CV Nokton 1.5/50 vs Zeiss ZM Sonnar 1.5/50

CV Nokton 1.5/50 vs Zeiss ZM Sonnar 1.5/50

  • CV Nokton 1.5/50

    Votes: 152 41.3%

  • Zeiss ZM Sonnar 1.5/50

    Votes: 216 58.7%
  • Total voters
    368
Stewart,

I have to agree, I really struggle to tell the difference between the Nokton 50 and the new ZM Zeiss 50's. All the lens look really similar and are very dependant on the lighting and shooting style of the photographer. Maybe I am not educated enough!

Vintage lenses definitely can exhibit marked differences, such as comparing my '49 J-3 with the Nokton or Heliar.

I am happy with my Nokton, but would be just as happy with the ZM Sonnar...
 
Last edited:
Nice photos -- if you don't mind, how long did you let it stand in the Rodinal 1:100?

Thanks,
Keith



P. Lynn Miller said:
I wrote this in another post about the Nokton 50/1.5, but I will write it again. I like the Nokton 50 so much that I own two of them. I also have a '49 Jupiter-3 that actually has a Zeiss Sonnar 50mm 1.5 optical cell, which I also would not part with. If a ZM Sonnar 50/1.5 shows up at the right price, I will buy one.

But the Nokton 50 is my go to, every day lens that lives on my M5. It sharp, with good contrast, very flare resistant with a good signature. As for the bokeh, in most instances it renders OOF areas very well, but given the right circumstances any lens can deliver funny stuff in the background. And the price is right...

Broken | Sydney, Australia 2008
The%20Artist.jpg

Bessa R2 | Voigtländer Nokton 50mm f1.5 | Plus-X | Rodinal 1:100 Stand

Snug | Sydney, Australia 2008
2008_10_010_013_800.jpg

Bessa R2 | Voigtländer Nokton 50mm f1.5 | Tri-X EI 3200 | Rodinal 1:100 Stand

But I suppose I can't really tell you which lens is better since I do not own the ZM Sonnar 50/1.5... but I doubt you will be disappointed with a Nokton 50/1.5.
Click to expand...
 
Yes, you are not used to images made by the C Sonnar on film. To be honest, you have to specify the aperture to be totally fair: up to f5,6 the C Sonnar looks like itself, at f8.0 and beyond it starts looking like lots of lenses. Honestly, I think this poll does not make more sense than the following one : is cognac better or is whisky better? It depends on taste, but both can give you a nice warm feeling inside...
 
Each has its own signature - more than 70% of photographers never utilise the best of his/her lenses, therefore it's impossible to compare... just test the lenses and judge for yourself.
 
i looked at both the nokton and the sonnar when shopping for a fast 50 and at the time the sonnar was three times the price of the nokton. from what i saw it didn't look three times better and probably wouldn't have made me three times happier. crazy buying logic, i know.

so i went with the nokton and i love it to bits.

3015440707_a4768666e7.jpg


2966670255_de595c8b44.jpg


2949174387_d42c3cb8f4.jpg


2564463022_a1ef523048.jpg
 
Jeezus, Spiderfrank. This shot alone might get me to buy a Nokton.... I LOVE the way the background is rendered....
Click to expand...

No kiddin', that's gorgeous!

If you really want the 'Sonnar look,' then why not buy a J-3 and pay to have it made fully functional. Or, maybe better, just wait for a nice Canon 50/1.5, which is an amazingly compact, stunningly well-built lens.

Having said that: Carl, you're getting nice results from your Sonnar, I must say. 😀
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom