informal test: 35mm nokton vs 35mm nokton

the_jim said:
Now, to make it even more confusing...I also shot the ZM 35mm Biogon f/2 versus the two Noktons. Here is the resulting images @f/2 with the Biogon and the small Nokton:

the 1.4 Nokton @ f/2:
img315 by jamesfischer, on Flickr

now the Biogon @ f/2
img317 by jamesfischer, on Flickr

100% center crop:
composite2 by jamesfischer, on Flickr
Click to expand...

The Biogon is a clear, sharp and controlled lens for sure, but again far from 1.2's magic.

Cheers,

Juan
 
RE: 1.4 vs 1.2
1.2 all the way. Not as sharp but who cares, the difference is minute unless you're pixel peeping the final shot. Renders everything else so much nicer.

RE: 1.4 vs Bigon
Never though I'd say I like how the 1.4 renders but compared to the Bigon it's much nicer to my eyes, though can't touch it in sharpness and it does have quite nice microcontrast.

I'd be pissed if I splashed out all that money on the Zeiss, though this is RF land, we are known for paying out the arse for a name.
 
Juan,

I scanned both b/w negatives in color then desaturated and used auto-levels in PS. The largest variable here is how the scanner software tries to auto-correct and set white levels and how, in-turn, PS decides what auto-correcting 'needs' to be done.

I agree with you about the 1.2 nokton. It's rendering is absolutely beautiful. I just realllllly like the size of the smaller lens.
 
the_jim said:
Juan,

I scanned both b/w negatives in color then desaturated and used auto-levels in PS. The largest variable here is how the scanner software tries to auto-correct and set white levels and how, in-turn, PS decides what auto-correcting 'needs' to be done.

I agree with you about the 1.2 nokton. It's rendering is absolutely beautiful. I just realllllly like the size of the smaller lens.
Click to expand...

Yes. Unfortunately one of the things we can't do as photographers, is getting the highest sharpness, the softest OOF, the fastest speed, and the smallest lens design in one single lens... All manufacturers would offer just one lens for every focal length then...

The only lens I'd like to own in my life, is the Nokton 1.2... When Leicashot sold his beautiful silver one recently, I was drooling like crazy, thinking what can I do to stop eating for a month! :D

I'm not trying to say I'd like to receive it as a gift from RFF members, please... And I'm not saying either, that the collect should include, apart from the black 1.2, a black paint M2... :p

Enjoy your magnificent lens!

Cheers,

Juan
 
The OOF of the 1.4 in the first two pics is interesting because I'v agonised over a smaller 35mm lens than my 1.2 for a while now. It's hard to describe the OOF of the 1.4 when comparing it to the 1.2 because it's certainly not bad but the difference is quite stark IMO.

The 1.2 has an absolutely linear progression from focused to OOF that reminds of the new ten grand Noct while the 1.4 seems to have this tendency to create something in the OOF areas that looks like the camera was jolted while taking the shot.

I've more or less decided that if I do get another compact 35mm lens it probably be the f2.5 Skopar ... to me it appears to have Summicron like qualities with a fraction less speed and a price that makes a total mockery of the Leica lens!
 
That 2.5 skopar has been praised lots of times, and compared to the summicron too... A wonderful option for street... Once Tom A. recommended me the first version for being very short and also having a tiny barrel. I haven't got it yet because I already have 28, 35 and 40 lenses, but as my only 35 is on my Hexar AF (amazing lens by the way), I guess I'll end up with one...

Cheers,

Juan
 
This is very interesting - thanks for taking the time to do it properly and posting it here! I have to admit I'm impressed with the f1.4 nokton, but the f1.2 is definitely a smoother lens, and the biogon definitely has something 'zeiss' about the way it does things. Can't say I'd pass up an f1.4 nokton for the price and size though....

Keith said:
I've more or less decided that if I do get another compact 35mm lens it probably be the f2.5 Skopar ... to me it appears to have Summicron like qualities with a fraction less speed and a price that makes a total mockery of the Leica lens!
Click to expand...

You won't be disappointed with the skopar. I'm convinced in a side-by-side test like this with a summicron you wouldn't see any difference between the two.
 
Last edited:
As much as I love the smoothness of the 1.2 and the pop of the Biogon, I'm left to wonder if I can really rationalize having three 35's. The compactness of the 1.4 makes it a real treat to use.

Here's a few more images to show how the 1.4 Nokton and the Biogon draw at f/5.6. I won't bother to include the big Nokton, because it's a little pointless to be using such a specialized lens at such a moderate aperature (it looks very fine, btw).

first the Nokton
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/jimfischer/5503499221/] 1.4 Nokton@5.6 by jamesfischer, on Flickr[/URL]

then the Biogon
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/jimfischer/5504109392/] Biogon@5.6 by jamesfischer, on Flickr[/URL]

Now 100% Crop
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/jimfischer/5504486310/] composite2 by jamesfischer, on Flickr[/URL]

The Biogon is still out-resolving the little Nokton, but not by much.
 
Last edited:
back alley said:
i wouldn't say the first was more harsh, maybe a bit more defined with added contrast but not many 'viewers' would ever pick that up.

the 35/1.2 has more glow to it's highlights and that is what turned me off to it.

i prefer the 35/1.4 for all round lens.
Click to expand...

This exactly what came to my mind 5 seconds ago. The 35/1.4 image has more definition while the 35/1.2 is "creamier".
 
background: i compared my nokton 1.4 and my biogon 2.0 before.

when looking at these pictures, i come to the conclusion, that the differences that we see here are about as small as the differences that you may find between different lenses of the same type.

i'll keep my biogon, that's for sure.

@keith:
the skopar is a great one (i should say "little big" one :) ). i used it on a bessa R2C, and was very pleased.

cheers,
s.
 
Nice comparison, Jim.

For me there are varying degrees of resolution vs. "smoothness" in your test pictures of 1.2 N, 1.4 N and Biogon, where the 1.2 is the softest and smoothest, the Biogon the sharpest and hardest, and the Nokton is somewhere in between. The trade-off seems obvious from your pictures.

Given that the 1.4 N is smaller than the Biogon and a full stop faster, I still prefer my 1.4 N.

Roland.
 
Last edited:
Makes me realize that the Nokton 1.4 is the best lens when thinking about price / size / speed.
 
I can see how you MAY get some idea about the sharpness from each lens in this test, but rendering? It's just one example - same light, same film, same background and same distance to the main subject and from the subject to background. I think it would be more representative to do different scenes in different conditions with each lens - I know more work to do this, but it would show a lot more what each lens renders like in comparison to one another. Just my opinion.
 
interesting comparison ! I suppose that you carefully applied the same amount of contrast/luminosity and sharpness to all frames when scanning / after scanning?

I had found the VC 35/1.2 quite weak too, not really usable under f/2, which is a shame for fast lens (you need a fast lens for good performance wide open primarily).
The 35/1.4 is a great lens for the money; I did not like it myself for personal reasons, but objectively it is a great, modern and capable lens in a tiny package. No real competition at its price mark. I lined it against my serviced & calibrated Leica 35mm/1.4 pre-asph, and despite I prefer the little summilux, the VC 35/14 is nothing short in terms of performance, for a M user doing street photo especially. And the VC is lighter and as small :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom