Gary Sandhu
Well-known
what are your opinions?
SolaresLarrave
My M5s need red dots!
The pre-Asph 'lux? Fuggedabboutit!! 
Compared to the current 'lux, not really the cat's pajamas. Search for a thread here in the forum, peppered with lots of examples of how this lens was great but no longer can compete with the newer glass.
Hence, go for the Nokton. Better yet, look for the even faster 35 f1.2 Ultron (I think), which may cost you just as much as the pre-Asph 'lux anyway.
Compared to the current 'lux, not really the cat's pajamas. Search for a thread here in the forum, peppered with lots of examples of how this lens was great but no longer can compete with the newer glass. Hence, go for the Nokton. Better yet, look for the even faster 35 f1.2 Ultron (I think), which may cost you just as much as the pre-Asph 'lux anyway.
ferider
Veteran
I'm not sure the 1.2 is "better" (whatever that means) than the 1.4 Nokton. Of course generally, bigger is better but part of the reason that the 1.2 is more popular is that it is wider spread / older. Very few 1.2 users have used the 1.4 or vice versa ...
I went for the 1.4 Nokton since 1.4 is plenty for my purposes, and I actually like to see the entire frame when I shoot and not have a 3rd of it covered by the lens. And I seriously considered the pre-asph Lux, but decided against it due to min. focus distance and coma that I've seen in sample photos.
I got the lens about a week ago and just started playing with it. We'll see how it does, but example shots (check with Dave for instance, see also http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=62491) on the M mount forum are great.
Best,
Roland.
but part of the reason that the 1.2 is more popular is that it is wider spread / older. Very few 1.2 users have used the 1.4 or vice versa ...I went for the 1.4 Nokton since 1.4 is plenty for my purposes, and I actually like to see the entire frame when I shoot and not have a 3rd of it covered by the lens. And I seriously considered the pre-asph Lux, but decided against it due to min. focus distance and coma that I've seen in sample photos.
I got the lens about a week ago and just started playing with it. We'll see how it does, but example shots (check with Dave for instance, see also http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=62491) on the M mount forum are great.
Best,
Roland.
Last edited:
WoolenMammoth
Well-known
If you are looking for a modern "good" lens, the answer is obvious. Last week I got a preasph lux and did some tests with it in the studio the other day, wide open, the lens is pretty amazing. Of course, all the stuff which makes that lens "pretty amazing" for me makes the lens "broken" for someone else so it really really depends upon the look you are going for. If you intend to use the lens wide open and dont want a soft, dreamy looking glowing image, the lux is soooo not the lens to get.
All the criticism that the lux gets is fairly accurate and like I said, this either is the reason TO get the lens or to get something else. In the early 70's when the lux was the only game in town, that criticism was a lot more relevant than it is today IMO, since there are other options out there that are sharper and perform "better". The whole point of the lux is all the stuff that is "wrong" with it... Perhaps I'll tire of it, but I have a lot of lenses and nothing seems to look like this one. It would be nicer if it was a bit sharper wide open, but the coma is wildly cool if you intend to exploit it and is a fair trade off.
All the criticism that the lux gets is fairly accurate and like I said, this either is the reason TO get the lens or to get something else. In the early 70's when the lux was the only game in town, that criticism was a lot more relevant than it is today IMO, since there are other options out there that are sharper and perform "better". The whole point of the lux is all the stuff that is "wrong" with it... Perhaps I'll tire of it, but I have a lot of lenses and nothing seems to look like this one. It would be nicer if it was a bit sharper wide open, but the coma is wildly cool if you intend to exploit it and is a fair trade off.
kevin m
Veteran
Well put.
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
I have pre-asph Summilux 35 as well as the Nokton 35f1.4's (and the 35f1.2 too come to think of it!).
The Nokton 35mm f1,4 is a modern lens and though designed to emulate some of the features of the old Summilux - it is better over all. It is usable at f1.4 which the pre-asph Summilux barely is (unless you like a very soft look and lots of strange behavior in the highlights).
The Summilux was a sensation when it came out as it was the only M-lens that could compete with Nikon's 35f1.8 (overall a better lens than the early S-lux). It was improved over the decades, but only in small increments. It did remain virtually unchanged for close to 40 years.
The Nokton 35mm f1.4 was a "brainchild" of Mr Kobayashi. The older Summiluxes has taken on a "mythical" (how come mostly optically challenged lenses become "mythical" by the way) status and got very expensive and he wanted a lens that gives the same "look", but corrected some of the flaws (coma, flare). Of course he also gives you a choice of SC or MC. I tend to prefer the SC, but that's me.
The Nokton 35mm f1,4 is a modern lens and though designed to emulate some of the features of the old Summilux - it is better over all. It is usable at f1.4 which the pre-asph Summilux barely is (unless you like a very soft look and lots of strange behavior in the highlights).
The Summilux was a sensation when it came out as it was the only M-lens that could compete with Nikon's 35f1.8 (overall a better lens than the early S-lux). It was improved over the decades, but only in small increments. It did remain virtually unchanged for close to 40 years.
The Nokton 35mm f1.4 was a "brainchild" of Mr Kobayashi. The older Summiluxes has taken on a "mythical" (how come mostly optically challenged lenses become "mythical" by the way) status and got very expensive and he wanted a lens that gives the same "look", but corrected some of the flaws (coma, flare). Of course he also gives you a choice of SC or MC. I tend to prefer the SC, but that's me.
funkaoshi
Well-known
I also think the 35mm f/1.4 will probably work well enough. Is there something about what you want to shoot that you can't do with the cheaper lens?
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
If I were to "upgrade" the Ultron 35/1.7 I have, the Nokton would be "it".
I can't justify getting one new, and so far I don't see people getting rid of it either, I guess that's a good sign that people are in general satisfied with it.
Tom, could you elaborate on why you prefer the SC?
I can't justify getting one new, and so far I don't see people getting rid of it either, I guess that's a good sign that people are in general satisfied with it.
Tom, could you elaborate on why you prefer the SC?
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Roland, I'm for one looking forward to read your take on this lens. Dave's examples while clear is taken with M8, which is a crop sensor, and it's not film
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
The difference is minute, but for my style of "sunny f16" I have less blocked up shadows with Tri X. It could all be in my imagination - and also the fact that I have two of the SC's so they tend to be used more!
ferider
Veteran
kipkeston
Well-known
Do they both have the same amount of barrel distortion?
kevin m
Veteran
With the pre-asph Summilux, barrel distortion is the least of your worries. Wide open, it's soft even in the center. The corners are mush. The edges of objects appear to have experienced erosion, and flare softens everything in the frame. Point light sources exhibit so much coma Dali could have painted them. Asking if the pre-aspherical Summilux 35 has barrel distortion is like fleeing your burning home and wondering if you left the iron on.
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
Let's not forget the Canon 35/1.5, please
Roland.
For some reason i want to forget the Canon 35f1.5. The two examples I had made the early Summilux look really good! The Canon 35f1.8 and the f2 are much better lenses in my opinion. I still have one of each of those and use them.
kevin m
Veteran
It's the glow-meister, no doubt.
mirrored
Established
I don't know, but Zeiss Biogon 35/2 is a very well corrected. It's a one stop slower lens, but still quite fast for 35mm. Speaking on grapefruits and oranges...
Last edited:
MikeL
Go Fish
The 35mm pre-asph summilux is like a summicron to f2, and a Thamboctilux at f1.4.
sockeyed
Well-known
I have the CV 35 f/1.4 SC (got it about 1/2 a year ago), and as far as I can tell, there are no plastic parts used in the construction (at least for structural parts). The aperture ring, I believe, is aluminum, not plastic.
Also, the 'ugly bokeh' issue has not once reared its head in practical shooting situations. I tend to shoot at f/2 at maximum unless I absolutely have to go wider, which probably has some impact. Here are a few close-to-wide-open examples:
Travis L.
Registered Userino
I must have the only good pre-asph summilux ever sold.
Mine doesn't really exhibit any of the negative qualities I've always heard that it should.
It is certainly not as sharp at 1.4 as it is stopped down (what lens is?), but it's definitely acceptable.
I have made lots of pictures with mine wide open over the years and really like the look.
That being said if I had to choose now, I would probably save five or six hundred bucks and buy the Nokton.
Regards,
Travis
Mine doesn't really exhibit any of the negative qualities I've always heard that it should.
It is certainly not as sharp at 1.4 as it is stopped down (what lens is?), but it's definitely acceptable.
I have made lots of pictures with mine wide open over the years and really like the look.
That being said if I had to choose now, I would probably save five or six hundred bucks and buy the Nokton.
Regards,
Travis
photogdave
Shops local
Every time one of these threads pops up I find myself having to jump in and defend the Nokton 1.4. This is one of the few where this lens hasn't been relentlessly trashed!
I'll echo Sockeyed's experience. Well built, and I never get these bokeh issues others have complained about. I also have the SC version.
Hmmm...myself, TomA and Sockeyed all have nice copies of the same lens. Must be the Vancouver light!
I'll echo Sockeyed's experience. Well built, and I never get these bokeh issues others have complained about. I also have the SC version.
Hmmm...myself, TomA and Sockeyed all have nice copies of the same lens. Must be the Vancouver light!