I just read Ken Rockwell's review of the Nokton 35mm f1.4

[StillKicking]

What do you think of the Nokton?

Ken's review is here. My opinion.. its a bit harsh.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/voigtlander/35mm-f14.htm

 

[redisburning]

"What do you think?"

I think that if I wanted a reviewer with zero artistic ability I'd look at an MTF graph.

 

[David Murphy]

I just scanned the review. The distortion of this lens is atrocious - he has a right to be concerned. With a modern 8-element design this is unacceptable. Combined with the fact that this lens is not exactly cheap it's not a good story. If at open apertures some lack of corner sharpness and vignetting were the only issues this would be a different story.

 

[woodphoto]

What do you think of the Nokton?

Ken's review is here. My opinion.. its a bit harsh.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/voigtlander/35mm-f14.htm

Your fist mistake was reading his review...

your better off reading this one..
https://thefakekenrockwell.wordpress.com/

His reviews are usually filled with distain and contradiction. He will tell you that only a Leica lens should be on a Leica camera and in the next paragraph tell you it doesn't matter what lens you use . I avoid his site.

 

[David Murphy]

Your fist mistake was reading his review...

your better off reading this one..
https://thefakekenrockwell.wordpress.com/

His reviews are usually filled with distain and contradiction. He will tell you that only a Leica lens should be on a Leica camera and in the next paragraph tell you it doesn't matter what lens you use . I avoid his site.

Amusing Web site, but I must admit I still like Rockwell's reviews. I don't always agree, but I enjoy the effort he puts into them and I think he's on the money when it comes to Leica (I'm not a Leica snob however - couldn't afford to be even if I wanted to!).

 

[Turtle]

sounds in line with other reviews.

 

[noimmunity]

The review is written in a mordant, highly ironic style.
K.R. is at least clear about what his demands are: "careful landscape and nature photography". It's no wonder that he recommends the ZM C Biogon 35/2.8 instead. For his intended usage, that lens would be far far better.
I have, however, seen some alluring landscapes taken with this lens, ones that did not emphasize corner-to-corner sharpness, but utilized the inherent qualities, good and bad, of the lens, to create mystery and beauty.
A really good review would examine the qualities of a lens, its specific combination of compromises (every lens has them), and suggest ways in which that group of compromises might be alternately limiting and/or enabling for creative vision.
The fact remains that in rangefinder-land, the CV 35/1.4 is a really unique combination of size, speed, value, and imperfections.
I used it for a year and didn't like it, especially because of the slightly cool and muddy colors, the distortion, the focus shift on digital, and the corner softness. YMMV.

 

[RF_newbie]

"What do you think?"

I think that if I wanted a reviewer with zero artistic ability I'd look at an MTF graph.

HAHAHA.....
Okay that being said, he does tell you what he thinks, and he does not kiss butt as much as some other reviewers out there in Google land

 

[RF_newbie]

The review is written in a mordant, highly ironic style.
K.R. is at least clear about what his demands are: "careful landscape and nature photography". It's no wonder that he recommends the ZM C Biogon 35/2.8 instead. For his intended usage, that lens would be far far better.
I have, however, seen some alluring landscapes taken with this lens, ones that did not emphasize corner-to-corner sharpness, but utilized the inherent qualities, good and bad, of the lens, to create mystery and beauty.
A really good review would examine the qualities of a lens, its specific combination of compromises (every lens has them), and suggest ways in which that group of compromises might be alternately limiting and/or enabling for creative vision.
The fact remains that in rangefinder-land, the CV 35/1.4 is a really unique combination of size, speed, value, and imperfections.
I used it for a year and didn't like it, especially because of the slightly cool and muddy colors, the distortion, the focus shift on digital, and the corner softness. YMMV.

Well said!

 

[Lss]

As always, Ken R. is not to be taken seriously

As always, Ken R. is not to be taken seriously

What do you think of the Nokton?

I think it is an excellent lens with well-known strengths (tiny, fast, affordable, good image quality) and weaknesses (distortion, visible focus shift). It is a great choice for crop digital and film, and I highly recommend it for anyone on a budget. I have no first-hand experience of using this lens on full frame digital, though.

Ken R., as usual, finds nothing new and takes his opinions to the extremes. I am surprised he fails to mention the focus shift, which I would have expected him to denigrate this excellent lens about. It is a physical property of the lens design and cannot be filed under S for sample variation. Failing to mention it equates failing to observe with, which may tell something about the review process and work put into it.

Ken R. starts:

"This Voigtländer 35mm f/1.4 lens to fit LEICA M cameras is an inexpensive lens with which one can take great photos on a LEICA camera."​

Much of what follows in his review should not be taken too seriously. Look at the images, read the facts, skip the opinions.​

Ken R.:
"This is a lens for the poor man, who always pays twice."

This I can however agree with to some extent. I will turn it into a positive comment, though. The Nokton sure is an affordable lens that can do almost everything. If you, in addition, need a lens with superb corner-to-corner sharpness and no distortion, paying twice by adding something like a Biogon-C is hardly a bad decision. Of course, anyone who can afford a much more expensive lens may instead buy one that really does it all.

 

[_mark__]

I like his reviews, though he slated a lens I own, which I didn't like.

Ah, I just read it and then a couple of other articles! He says,

"From that point on I decided to stop worrying about the technology and focus my considerable expertise and creative instincts on creating photos instead of reading about it."

And then,

". I never have enough time to work on my computer. I wish I had more time so I could create, print and share more images. There is only so much time. We can either talk about something or go do it."

Weird, given the size of his online verbiage!

 

[capito]

His reviews are harsh, tend to extremes and he always finds stupid things to pick on.
He trashed the ZM Planar for its 43mm filter thread, FFS! As if he never heard of step up rings!
How he can make a living of it mystifies me.

 

[MaxElmar]

"The Ken Rockwell man shoots from the hip. He has no need to actually use the item in question, for he has already formed his opinions. The Ken Rockwell man has no need for internal consistency, that is for other, lesser, reviewers. He has no need to see a lens or camera in the context of a system, or the current market, as his busy schedule of pumping out excellence (in the form of his reviews) doesn't allow him to actually focus on anything for more than 15 minutes at a time."

I wonder if Ken is aware of the irony - where his reviews are basically pure style and no more substance than what can be found on a manufacturer's spec sheet or in a quickly composed and perhaps ill considered forum post... I guess it's not ironic if it's intentional.

And Ken, if you read this - all kidding aside - I read your all reviews and enjoy them immensely. (Then I forget them and I go out and form my own opinions.)

 

[Archlich]

The guy bashed the M-Hexanons as "inferior Leica copies that are POORLY MADE" - to me it's just unbelievable.

I like the fact that he actually weighs his subject though. Infos like how much a M7 weighs with battery are useful.

 

[Keith]

Voigtlander have avheived little of note here IMO ... I have several lenses that have this much distortion! 😛

 

[meandihagee]

if you only care about landscape, get a damn large format.

if you only care about leicas, get a leica lens.

if you want to shoot, get this lens. it will take you places. yea, in those low light places where a small lens allows you pass unnoticed. and yea, in those places where you payed for your airplane ticket with the money you saved when you didn't buy men jewelery, but photographic tools.

everybody is bashing this lens now, but you know what? maybe in 50 years it will sell for twice the price, with a leicaish aura around it.

 

[umcelinho]

why does he use words in german while talking about leica? that is a level 11 in douchbaggery...