Have You seen the new 35/1.4 Nokton?

At the moment I dont have the MC version of the 35f1.4, but I hope to rectify that in March whilst in Japan. The 35f1.4 SC is a good lens. It feels nice in the hand, just a smidgeon smaller than the 40f1,4 (what the hell is a smidgeon anyway?). It is plenty sharp and has good flare control (better than my 35 pre-asph and much better than the Asph 35f1,4's that i battled with for years in that aspect).
I dont think the MC version is going be that much different, just like the 40MC/SC. Possibbly a bit more contrast in the shadows with the MC in black/white and possibly a bit more muted color with neg/pos color and the SC.
It is a lens that installs confidence - if I get the focus and aperture right, the lens will deliver without any unpleasant surprises. No glaring flare or overall "veil", no hot spots (speciality of my Asph 35f1.4, weird ghostlike reflections). It is possible that the 35/1,4 Asph has higher resolution, but so far, checking the negs from the VC 35/1.4 SC with a 30 time loupe, I haven't seen any flawed resolution that could be blamed on the lens.
It does show a bit of coma and smearing off axis, but that is the same as the pre-asph S-lux and I kind of like that. It is after all a f1.4 and even though it is a 35, the depth of fileld is shallow and areas out of focus will show some "distortion" of light sources and highlights.
 
Tom, I looked at your photos taken with the Nokton 35/1.4 SC. Looking at shot E 485 - Bokeh test - Ouch! Looks rather harsh to me. 384 looks better, but not much to judge bokeh on, plus it doesn't look to be wide open there. DOF is too large.
Also, looking at your photos with Nokton 40/1.4 - they seem to be very much like the 35/1.4 SC. Do you see much difference between the ywo? Cause I don't, based on your photos.
 
Great photos

Great photos

Tim,

Were all of your photos at your flickr link taken with the 35/1.4 (SC or MC?)?

They're excellent, and I know exactly what you mean about the double/heavy lines in many of the CV lenses including the 1.2 wide open (sorry Krosya 😉 ), and the 40/1.4 wide open with certain geomentric and backlit backgrounds. Again, it's all subjective, there is no bad bokeh, just bokeh that I know I don't like.

I don't think my smugmug terms of use allow me to host other peoples photos, but I'll see if I can re-read the TOS details.

Timmy P said:
Well I've had mine for a couple of days and can say that it is similar to the 40 f1.4 I also own.

The Bokeh is similar to the 40, but I would say wide open it is not as harsh as the 40 is. Also, similar to the 40, the 35 really sharpens up at f2 upwards, as does the bokeh.

If I could hazard a guess, it seems the 35 doesn't experiance the doubling up of thick lines that the 40 seems to do wide open. IF you've taken a picture with chair's out of focus etc, you'll know what I'm talking about.

And now onto the most important part, I've got a few samples, most wide open of the new 35 f1.4.

Most of the shots are fairly droll or unsharp, but they've been included for all those curious to see how the bokeh looks. I'll put some samples up when I got street shooting, so for now all you'll have to deal with is people shots wide open. Just open the link below, the shots are tagged 35 & also Epson.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/timjpower


PS: If someone is willing to host RAWS/Hi res JPEGS I'll be happy to send them too them to host. I just don't have anywhere that lets me upload hi res unfortunatley.

Enjoy!

-Tim
Click to expand...
 
All of them taken with the MC.

To be honest, I think the tests I put them through were a bit harsh. All things considered, the times you'd actually use the lens wide open (those black and white low light shots for example) the blur to me, looks more than acceptable.

The unacceptable blur results often during wide open shots taken during bright conditions. And honestly, since this lens isn't a portrait one, I don't really see the use of using this lens wide open in bright conditions. I've been checking some more sample and I can tell you, the lens looks VERY sharp f2.8 and above.

While I'd like the 35 f1.2 it's size is just too large to justify using it. I use my rangefinders as a small unobtrusive tool, and attaching that beast of a lens too it seems a bit against my mantra. Also, I absolutely hate things blocking the viewfinder, which I know the 35 f1.2 does.

Of course if I had the money I'd still own both 🙂

And for all you sample junkies I've posted some more bokeh shots, the descriptions have the apertures they were taken at. The lens was focused to closest distance, which I believe is 70cm.

Hopefully I'll be able to send some full size jpegs to someone to host tonight. Until then, enjoy!

Ed: Opps, link to the pictures are here again

http://www.flickr.com/photos/timjpower/


-Tim
 
From what I've seen the C/V 35/1.4 is sharper wide open than the old Summicron, and shows less flare. I haven't seen enough examples but probably backlite ghosting is also less. A very good result with such an old (Gaussian) design scheme. It shows once more that excellent correction has a price in OOF areas. But it's not really bad.

I personally have lot of 35mm's to use which aren't bad either: the UC-Hexanon 35/2 (probably not as sharp at f/2 but better bokeh) plus the Canon 35/1.5 which is quite sharp in the center too, has some of the best bokeh around with fast 35mm's (see Raid's examples) but is difficult to use in bright light because of ghosting (probably in regards to the big front lens)

I agree to Tim that few people will consider the 35/1.2 to buy instead of the 35/1.4. The beauty of the 35/1.4 is in compact, RF-like size and classic design. It is a class in it's own. Probably C/V can shut down the Nokton 40/1.4 now.

"Das Bessere ist des Guten Feind". Is there any expression in English?

have fun
 
Last edited:
 
Thanks Timmy and Mike. For now I can safely say that I will not buy that lens. It seems plenty sharp, but in my honest and highly personal and subjective opinion, that is some of the worst Bokeh I have ever seen.
 
mike kim said:
I just uploaded Tim's full size jpegs. They're really good examples, and I like how this lens performs wide open. It's what I expected from a lens at this cost and size.

http://www.mumuki.com/nokton/EPSN3432.jpg @ f1.4
http://www.mumuki.com/nokton/EPSN3433.jpg @ f2
http://www.mumuki.com/nokton/EPSN3434.jpg @ f2.8
http://www.mumuki.com/nokton/EPSN3435.jpg @ f4
http://www.mumuki.com/nokton/EPSN3448.jpg
http://www.mumuki.com/nokton/EPSN3469.jpg
http://www.mumuki.com/nokton/EPSN3477.jpg
http://www.mumuki.com/nokton/EPSN3483.jpg
http://www.mumuki.com/nokton/EPSN3488.jpg
http://www.mumuki.com/nokton/EPSN3503.jpg
http://www.mumuki.com/nokton/EPSN3552.jpg
http://www.mumuki.com/nokton/EPSN3553.jpg

Enjoy!
Click to expand...

"It's what I expected from a lens at this cost and size."

Well... even at THAT price I would really expect a lot more.

My daughter has a cheap consumer zoom lens that came with an EOS 300 plastic kit - and it is sharper. 🙄
 
ampguy said:
Tim,

Were all of your photos at your flickr link taken with the 35/1.4 (SC or MC?)?

They're excellent, and I know exactly what you mean about the double/heavy lines in many of the CV lenses including the 1.2 wide open (sorry Krosya 😉 ), and the 40/1.4 wide open with certain geomentric and backlit backgrounds. Again, it's all subjective, there is no bad bokeh, just bokeh that I know I don't like.

I don't think my smugmug terms of use allow me to host other peoples photos, but I'll see if I can re-read the TOS details.[/QUOTE

Well, I just recently got the Nokton 35/1.2, but I have not seen those double/heavy lines with it so far.
I'll have to test it more.
Click to expand...
 
Tim, great series of shots with the MC 35/1.4. The bokeh is interesting and I know if you are heavily in to it, it can be disturbing with the double line effect.
Personally I have always operated under the illusion that Bokeh is the fuzzy stuff that you did not get into focus because of F stops. I have always been interested in what the lens does at the focus point. Is it sharp? Does the focus I set correspond with the focus I get?
I find the 35/1,4 (mine is a SC) works well in that effect and sharpness is on par with the pre-Asph Summilux 35, but with considerably less flare.
There is not much difference in performance between the 40/1,4's and the 35/1.4 SC so the choice is up to the user. Tight 35 framing, the 35/1,4 would be the choice - fast "street" shooting, either the 35 or 40 would work fine.
The 35/1,2 is in a class by itself, it belongs with "speciality" lenses like the Noctilux and the Summilux 75. There is always a trade off when it comes to high speed lenses, be it severe vignetting (Nocti), miniscule depth of field and "ragged edge" focus (Summilux 75) or simply size and weight (35/1,2).
Modern coating does tend to give us higher contrast and thus "harsher" bokeh - if you are concerned about it, older lenses like the Summitar 50/2 and to some extent the Summarit 50f1.5 are much smoother in its rendition (but at a price - lower resolution, vignetting and usually a fairly soft wide-open performance).
As for 35's, my opinion is that the best mix of resolution/tonal rendition in the modern lenses is the 35/2 Biogon ZM and with lenses like the 35/1,4 VC or 35/1,2 and the Asph series of lenses, you trade off somethings for that extra speed or higher contrast.
 
Hi guys,

a question for the owners of CV 35mm color skopar Pancake II and the new 35mm Nokton , for you the f1.4, aside the fastest speed of the Nokton, is the Nokton a better lens?

Thank'you
 
I have always found bokeh tests less than useful unless there are comparison shots with other lenses of the same focal lengh, taken at the same time, under the same lighting conditions, on the same camera.

focus distance is another factor. bokeh can be different between the closest focus distance, mid distances say 10 to 15 feet, and infinity.

unless we have that sort of test, don't be too sure of bokeh test results.

Stephen
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom