Difference btw. Nokton 1,2/35mm & 1,4/35mm

[phototektour]

Hi folks,

I got already a Skopar 4/21mm, a Nokton 1,5/50mm and a Tele-Elmarit 2,8/90mm for my R-D1. Now I would like to add a 35mm. The voigtländer lenses are great and I´m thinking about the two lenses Nokton 1,2/35mm & 1,4/35mm. What´s the difference except the 0,2, price, weight, size? DO YOU SEE ANYTHING? My favorite is the smaller one because it fits better in my bag and jacket. Is there anybody using both? What do you think?

Thank you
Rainer

 

[Johann Espiritu]

Personally, I've used both and decided to stick with the 1.2. The size was a big issue, but in the end, I preferred the way it drew - smoother bokeh, and slightly less distortion. I was willing to live with the bigger size and weight for those two advantages.

I ended up complimenting it with a Color Skopar when I wanted something smaller, then later a Summicron ASPH.

Hope that helps!

 

[martin s]

I use the f1.4, I think it's a rather boring lens. The f1.2 seems to have a really nice bokeh.

martin

 

[Rafael]

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=66719&highlight=nokton+wars

 

[phototektour]

Sorry,
thank you guys.
Rainer

(offline for the next hours, reading "Voigtländer Nokton Wars: 1.2/35 VS 1.4/35" 🙂

 

[phototektour]

Okay,
this is pretty clear. There is already a "no go" for the 1,4 in terms of distortions. As an architect, I like it straight, ... even in background.
R

 

[mn4367]

The Nokton 35/1.2 is targeted at low light conditions and is seems to be a great performer here. If you can live with a maximum of 2.0 also consider the Zeiss Biogon 35/2. It is probably sharper than the Nokton 35/1.4.

 

[rogue_designer]

IMO - trying to get a 35mm that is both good in low light, AND relatively free of distortions, you are up a creek without spending for the 35 lux asph, and even then you will still have issues.

Personally, I would decide if you need low light performance more? or if a slower, better corrected lens like a 35 cron, or the excellent 35 biogon would be a better choice given your priorities. Use the right lens for the right job - a low light specialty lens, rarely makes a good "all-arounder" - especially if you are a stickler for sharpness and few distortions. The compromises that have to be made for the wide aperture are not insignificant.

Just my $.02

 

[Svitantti]

I dont think the 'lux is free of distortions at all (from what I've heard and read). Don't know for the ASPH though.

 

[rogue_designer]

I dont think the 'lux is free of distortions at all (from what I've heard and read). Don't know for the ASPH though.

Yeah - I don't think they're the right route either.. but they are ostensibly *better* corrected.

I think the best route is for him to get the 1.2 for low light, and a second smaller lens for everyday use.

 

[rxmd]

If you want a 35 that is low on distortion, the Jupiter-12 is hard to beat. It has other weaknesses, but distortion-wise it's good (as a Biogon copy should be!), especially for the price.

 

[Svitantti]

Well, I wouln't start collecting lenses of same focal length and instead, would just find one that best suits my purposes. Maybe it's partly because I dont have that much extra money to spend on just any lenses I could use on different occasions.

 

[jonmanjiro]

Keith recently posted a photo in another thread here that showed that the Nokton 35/1.2 also has considerable barrel distortion. IMO pretty much the same as the Nokton 35/1.4 in that regard.

 

[phototektour]

Thank you all,

right, I´m not looking for an allrounder ... thinking like most of you. So, the idea is right, that the 35 has not to be that fast. I like keeping my Nokton 1,5/50mm (completed by a tele-elmarit 90) for events like recitals in (very) small theaters. For everyday use I tend for a cron or lux (completed by a skopar 21). Regarding what Erwin Puts is writing for Leica (cron and lux are comparable at f 2), I think the best will be a summicron 35 (no money for asph.).

Rainer