Have You seen the new 35/1.4 Nokton?

ya know what i wonder most about this lens?
why did they make it in the first place?
if it was part of a planned growth then why did they make the 40/1.4 first?
will they continue to make the 40/1.4? and have both 35 & 40 available?
and of course, do i need a 40 for the cle? ;)
 
As lovely as the 1.2 is, it's just way too big for something I want to use as a sneaky street photography camera.
 
back alley said:
ya know what i wonder most about this lens?
why did they make it in the first place?
if it was part of a planned growth then why did they make the 40/1.4 first?
will they continue to make the 40/1.4? and have both 35 & 40 available?
and of course, do i need a 40 for the cle? ;)
Click to expand...


That is the question I was asking all along as soon as I have seen the pics from it. It looks and performs very much like 40/1.4. Both come in MC and SC, so why did they even bother? Now, if they ever come out with the Nokton 50/1.2 or even better 1.0 - based on 35/1.2, it could be a killer lens. I keep hoping.
 
M like Leica M6 said:
"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. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
So I'm guessing your daughers zoom can be used at f1.4? Those shots are all wide open examples except one shot so I would attribute softness to my poor focusing or camera shake more than anything.

If you want sharp, check out 3503, which was taken using wirless strobes and set to f8. I'd say that shot is more than sharp enough. Also I haven't sharpened any of those shots properly, so they do lack sharpness. I find Epson shots often need sharpening up to really pop, as do any of my Canon shots.

3483 is also focused on my friends eyes, I'd say for f1.4 it's damm sharp.

One has to remember film also renders the lens differently as well. I much prefer my 40 f1.4 on my film Bessa compared to when it's on the Epson. It seems a whole lot smoother. I haven't tried the 35 f1.4 out either yet but I would say say the bokeh would be smoother on film. However I think the 35's smoother bokeh than the 40 makes it ok for the Epson.

Also I find the bokeh on the 35 f1.4 to be fine at f1.4 in the situations you'd actually use it.


Nor do I see how the bokeh is considered terrible past f2, to me the bright rings really calm down past f2 and the bokeh looks very well controlled to me.

Each to their own I suppose, I'm not particularly concerned or thinking of returning this lens. It's great, small, and now the prefect walk around on my Epson or M camera's. I'd never be able to afford a 35 f1.4 Leica ever in my entire life, so I'm happy.

In other news I used this lens during a VERY bright day in Sydney Habour for the departure of the Queen Victoria. I'm blogging it now, it'll be up in a few minutes. I'd upload them to flickr but my accounts full and I don't want to have to sort through what photo's to delete etc.

Here they are, it's the newest post. I think most apertures were around the f8-11 mark, a lot were hyperfocal.

http://theleakinglightbox.blogspot.com/

Cheers,

-Tim
 
back alley said:
ya know what i wonder most about this lens?
why did they make it in the first place?
if it was part of a planned growth then why did they make the 40/1.4 first?
will they continue to make the 40/1.4? and have both 35 & 40 available?
and of course, do i need a 40 for the cle? ;)
Click to expand...

Well, the R3M doesn't have 35mm framelines and the R2M doesn't have 40mmm framelines. That'd be my guess.
 
If the 35mm/1.4 has an optical performance that is similar to that of the their 40mm/1.4, then I see the introduction of the 35mm/1.4 as a gimmick to lead potential buyers of Leica 35mm/1.4 lenses to CV.

Since CV already makes a killer 35mm/1.2 lens, why didn't they just work on this huge lens to make it even better and/or faster?
 
back alley said:
ya know what i wonder most about this lens?
why did they make it in the first place?
Click to expand...


Because Mr. K recognized that photogs wanted a relatively inexpensive 35/1.4 lens -- a first for rangefinders.

Proof is in the pudding.

Both SC and MC 35/1.4's are already sold out at the factory until the next production run in May.

Stephen
 
stephen, isn't the 40/1.4 close enough that they didn't need a 35?

of course, look at me...i had a 40/1.4 and didn't keep it and couldn't wait to get my hands on a fast 35...go figure.
joe
 
At highlight back ground condition, the old first version Summicron has the same signature of the CV 35/1.4 juaged from the posted picture. In some light condition, the old first version SUmmicron does show creamy OFF.
 
Timmy P said:
So I'm guessing your daughers zoom can be used at f1.4?
Click to expand...

Surely not, it's a cheap zoom. By the way, I owned a Nokton 1.2/35, great (and big) lens, I recently sold it. That was a sharp lens wide open, compared to what I saw here, though it is hard to judge because the typical tiny low-resolution example shots just don't show the quality of a lens. My main lens is a Summicron 2/50, and there is no doubt about the fact that it is one of the best lenses ever built. My prints are often taken at f2, my films are in the 100ASA-and-below class and my prints are often very large, so I am a bit of an old-fashioned nitpicker :D

Let's look at this image, please look at it first:

http://luminous-landscape.com/1photo-pages/lilly-pad.shtml

Sharp, nice bokeh... what was the lens? A new aspherical Leica lens? A Voigtländer 1.4/35 SC or MC?

Nope.

It was the fixed zoom lens on a Canon G5, a cheap, outdated consumer camera from 2002. Today you can take such an image with a good camera phone.

Timmy P said:
Those shots are all wide open examples except one shot so I would attribute softness to my poor focusing or camera shake more than anything.
Click to expand...

Then, why don't you put the camera on a tripod, focus exactly,use 1.4 and see what's in it? It is impossible to talk about the quality of a lens from a handheld shot at night at 1/8 sec, especially if you don't have a large print in front of you or if you don't enlarge a very small part of a detailed part of an image.

Sorry for my constant nagging, but I just want to avoid some possibly arisen self-deception.
 
I don't own a tripod cause I hate them, so I can't do any still focus tests. I can tell you by the samples I have though that it is a sharp lens. I too own the Summicron 50 f2, and I would say that both the 35 & 50 are about as sharp as each other @ f2.

I find Leica lenses tend to be sharp straight wide open, while the Nokton 35 & 40 are sharp but not super sharp wide open, and sharpen up considerable at f2 and above. With the Skopar 35 f2.5 I find it's sharp wide open. It all really depends on the lens honestly.

All you can really do is use the lens for yourself, but I can say that the lens is both sharp enough and good enough in my book. To me it's much better than Leica offerings since it's JUST SO MUCH CHEAPER. The only Lecia lens that really is good money is the Summicrons because they're high quality AND affordable. Canon makes extremely good pro lenses for 1/3 the price of fast Leica primes, so I don't really buy how why they charge so much. It's unfortunate such a good company charges such an unaffordable premium.

But enough of my I'm too poor to afford Leica stuff, I'm off to sleep. Just remember, the lens is good & sharp. If you want a couple of higher f numbered samples to print yourself I'd be happy to email you 2 or 3 if you remain unconvinced.

Cheers,

-Tim
 
Timmy P said:
If you want a couple of higher f numbered samples to print yourself I'd be happy to email you 2 or 3 if you remain unconvinced.

Cheers,

-Tim
Click to expand...

Tim,

i am always curious, and if you can send me one or two examples of images taken with that lens at 1.4, (at 1/1000 or so in daylight) showing a flat, highly detailed motif I am more than ready to confirm your appraisal if I find the same result. Just send me a PM and we ca communicate vi email.
 
Here is one VERY nice example of how to show the quality of a lens:

http://www.rokkorfiles.com/7SII.htm

Look at the buildings and the enlarged crops - THAT is a lens, right? Not taken wide open, but for such a small consumer camera from 1977 the result is stunning.
 
is there a good reason (other than size) why i should spend 300 quid on one of these over about 120 quid on a used 35mm ultron ?
 
Hates_ said:
Size is really the only thing that put me of the 1.2 Ultron.
Click to expand...

Ultron is not 1.2, but 1.7 and its not that large really. Maybe you are thinking of Nokton 35/1.2?
Ultron's signature is more close to Nokton 35/1.2, while Nokton 35/1.4 looks to be more like a Nokton 40/1.4, which is a lot less $$ as well.
Depends on what you like, really.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom