informal test: 35mm nokton vs 35mm nokton

[SimonSawSunlight]

my 1.2 nokton doesn't 'glow' that much at f1.4.

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).

I use it at f1.2-f2 a lot. no one complained so far. i do realise there is sample variation though. http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4124/5188205234_be4ef4e0d8_o.jpg kully took this with my 1.2/35 on his M8 (so it's 'magnified' even). look at the frames of the lady's glasses on the right, or at the table cloth. how is this not usable?

ps: I think this was at f1.2, but you'd have to ask kully to be certain.

 

[dfoo]

I had the nokton 1.4 at one point... it was soft at all apertures. Disappointing really.

 

[kully]

That was either f/1.4-f/1.7, Simon.

Hey Jim, looking at 100% crops is not great for deciding on a lens, unless that is how the lens will be used. I spent ages and ages doing just that. After a while it left me feeling sad and wondering what on earth I was doing.

I think it better to go and use those lenses as you would normally so you can see what look they have. The sharpness and rendering will depend on how they work on your camera with your hands, what you point the camera at and how you expose.

I don't have anything against lens comparisons and 100% crops, it is just a different, separate hobby to using a lens to take photos in the real world. A lens can be good for one and bad in the other.

Here are a couple more snaps taken with Simon's lens, both definitely at f/1.2, both handheld, they are both fine at A3 size.

Click through and you should be able to download the originals:

 

[SimonSawSunlight]

thanks kully

 

[uhoh7]

the 1.4 on aps-c

wide open iso 400 1/30

below one stop past f8--what ever that is 😉

 

[jazzwave]

Looking at 1.4 Nokton and Biogon. Biogon has more detail because has lower contrast than 1.4 Nokton.

Look at angel cloth, on 1.4 Nokton lose some detail on highlight area because high contrast.


It just my opinion..🙂

 

[N.delaRua]

Maybe there are some subtle subjective differences or to some eyes some major objective differences, but for the life of me I cannot really see THAT much difference at 100%. Furthermore, I would never make a print that large.

Test shots sometimes show glaring differences, but to me these do not. I know this is just for fun, but I really appreciate test shots of subjects like a "model" or building or something more interesting than a garden statue.

I mean no disrespect by that last comment as I know this was done for fun with some remaining shots, and I appreciate the effort. I just don't see differences that would justify the cost of anything above the 35 mm nokton f/1.4. The f/1.2 is a speciality lens, but I don't need the speed or size, and I don't have the money. The biogon is great, but again I can't afford it either.

What is most impressive or glaring from this test to me is how well the cheapest lens in the group performs. Just my 2 cents.