40mm Nokton 1.4 MC, how sharp is it wide open, I mean really?

[Tom A]

This is with the 40mm f1.4 MC on a Lumix G1 - so it is actually functioning as a 80f1.4.
I have both the MC and the SC and they are very good at 1.4. Beats the pre-asph Summilux handily and has more of an edge than the Nokton 35f1.4. You have to start looking at Summilux Asph 35f1.4 to find something with more bite in it (and considering the price of that lens - not that much difference).

 

[carlito]

I just posted 5 photos to the member galleries that didn't seem as sharp as I expected but I'm still learning how to use this camera so it could be me. Most shots were taken with the lens wide open. The ones I posted were sharpened a bit in iphoto.

 

[ishpop]

Everything I have seen out of the SC version is as sharp as a tack. Can't imagine you would need more unless you are doing billboards.

Also, I like the bokeh, never understood the prevailing opinion on this. My theory is that just because it's the prevailing opinion doesn't mean it's the right one.

😉

 

[Trius]

I seem to remember someone here doing a comparison between the MC and SC a few years ago. I preferred the SC, even in colour. Both seemed sharp.

 

[Tom A]

Also, I like the bokeh, never understood the prevailing opinion on this. My theory is that just because it's the prevailing opinion doesn't mean it's the right one.

😉[/QUOTE]

I agree - just because 51% says it is so, doesn't mean they are right!
The Nokton is more than sharp enough - but at f1.4 you are looking at a very shallow depth of field - camera shake, subject even inhaling/exhaling can shift focus, the shooters current coffee intake etc. Multiple variables will affect focus.

 

[johnalex141r]

40/1.4 sc and focus

40/1.4 sc and focus

Just one thing of note; on my M8, I put it on a tripod, and did a focus-shift-depth of field test; I'd suggest that everyone do this.

My informal results - f1.4, focus is where the rangefinder says. Stopping down, focus is at the rangefinder, or behind; so the old "stop down and things in front of the point of focus will be sharpish" did not hold.

My target was a bit of paper from an inkjet printer with text on it, a big cross put through the middle with a pen and ruler; put on a table so that the resulting angle was about 45 degrees, and the tripod about 1 or 1.5 metres away. For me, interesting results.

 

[john_s]

......My informal results - f1.4, focus is where the rangefinder says. Stopping down, focus is at the rangefinder, or behind; so the old "stop down and things in front of the point of focus will be sharpish" did not hold.........

This is pretty usual with f1.4 lenses.

You're lucky it's correct at full aperture! Then at least, if you have to compensate focusing when using an aperture in the f2 to, say, f4 range, it is less complicated than dealing with the situation where it's in front at full aperture, right a couple of stops down, then behind for smaller stops.

Sometimes the focus shift is far greater then the growth of depth of field, contrary to statements like "the depth of field will deal with it."

 

[Trius]

I agree - just because 51% says it is so, doesn't mean they are right!

Even less than 51% ... viz the Harper government. Will this get me kicked off RFF? 😀

 

[Sam N]

It seems much sharper and contrastier at 2.0 than at 1.4, but it wasn't bad at 1.4 either.

I've seen some bad bokeh with it, but I've never managed to get bad bokeh myself.

It's the best bang-for-the-buck M lens.