50/1.5 Sonnar vs 40/1.4 Nokton

[john_nyc]

Hello..

I have a CV 40/1.4 Nokton but I must admit that the new 50/1.5 Sonnar has piqued my interest.

Has anyone done a head to head comparison on these lenses?

John

 

[dcsang]

This is going to be hard to compare no?

Different focal lengths specifically and slightly different max aperture.
I do long for a fast 50 again but having the 40 Nokton myself seems to suit my needs for now.

Dave

 

[john_nyc]

Point taken.

I was looking more for a subjective comparison, though.

Granted that they're different lengths and max ap, I think they're still pretty close in terms of practical application.

It may sound silly, but my biggest complaint about the 40 Nokton is that I just can't get used to the focus and aperture tabs. They seem to never be where I want them to be. I guess it's just years of handling lenses in the way that's comfortable for me instead of in the way that the lens dictates taking it's toll.

John

 

[back alley]

it's a bit of apples and oranges...

the 1.5 is a sonnar with a different look to it.

 

[CJP6008]

I have both but have not had the Sonnar long enough to really know it. The CV40 is a nice lens although it will win no prizes for bokeh. I prefer the Olympus OM 40mm f2 generally. Initial impressions of the Sonnar are positive. It looks to have a very nice signature but these things are so subjective. Bokeh is good for a fast 50mm lens - being fast and 50mm do not go with good bokeh as a rule it seems. (My zuiko 50mm f2 macro is better in that regard.)

I find that I use the 40mm and 50mm focal lenghts differently - there is room in your bag for both! The 40mm has a slightly wide feel - after all it is not far off 35mm. A 50mm lens on the other hand has a father more intimate viewpoint. I find that 50mms can look a bit wide or a bit telephoto depending on handling etc. For me this makes them interesting and versatile. 40mms or indeed 35mms tend to always have that bit of wideness about them.

 

[kevin m]

Here's a quick "sonnar" vs. Nokton test. The "sonnar" is the Canon 50 f1.5, though, and the Nokton is the SC version. Both shots wide open, minimum focus. Full frame scans with only 50% unsharp mask applied, no other manipulation.

 

[kevin m]

...and here are 100% crops of the same images.

Try not remain objective and don't be distracted by the smile.

 

[Flyfisher Tom]

Try not remain objective and don't be distracted by the smile.

That's easier said than done ... what a charming smile

 

[kevin m]

Thanks, Tom. I meant to say, 'try to remain...' of course.

That's "your" Canon, BTW. I'd say it acquits itself very nicely for a 50 year old lens.

Here's another lens that competed in my little test. Can you guess which one it is? I'll give you a big hint: It's a 50/1.4 that generally gets no respect.

 

[Flyfisher Tom]

I'll guess the pre-asph summilux

 

[vrgard]

...and here are 100% crops of the same images.

Try not remain objective and don't be distracted by the smile.

Kevin, is the Canon shot on the left? Reason I ask is because the one on the right (the smiling one) appears to be a bit more grey/green to me.

-Randy

 

[kevin m]

Tom, you are correct, that's the pre-asph 50 lux. Perhaps my favorite 'people' lens of all time.

Randy, the Nokton is on the left in both, and the Canon on the right. I think the Canon has some of the 'cool' look of Zeiss glass.

FWIW, I prefer the warmer look of the pre-asph Summilux, as that looks the most natural to my eyes.

 

[vrgard]

Tom, you are correct, that's the pre-asph 50 lux. Perhaps my favorite 'people' lens of all time.

Randy, the Nokton is on the left in both, and the Canon on the right. I think the Canon has some of the 'cool' look of Zeiss glass.

FWIW, I prefer the warmer look of the pre-asph Summilux, as that looks the most natural to my eyes.

Very interesting, Kevin. Thanks for posting these. I think I like the Nokton the best based on these samples. You know best what your daughter looks like but to my eyes the Nokton shot looks the most natural and appears just a bit sharper as well.

Thanks again,
Randy

 

[kevin m]

I was surprised by the results of my test, too, Randy. Believe it or not, the Nokton fares pretty well against the 35 Aspherical Summilux, too, especially when you consider the enormous price difference.

 

[vrgard]

I was surprised by the results of my test, too, Randy. Believe it or not, the Nokton fares pretty well against the 35 Aspherical Summilux, too, especially when you consider the enormous price difference.

Hmmm, that's NOT good news for my bank account balance... I'd been thinking about picking up one of those SC's even though I, too, already have the Canon 50/1.5 and really like the Sonnar look. You're not helping!

-Randy

 

[summilux]

 

[ClayH]

The pre-asph 1.4 summilux is a fantastic lens. Very smoooooth, yet sharp (enough) in the plane of focus. It is almost as flareproof as a Noct with much less wacky bokeh. Get DAG to attach a focusing tab, and you have a real do-it-all lens. I have the asph version, yet I find that I constantly tend to gravitate toward the older lens. I much prefer it to the 50 cron, which can flare like crazy in the right circumstances.

 

[sleepyhead]

The bokeh from the 40mm nokton in kevin's shots looks perfectly acceptable to me.