umcelinho
Marcelo
I've searched for a thread about this subject on the forum but could not find any, but if it was discussed already please let me know! But here it goes:
I've been shooting with a 35mm 1.4 SC Nokton for about a year. I love its compact size, and the speed, and I don't have any problems with how it renders. But although not frequently, it flares often enough to nag me. Those round flares. When shooting with the R-D1 I can sometimes re-take the picture when I get flare, but with the M6 it can be a frustrating experience.
Some examples:
and how it can get really nasty:
So I'm wondering if those who have the MC version of this lens also experience flaring issues and how often it happens.
I often shoot in low light situations, with multiple light sources all around, and it's in those situations that I get more flare. I haven't tried the dedicated vented hood, but have tried both a square plastic hood for digital video cameras (which keeps the lens from flaring considerably, but it is huge) and a collapsible rubber hood (which I had to have the rim trimmed to avoid vignetting on full frame, but yesterday I got flare even though I was using it).
I'm wondering if there would be any solution for the flaring issue, or if I should switch to the MC version (since I like the compact size and it's fast enough) or go for the 1.2 instead (very hard to flare, bigger, more $, draws nicely and I wouldn't mind the extra 1/2 stop).
Would anybody out there be in a similar dilemma or have any advice?
Thanks!
I've been shooting with a 35mm 1.4 SC Nokton for about a year. I love its compact size, and the speed, and I don't have any problems with how it renders. But although not frequently, it flares often enough to nag me. Those round flares. When shooting with the R-D1 I can sometimes re-take the picture when I get flare, but with the M6 it can be a frustrating experience.
Some examples:
and how it can get really nasty:
So I'm wondering if those who have the MC version of this lens also experience flaring issues and how often it happens.
I often shoot in low light situations, with multiple light sources all around, and it's in those situations that I get more flare. I haven't tried the dedicated vented hood, but have tried both a square plastic hood for digital video cameras (which keeps the lens from flaring considerably, but it is huge) and a collapsible rubber hood (which I had to have the rim trimmed to avoid vignetting on full frame, but yesterday I got flare even though I was using it).
I'm wondering if there would be any solution for the flaring issue, or if I should switch to the MC version (since I like the compact size and it's fast enough) or go for the 1.2 instead (very hard to flare, bigger, more $, draws nicely and I wouldn't mind the extra 1/2 stop).
Would anybody out there be in a similar dilemma or have any advice?
Thanks!
Last edited:
kemal_mumcu
Well-known
Wow! I really like these shots with the flare. Just my opinion of course, but shooting into the sun produces dramatic shots and flare is an issue when one does this.
I had a 40 1.4 mc with the standard hood and it flared too. Can't offer much more than that.
Still like the photos as they are.
I had a 40 1.4 mc with the standard hood and it flared too. Can't offer much more than that.
Still like the photos as they are.
sparrow6224
Well-known
are you using any uv or skylight filter? if so, get it off when you're shooting into light sources. you probably know this already and aren't using them but i figured i'd say it anyway.... any learners reading this will get that piece of info that took me a year to find out.
all that said, fast lenses with large front elements tend to flare and there are only limited ways to deal with it. do you have any other 1.4 or faster lenses which have not presented you with the problem? you could research both lenses in terms of construction, figure out the difference (coating? recessed construction?) and then search out a 35mm that fits the bill.
all that said, fast lenses with large front elements tend to flare and there are only limited ways to deal with it. do you have any other 1.4 or faster lenses which have not presented you with the problem? you could research both lenses in terms of construction, figure out the difference (coating? recessed construction?) and then search out a 35mm that fits the bill.
SimonSawSunlight
Simon Fabel
getting the 1.2 to flare is a tough job.
no flare:
a little bit of flare:
and I think these were taken with the 1.2/35 as well:
no flare:
a little bit of flare:
and I think these were taken with the 1.2/35 as well:
Last edited:
scottwallick
ambition ≥ skill
Ljós
Well-known
@SimonSawSunlight: Simon, wasn't the second picture (in the Park) taken with the Summaron 3.5? [picture is now removed, see Simon's post below]
Greetings, Ljós
Greetings, Ljós
Last edited:
SimonSawSunlight
Simon Fabel
yes, you're right, not sure why it gave me that one when I searched for 'nokton 35mm' in my own stream. I'll remove it.
filmfan
Well-known
Wow the rendering of the 35mm 1.4 is terrible in that first photo...
ferider
Veteran
To the OP:
The circular flare in your pictures is most likely due to reflections in the chrome front ring of the lens. Happens with other lenses too (for example the 35/2 Biogon). Try using a black MRC filter, or black filter ring without glass, and flare will likely disappear.
