photos to make disparaging remarks

and me? there isn't enough real difference in the bokeh from any of them to keep me from buying a small, lightweight, fast and cheap lens.

anyone who wants a 1.2 or a lux or cron...feel free to get one!!

i love real choice🙂

joe

 

[kipkeston]

It's funny. I think they all look more or less the same. Why is that?

 

[Dan States]

It's funny. I think they all look more or less the same. Why is that?

Because they DO look more or less the same.

Bokeh is most important in photographs that are otherwise pretty uninteresting.

 

[MCTuomey]

Bokeh is most important in photographs that are otherwise pretty uninteresting.

😀 😀 😀 pick-of-the-week post submission!

potential (minor)edit: "unimportant" for "uninteresting"

joe: well said. maybe we all need to shoot more and post less ...

 

[jackal2513]

IRTA:



"Equipment is most important in photographs that are otherwise pretty uninteresting."



well said

 

[foto_fool]

...there isn't enough real difference in the bokeh from any of them to keep me from buying a small, lightweight, fast and cheap lens.

My sentiments exactly. I have been shooting the 35mm Summilux ASPH on the M6 for the last couple of months and the difference in handling when I exchanged it for the 35/1.4 Nokton was surprisingly energizing.

 

[Bruin]

Orbiting bokeh?

Orbiting bokeh?

For the 35/1.4 Nokton @ f/1.4, I feel like the circular OOF highlights are reinforcing the center of the frame. The orientation of the ovals seem to "point" toward it. I also see it a bit in the f/2.0 shot but not in any others.

To me, this is more distracting than the individual OOF circles by themselves.

 

[ampguy]

I agree

I agree

although at 1.4, I prefer the 1.2.

These samples at f2 and beyond with the new 35/1.4 look fine, as do the 1.2 and Hexanon. Thanks for the test.

The 1.4 actually looks nicer than the 1.2 at f/2. This just reenforces my desire to go for the 1.4. Thanks for the test!

 

[MikeL]

Nick, if you take more photos with the lenses post the results blind. I think it would be more entertaining to have folks chose. I wouldn't throw any of them out of bed.....

 

[rover]

What is the minimum focusing distance of the Hex?

 

[nksyoon]

What is the minimum focusing distance of the Hex?

0.7m

Don't know if I'll do more tests...I need to use the lens in my normal shooting mode, rather than have test shots on my mind.

 

[rover]

And the ballpark price range?

Is the M version selling for less? I think I have seen the LTM Hex sell for $800 ish.

 

[Keith]

I bought my KM 35 Hex from Erik for about $640.00 I think ... or thereabouts! It was like new with a filter and the gorgeous Konica hood. The UC seems to command a fair bit more ... there is a very good write up on the UC on Dante Stella's site.

Those tests sure wouldn't make me rush out to buy the new 1.4 It's obviously a pretty good lens and is light and compact but wide open the 1.2 hoses it for bokeh! If they ever work out a way to make a 1.2 lens the same size as the 1.4 there'd be some line up for people wanting it!

 

[nksyoon]

Less messy background this time, wide open, focus on bottle about 1 meter away.

 

[back alley]

which lens?

 

[januaryman]

Big Nokton, right?

 

[nksyoon]

1.4

Colour version attached.

 

[back alley]

looks good to me.

 

[MCTuomey]

looks good to me.

agree - more than enough for my meager talents ...

 

[KEH]

Another from the CV35/1.4 on M8. Nothing too challenging - F4, focus on the middle of the row of houses. I like the handling (small, very positive focus action), flare resistance seems good, colour rendering is subtle, and somehow the 'drawing' is attractive. I find the attached photo just draws you into it (although this is a little hard to see at 900pix width).

Nice, but no lens is perfect.

Cheers,
Kirk