Frivolous Purchase: 50/3.5 Helier or 50/1.1 Nokton?

[Benjamin Marks]

If you were going to choose one of these lenses (but didn't need either), which would you choose and why?

I kind of like the looks of the nickel plated Heliar, but the rendering of the faster lenses in threads here has been awesome. To be used on an M8 and M6.

In frivolity,

Ben Marks

 

[Keith]

Definitely the Nokton for me ... I seldom seem to go past f4 on any lens!

But then again I already have the Canon f1.2 which has far more character than the Nokton IMO so I'd probaly be better off with the Heliar! 😀

 

[back alley]

the nokton...except for the newer elmar collapsible 50/2.8...such a nice lens.

 

[acetonic]

It's funny but my Nokton came in from Camera Quest this afternoon. Did I need it? Not at all. I sure did want it though and I look forward to giving it a workout.

 

[SolaresLarrave]

'nother vote for the Nokton.

BTW, like Keith, I have a Canon 50mm f1.2 and that alone killed the need of a Nokton f1.1. However, I'd really like the 35mm f1.2 instead...

Nokton. Sure.

 

[Keith]

'nother vote for the Nokton.

BTW, like Keith, I have a Canon 50mm f1.2 and that alone killed the need of a Nokton f1.1. However, I'd really like the 35mm f1.2 instead...

Nokton. Sure.

Ahh ... my second favourite RF lens. Don't keep depriving youself ... get one!

I can't fault mine in any area and I can't believe that something this good sells for the price it does ... it's worth double what they ask for it IMO!

😀

 

[david.elliott]

I'd totally get the 35/1.2 ... if my M3 had 35mm framelines. :|

I vote for the 50/1.1 here. Makes more sense, to me, to make a purchase because you like the rendering rather than based upon the physical appearance of a lens.

 

[WalterM]

Almost impulsively bought one of the above actually.

I was leaning towards the Heliar, but they're different beasts. Available darkness🙂P) lens versus razor sharp, slower lens.

 

[dogberryjr]

I had the Nokton and liked it, but didn't need it alongside my Summilux. Later, I got the Heliar, and I use it a bunch. Strangely, in an increasing stable of 50mm lenses, I seem to have more room for slower glass.

 

[Doug]

Totally different frivolities there... I'm not a fan of razor-thin DoF, and I can get that fairly easily from medium format gear (and I don't need the speed), so... just to go a different direction the f/3.5 Heliar sounds interesting to explore. I expect it could be an eye-opener on the M8.

 

[SolaresLarrave]

Keith, I'm planning on grabbing a wide-angle Nokton (35mm f1.2) in a few months. It'll make a nice companion for my black M6TTL. 🙂

Ben... the people hath spoken. 'Tis the Nokton 50mm f1.1 you need and want...

 

[craygc]

As I just posted in another thread here; I just went and bought the Nokton 50mm f/1.1 this week. ...and I dont even like the 50mm focal length, however I thought I might just try some different stuff. To me, my primary lens is always a 35mm but I got this 50mm to play with the very thin DoF. ...so the Nokton, Ektar 100 (and I dont even shoot colour) and Tokyo later this month.

 

[alan davus]

I bought the Heliar though I carefully considered the Nokton. Decided I'd never been a speed freak and the thought of lugging a great hunk of glass around just for the rare occasion an extra stop or two might be handy swung me over to the Heliar.

 

[gliderbee]

I had the same "problem", and I started convincing myself that it just might be possible that we only live once, and that I should have fun, and that you can't have fun with money but only with the things you bought with it, etc, etc ...

so I bought both: the Heliar on eBay Germany, the Nokton from a dealer.
I should really make a line-up of the 50mm I have; that's not frivolity, that's decadency 😱, although I'm sure there are some who are even worse 🙂


Stefan.

If you were going to choose one of these lenses (but didn't need either), which would you choose and why?

I kind of like the looks of the nickel plated Heliar, but the rendering of the faster lenses in threads here has been awesome. To be used on an M8 and M6.

In frivolity,

Ben Marks

 

[Benjamin Marks]

Well, the people have spoken. I am going to order the Nockton, then. It is curiously liberating to be utterly swayed by popular opinion (that is, from a sample of 13 . . .).

Let you know how it all turns out.

Ben Marks

 

[Austerby]

It's interesting how the perception of this lens has changed since it was launched. If I recall correctly everyone was terribly interested in it at first as a near-Noctilux for reasonable money but the first reviews seemed somewhat disappointing - a good lens but not a particularly stellar one. Now that we're seeing actual results and feedback from owners there's a lot of rejuvenated interest in this lens, which now seems to be approaching the highly regarded status of the 35mm f1.2.

It's good to see the buyers were not discouraged by the initial reaction and went out and tried it for themselves - power to the people!

 

[Krosya]

Now that we're seeing actual results and feedback from owners there's a lot of rejuvenated interest in this lens, which now seems to be approaching the highly regarded status of the 35mm f1.2.

I disagree - while Nokton 50/1.1 may have some followers - it's nowhere near the 35/1.2 one following. Why? - it's not as good. Ok, now , please , all the Nokton 50/1.1 owners (or sellers) - dont get on my case about it. I'm not saying it's a bad lens - just there are others that are cheaper and better.
I too was excited about it BEFORE it came out, I didnt like what I saw from it originally and still dont like most of the images I have seen from it. Purely personal thing, mind you. I like and own several CV lenses and to me - if you had to by a 50mm lens made by CV - it's always a Nokton 50/1.5 . Far better value and I like images from it way more. When I got me a Super-speed 50mm lens - I first got a Canon ltm 50/1.2. A very good lens I think. Old, has some faults, but I liked it's character. When I decided to spend the money for a "perfect" super fast lens - well, nothing really came to mind other than Hex 50/1.2.
So, opinions vary - but if I had to advise a fast CV lens - it would be 50/1.5, 35/1.2. or 35/1.7.
As far as Heliar goes - I used to have a 50/2 version and while it was not bad and had it's character - I just have way too many other 50mm lenses I like better. And if I need a slow collapsable one - I have a russian Industar that I like just fine.
So, if I had some money to burn - I'd get something challenging - like a CV 15 or even 12mm lens. Those are fun and photos I have seen from them impress me far more than ones from either Nokton 50/1.1 or Heliar 50/3.5.

 

[jsrockit]

This should've been an easy decision. Do you want a fast lens or a slow one? Do you want a small lens or a large one?

 

[Jaans]

It's interesting how the perception of this lens has changed since it was launched. If I recall correctly everyone was terribly interested in it at first as a near-Noctilux for reasonable money but the first reviews seemed somewhat disappointing - a good lens but not a particularly stellar one. Now that we're seeing actual results and feedback from owners there's a lot of rejuvenated interest in this lens, which now seems to be approaching the highly regarded status of the 35mm f1.2.

It's good to see the buyers were not discouraged by the initial reaction and went out and tried it for themselves - power to the people!

The reason for this renewed interest are that there are so many second hand Noktons for sale at substantially cheaper prices. In other words, many original new nokton buyers are unloading as the lens sadly didn't live up to the hype that surrounded its initial release. At 1.1 (and hey thats why you buy this fast lens) there is an absolute lack of character in the out of focus areas. Clinical to say the least. I think that if you want a stellar fast lens with character purchase the Canon, or get the Nokton 35 1.2. Alternatively get a summarit 1.5.

Back to the original question, I would go for the 3.5 Heliar, without a moments hesitation.

 

[roundg]

3.5 is too slow for an all around lens;
1.1 is too big for an all around lens.
......................