Difference between MC and SC is veiling flare, that causes less contrast and "glow" in the SC version. But not the ghost rings you are observing.
Both SC and MC Nokton (with filter) are quite flare resistant. Like this (here the MC version, but I shoot the SC, too):
And the background rendering in your first shot is totally OK, my Summicron would be proud of this Sunlit leaves in the background are always a challenge.
Roland.
The circular flare in your pictures is most likely due to reflections in the chrome front ring of the lens. Happens with other lenses too (for example the 35/2 Biogon). Try using a black MRC filter, or black filter ring without glass, and flare will likely disappear.
Difference between MC and SC is veiling flare, that causes less contrast and "glow" in the SC version. But not the ghost rings you are observing.
Both SC and MC Nokton (with filter) are quite flare resistant. Like this (here the MC version, but I shoot the SC, too):
And the background rendering in your first shot is totally OK, my Summicron would be proud of this
Sunlit leaves in the background are always a challenge.Roland.
Last edited:
WalterM
Established
i like the second one. just tell people you did it on purpose
and i've not handled one, but i've also heard that the 1.2 was quite flare resistant.
and i've not handled one, but i've also heard that the 1.2 was quite flare resistant.
umcelinho
Marcelo
[edit] Thanks, Roland, I've tried using a matte tape on the inner side of the hood thread and also tried the same with a step-up adapter ring I have, covering the entire surface of the inner thread, but I'm still getting the round flares... even with the hood.
I've compared the front of the lens to my 50mm 1.5 Nokton, which won't flare in the same conditions. I've noticed the 35's front finish is a bit shinier than the 50's. But I'm not sure if a detail like this could make such a difference...
All shots except #2 were taken without any filter, I had bought one with the lens but I gave up using it after the first roll (well, #2 is from the 1st roll), as it had some color reflexes from light sources in some shots. It's a Tiffen UV protector multicoated. Nowadays I just keep my lenses naked.
And to be more specific, it's the circular flare that I really dislike, some flare when shooting into strong light sources I can cope with it, like on #3. It usually happens when there are light sources right above me or right on my side, and just slightly ahead of where I stand.
Thanks to all for the feedback
Last edited:
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
well, multicoating was invented to reduce flare and increase contrast...
it also reduces that kind of flare that you are disliking...
why would somebody buy sc and complain about flare?
By the way, the first image is horrible. the rest are cool. with flare and all.
it also reduces that kind of flare that you are disliking...
why would somebody buy sc and complain about flare?
By the way, the first image is horrible. the rest are cool. with flare and all.
umcelinho
Marcelo
When I was looking for info on the lens I didn't come across any complaints regarding this circular flare, so it didn't cross my mind that it could have that issue. Newbie assumption? Perhaps.. I understood that the MC had more contrast and was more flare resistant, but I chose the SC for the lower contrast.
Maybe it's just not the lens for me, that's why I'm looking for some feedback on other lenses to make a decision whether to keep it or not
Maybe it's just not the lens for me, that's why I'm looking for some feedback on other lenses to make a decision whether to keep it or not
Wow, funny how people see things differently. That's exactly the type of rendering from this lens that I love
totifoto
Well-known
Great pics!
I want that 1.2 lens and I keep seeing more and more pics from it that makes me crave it more
Here's a shot taken with the MC version (with correct Voigtlander hood) on an RD-1. My guess is that the chrome filter ring is the culprit. I plan on removing the glass from a 43mm filter and sticking it on the chrome ring to cover it. That should solve the problem.
efix
RF user by conviction
Great pics!
I want that 1.2 lens and I keep seeing more and more pics from it that makes me crave it more
Seconded. It's on my list, and I'll get it as soon as I find a good deal. Will have to part with my Biogon 2/35, but what the heck
mike_j
Established
I recently bought a Voigtlander Nokton f1.4 MC rather on impulse and since then, on various forums I have seem quite a lot of adverse criticism. Although I don't generally do a lot of testing of new gear I decided to take a series of pictures under reasonably reproducible conditions but with real outdoor shots, to test the lens, both for validity of the comments, and for comparison with my CV Color Skopar LTM 35mm. All pictures taken on Leica M8, auto exposure and white balance AS SHOT (not corrected).
Criticism 1. Focus shift. At about 1.2m neither lens showed significant focus shift.
Criticism 2. Barrel distortion. Yes, The Nokton has noticeable distortion. This requires a correction of +6 on Lightroom 3. I do not know what this equates to in percentage terms but the correction is consistent and effective. Skopar has no discernable distortion.
Criticism 3. Soft at full aperture. Yes, comes sharp at f2.8 when it is about equal to the Color Skopar at the same aperture. By f5.6 Skopar is sharper but both are good.
Criticism 4. Flare. As this is the subject of the thread I have posted 3 pictures, into the sun which is just out of frame top left.
No. 1 Nokton at f1.4. CV lenshood LHG-6 and Leica UV/IR filter fitted. Flare as reported above. At f2.0 flare nearly gone, f2.8 and above no flare. Poor white balance as shot but Lightrom auto setting fixes this.
No. 2. Nokton at f1.4. CV lenshood LHG-6 BUT NO Leica UV/IR filter fitted. No flare. Big change in white balance.
No 3. CV Color Skopar. Lens hood, no filter. No flare.
The other criticisms relate to build quality and handling. Build seems good to me, better than my Zeiss Biogon which unscrews the front lens cell with monotonous regularity.Handling is good enough though I don't much like the f stop tabs. It's very similar to the CV 21mm f4,0 which I have had for some time.
Criticism 1. Focus shift. At about 1.2m neither lens showed significant focus shift.
Criticism 2. Barrel distortion. Yes, The Nokton has noticeable distortion. This requires a correction of +6 on Lightroom 3. I do not know what this equates to in percentage terms but the correction is consistent and effective. Skopar has no discernable distortion.
Criticism 3. Soft at full aperture. Yes, comes sharp at f2.8 when it is about equal to the Color Skopar at the same aperture. By f5.6 Skopar is sharper but both are good.
Criticism 4. Flare. As this is the subject of the thread I have posted 3 pictures, into the sun which is just out of frame top left.
No. 1 Nokton at f1.4. CV lenshood LHG-6 and Leica UV/IR filter fitted. Flare as reported above. At f2.0 flare nearly gone, f2.8 and above no flare. Poor white balance as shot but Lightrom auto setting fixes this.
No. 2. Nokton at f1.4. CV lenshood LHG-6 BUT NO Leica UV/IR filter fitted. No flare. Big change in white balance.
No 3. CV Color Skopar. Lens hood, no filter. No flare.
The other criticisms relate to build quality and handling. Build seems good to me, better than my Zeiss Biogon which unscrews the front lens cell with monotonous regularity.Handling is good enough though I don't much like the f stop tabs. It's very similar to the CV 21mm f4,0 which I have had for some time.
Last edited:
Ljós
Well-known
Mike, thanks for your post with comparison pictures.
All the best, Ljós
The relevant variable here is not the distance, but the aperture. How exactly did you perfom this test?
All the best, Ljós
mike_j
Established
Camera on tripod, subject on a slatted table with varied background. Pictures taken at 1 stop aperture intervals from f1.4 to f16. Camera refocused each time on same part of object in case focus ring was moved as a result of changing the aperture.
Focus point remained in sharp focus throughout, depth of field (clearly defined by slatted table) increased as expected from a few centimetres to several metres.
I'm not claiming my tests were optical bench laboratory standard but as an empirical evaluation they were good enough to stop me worrying about the lens.
Focus point remained in sharp focus throughout, depth of field (clearly defined by slatted table) increased as expected from a few centimetres to several metres.
I'm not claiming my tests were optical bench laboratory standard but as an empirical evaluation they were good enough to stop me worrying about the lens.