40mm f/1.4 - what's the consensus?

[David R Munson]

Sorry if I missed a question like this in the archives, but...

What's the general opinion of the 40mm f/1.4? If I continue with a plan that's gaining a lot of momentum in my head, I may be going down to one camera and one lens for a year or so. On paper, the 40mm f/1.4 looks like my best bet, but what's on paper doesn't always translate into real world results.

I know some people love it, but what problems are there with it? Any flare issues, etc? Anyone care to share some example images?

Many thanks.

 

[wontonny]

I like mine.

It's really flare resistant. I have a negative where I shot into the sun and what I remember my RF patch was completely flared out but all I see on the negative is a medium sized circle of flare in the corner, I expected more.

The 1.4 comes in handy.

The 40mm image is only just a couple mm inside of the 35mm framelines. It's a nice focal length for a wide variety of uses.

No sample images... no neg scanner 🙁

I'd go for it.

 

[sienarot]

Fantastic lens. The only problem I have with it is that I'm using it so much, my other lenses don't get any attention 🙂

 

[kknox]

Hi if you go to my post in the Leica m- cl posts I have 3 b&w pics with the SC 40 1.4 listed under first pics with T-Max 400 Leica CL Voiglander. I have been using this lens on my Cl, M-4P & love it.

 

[yanidel]

I ordered one last week based on my research of the various posts on this forum and other articles. Overall, it was all very positive that is why I want ahead. I hope it proves to be a winner.

 

[rxmd]

It's really flare resistant.

Well sometimes you don't have to shoot into the sun to get flare; here's a recent example with reflected sunlight on marble:

This was the MC version (and I know it has no photographic merit whatsoever). Maybe the SC version would have flared more (I'm not convinced that there is an actual difference in rendering between the two versions, though).

That said, this is not to detract from the quality of the lens. You can get any lens to produce flare in the right (or wrong) situation. With the 40/1.4 these situations are rare, and elsewhere where those situations are more frequent people see the flare and call it Leica Glow.

Here's a portrait taken at f/1.4:

So you can do this with the lens as well. Don't bother about Internet forum users clamouring about the supposedly unpleasant bokeh; just as with flare, you can find bokeh situations for any lens. The Nokton is no Sonnar, but it holds up well.

I use it with the 35mm framelines:

I find that if I frame with the 35mm framelines I do lose a little bit especially at the sides, so I have to frame generously. Here there was a little bit more left and right of the wooden poles. You get used to it after the second or third roll of film though. (On a side note, prices are up; meat was 4300 sum for the kilogram last November, or about $3.40; now it's 6500 sum or $5. I have no idea how people are supposed to support this.)

All in all I'm very happy with the 40/1.4 and would buy it again in a heartbeat. It's also a solid little lens with all the beating I'm giving it. Oh, and get the hood, too, if not for flare protection so much as for mechanical protection; the hood is quite sturdy and also prevents the cap from falling off in a bag.

Philipp

 

[Sam N]

I say go for it.
It's much sharper at F2 than the 40/2 in my Minolta AL (not surprisingly).
The build, size, and weight are all very nice.

Some people report "ugly" bokeh, but I've never had that problem.

Here's a sample


And you can find a LOT more samples on flickr:
http://flickr.com/photos/tags/noktonclassic40mmf14/interesting/

 

[Austerby]

I like the lens but I have seen the characteristic bokeh that people refer to - I've attached an example where I was focusing on the person on the right and at f1.4. The figure next to her has a strange double image - caused possibly by some backlighting from halogens behind him. The distant background is perhaps 20 ft away.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/vidwatts/2418475952/

 

[Kevin]

I only use mine on one of my Minolta CLE rangefinders or on my R-D1. I prefer to use the 35mm focal length on my M6 cameras instead.

For such a small fast lens it produces wonderful images wide open. It's a jewel.

 

[Johnmcd]

My 'standard' lens. When it must be sharp and fast 🙂

Cheers,

John

 

[silverliner]

John, Both pictures are really nice!!!!

 

[kully]

My first RF lens and although I bought and sold many since then I still have this and use it the most - along with the CV 50/1.5 and CV 35/1.2 this I will keep, simply because it is small, light and fast - great for taking out.

Sure, at f/1.4 you get some 'busy' bokeh (easily reproducible) but that's only going to annoy you if you are trained to see it - I never noticed it 'til I read about it and saw examples and bokeh ignorants (in a nice way) havn't cared.

 

[mr_phillip]

I use my MC version mostly on the CLE, but it gets some use on the M6 and M2 as well.

The harsh bokeh that many folks talk about in regard to this lens only seems to be an issue at f1.4 (and even then only if you shoot to deliberately to highlight the bokeh). By f2 it's already become very smooth, and by 2.8 it's positively creamy. Other than that the Nokton 40 is a wonderfully sharp lens, with great colours and/or tones.

 

[Johnmcd]

John, Both pictures are really nice!!!!

Thanks.

As others have said the bokeh can get 'busy' with small highlights but can be to your advantage sometimes and under the right conditions. But as mr philip said, it can be 'creamy'.

John

 

[kully]

One thing to keep in mind, the focussing is a bit on the stiff side when new (on the one I've used and another a mate has) this smoothes out nicely with use.

 

[thirdeye]

It's the first lens that I purchased. Love it. Photographed a 2-year-old's birthday party last Sunday. Amazed by how easy it was to follow the kids around with my RF. One tyke was particularly intrigued by my RF and even asked to peer through the VF. Looks like a new photog in the making!

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

It's a fine lens.

Most of my photos (link in my signature) are with the SC version.

f1.4 makes it great at night in bars etc.

 

[jmilkins]

497 photos taken with it here from many users.
http://www.flickr.com/groups/86731438@N00/pool/tags/VoigtlanderNokton40mmf1.4MC

If you go to the parent group you'll see many other lenses to compare.

I have the voigt an d the rokkor. Both great. I like the overall character of the rokkor CLE 40/2 but the extra speed might be worthwhile in a one lens kit with a mechanical Bessa R3M (the R3A is also great and the AE can be a bonus for street work).

Good luck on your adventure!

 

[rich815]

I liked mine well enough. It was sharp. But I did not find it's character all that unique, pleasing or special. But of course that's me. I prefer the rendition and character I get from my 50/2 Summicron DR, 90/4 Elmar and 50/1.5 Summarit (just to give you some idea of what I do like in "character". So I sold it.

Things I did not like so much was the OOF renderings wide open and the focus was not perfectly smooth, sort of ranged in smoothness to slight stiffness as ones focuses across the range. That was irritating. Build-quality is sort of only average in my opinion too.

Unless you absolutely positively need the speed there are better alternatives especially since wide open it's a funky performer at best, again, IMO.

 

[findwolfhard]

Hello! I bought a Nokton 40 earlier this year to find out about advantages of 1.4 stop for me. I was very critical about it. First of all I had to find out that it is lightyears better than my 35 Summicron 6 lens design!! Better at 1.4 than the Summcron at 2.0 . Now I got the 35.1.4 aspherical as well. Basically I had thought of selling the Nokton then. From the negs I have trouble finding the difference. I decided to keep it. For that little money its just wonderful, so why don`t you hesitate to buy one? Go for it!
Best regards Wolfhard