Fast 35mm - Summilux or Nokton?

[windraider]

Had a sudden interest towards fast lenses and thought that a 35mm would be more versatile compared to a 50mm for low light situations with a rangefinder.

Am curious about the Nokton's f1.2 max aperture :
- how much of a real world advantage does it have over a summilux?
- does the half a stop speed translate to better handholdability, or does the reduced dof and lower wide-open resolution penalties negate any advantage?
- btw is it truely f1.2 across the frame?

Would like to hear (see?) your experience with either of these fast 35mms, in terms of resolution, contrast, bokeh or any other interesting qualities.

Also how do they compare against the Nikkor 35mm f1.4 AI/AIS SLR lense?

 

[x-ray]

I have no first hand experience with the asph summilux 35 but do own the Nokton 35 plus a Biogon and asph summicron. Also had the v1 summilux and v1 & v4 summicron 35's. A good deal of my recent documentary work has been shot under extremely low light in appalachian churches. Exposures are frequently 1/15 at 1.2 - 1.4 using 1600 B&W. There's no perfect sollution for this kind of shooting but the Nokton has been about as close as I could come up with. 35mm vs 50mm translates into closer working distances but easier hand holdability and slightly greater dof. The differences between my asph summilux 50 and summilux 75 have been dramatic in terms of being usable under these conditions. I get a good bit more usable frames with the Nokton than any other lens due to the additional 1/2 stop and the more usable FL.

Yes the 1.2 is truly 1.2 and fairly even across the frame. Flare resistance is high and resolution is very usable at 1.2 and excellent at 1.4. From what I've seen the Nokton is more flare resistant than the summilux asph but I have no first hand experience. The Nokton is larger and heavier but fits the hand well and is a stable lens to hold. Size and weight are just the prices you pay for speed and quality. In terms of build quality I feel the Nokton is better built than my newer leica lenses. I may be a little biased due to 4 lenses failing recently and one that was defective from day 1. leica quality isn't what it used to be.

I suggest the Nokton, the quality is there and the price is 1/4 the price of the Leica lens and just as good if not better plus 1/2 stop faster.

 

[kjoebek]

I have the 35mm Summilux pre-asph., and like the softness (flare) that it has. And it is totally diffrent from my 35mm Planar* that have to my Contax G.

 

[mfogiel]

I feel the difference between f2 and f1.2 is substantial, also in terms of rendition, but I have never used a Summilux 35. The Nokton is very versatile, and the bokeh wide open is first rate, you can see it here:

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1140589233&size=l

this shot, for a comparison, has been made with the 35 Biogon at f2.0:

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1362510410&size=l

another Nokton wide open:

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1162469875&context=set-72157601420806061&size=l

I tend to use the Nokton, when I want to shoot in low light, or when I can only take one camera one lens for do all purposes. Also, the Nokton is great for caffè style portraits - it makes the atmosphere sort of rarified.

 

[x-ray]

If you're talking v1 summilux I have extensive experience with this lens. Unfortunately I don't share the romantic feelings some do regarding the v1. I find it flares easily and can render images unusable. I also found it to have secondary images at 1.4 particularly under high contrast conditions with bright lights in the frame. It's soft wide open and and drastically over priced. If you research summilux threads you can find some images illustrating the flare.

 

[BillBingham2]

Just for giggles, you might take a look at the 40/1.4 CV. Smaller than the 35/1.2, lower cost than either, same speed as the 35/1.4.

B2 (;->

 

[Hephaestus]

I've shot the V/C 35mm 1.2, the V/C 40mm 1.4 and the Leica 35mm Summilux Asph.


For starters, I am sold on the 35mm focal length for low light use. The wider perspective makes it a little more tolerant of camera shake at slow speeds and it also offers a little more depth of field at maximum armature. I also find that I am often nearer to my subject in low-light situations, such as across a table, where the 35mm field of view seems appropriate.


V/C 35mm Nokton: I am very satisfied with the build quality of this lens and the images that it produced. It is a very nice piece of glass and does seem very flare resistant. The extra half-stop can come in handy, too. I do, however, find it too large for a walk-around lens and so I consider it a special purpose piece.


V/C 40mm multi-coated: Again, I am happy with the build quality and the photographs from this lens (although I slightly preferred the 35mm 1.2 on both counts). It is a wonderfully compact lens which can be wither praiseworthy or scornworthy depending on the agility of your fingers and your familiarity with the lens. While I never owned the hood for this model, I never noticed a problem with flare. Hoiwever; I never got really comfortable with the 40mm focal length, and I often hesitated, with my M6 at my eye, because I was second-guessing the field of view.


Leica 35mm Summilux Asph: Build quality and image results are satisfying. I will not say that it produces better or worse photographs than the V/C models as I believe that they all produce very good results. I always shoot this lens with the hood attached and, while I have noticed an occasional instance, I do not believe that flaring is a significant problem with this model. I recently shot a dozen rolls of film under a multiplicity of conditions in Ireland and only one frame was compromised by any meaningful flare.


Of the three lenses, it is the Summilux that I will not part with. The VC 35mm 1.2 is already sold and the 40mm will be on the auction block shortly. I am a casual shooter and I document things that I discover rather than setting out to make images that I have pre-planned. Because of this, I do not want more than one ~35mm lens: the 35mm 1.2 might be better for low light, but I feel that it is too large for a walk-around lens and so I will not have it with me when I need it. The great virtue of the Summilux is that it is fast enough that I can get by almost anywhere with ASA 400 film and compact enough that I don't mind leaving it on my camera. The V/C 40mm 1.4 has these virtues as well, but I am not as comfortable with that focal length.


Regards,
Ryan

 

[Vincenzo Maielli]

If you can afford, purchase the Summilux Aspherical.
Ciao.
Vincenzo

 

[raid]

I have done some side by side shooting with the Cv 35mm/1.2 and the Summilux 35mm/1.4 (both lenses Aspherical). I posted some results here, and most people were uncertain which lens was which brand, but nobody went with the CV while a few went with the Leica lens.

 

[windraider]

Thanks for all the replies - glad to know that I wouldn't be sacrificing performance in getting the more economical Nokton.

However would like to hear comparision with the Nikon 35mm f1.4 AIS lens as I'm still wondering whether I should have a similar SLR set up.

 

[x-ray]

I had the 35 1.4 Nikkor for a number of years and like the lens but the Nokton is a better performer particularly at wider apertures. The Nikkor 1.4 is probably their best 35 and is a very good lens but the Nokton is sharper.

 

[irq506]

The Nikon 35 f2 is sharper then the 1.4

 

[peter_n]

The 35/1.4 Summilux ASPH is not too big, is lighter by 5gm than the 35/2.0 Summicron ASPH 😛, and renders beautifully. It's a perfect carry-round lens. Here's a couple of shots from it. The first one is a shot that shows in-focus and out of focus areas:

And below is the barn that's behind the tree in the first shot. Both pics taken within seconds of each other.