fixbones
.......sometimes i thinks
Hi there,
I have been reading very conflicting reviews here and there. Most users seems to think that this is a high contrast lens but Reid's reviews seems to say otherwise (with valid comparisons)
From the many picture examples that i have seen, i would think this lens is high contrast but i may be wrong.
Anybody ever done a side by side comparison between the Nokton Classic 35mm f1.4 SC and the 35mm f/2.5 Color Skopar (Color or B & W). Should be interesting to see.....
What do you guys think?
I have been reading very conflicting reviews here and there. Most users seems to think that this is a high contrast lens but Reid's reviews seems to say otherwise (with valid comparisons)
From the many picture examples that i have seen, i would think this lens is high contrast but i may be wrong.
Anybody ever done a side by side comparison between the Nokton Classic 35mm f1.4 SC and the 35mm f/2.5 Color Skopar (Color or B & W). Should be interesting to see.....
What do you guys think?
Rogrund
Antti Sivén
I haven't done a comparison, but I would say the 35/2.5 is high contrast. Most users seem to agree. I have the LTM version and it's my favorite lens on my M2.
fixbones
.......sometimes i thinks
Hey Antti,
That is actually my planned setup. Looking to purchase an M2 and also a silver 35mm f2.5.
I shoot quite a bit of B & W and was wondering what the opinion is re the contrast
That is actually my planned setup. Looking to purchase an M2 and also a silver 35mm f2.5.
I shoot quite a bit of B & W and was wondering what the opinion is re the contrast
oscroft
Veteran
Hmm, I have both, but I haven't done a direct comparison - in fact, I've only used the Nokton for B&W and I think I've only used the Skopar for colour.
I might do a comparison this weekend - I want to go out and I've been wondering what kit to go shooting with. If I do it it'll be B&W, so I can dev it quickly - either APX 100 or ERA 100, both of which give beautiful tonality.
But back to the contrast question, yes, I have the Skopars down as high-contrast lenses.
Cheers,
Alan
pvdhaar
Peter
To me, the 35/2.5 Color Skopar comes across as a high contrast lens, a trait it shares with the 25/4 Snapshot Skopar. They've got remarkably similar rendering on color film.
What may be the cause of the different views is that the Skopars have respectable contrast already wide open, but that stopping down doesn't change a lot anymore. There are other lenses that are softer at big apertures but get more bite at smaller ones, possibly overtaking the Skopars at that point..
What may be the cause of the different views is that the Skopars have respectable contrast already wide open, but that stopping down doesn't change a lot anymore. There are other lenses that are softer at big apertures but get more bite at smaller ones, possibly overtaking the Skopars at that point..
wallace
Well-known
My Skopar gives higher contrast than my 35/2.0 Canon.
wallace
wallace
oscroft
Veteran
I did some direct comparison shots this weekend with 35/1.4 and 35/2.5, on ERA 100 and developed in HC-110.
They're hanging up to dry now - should get them scanned within the next day or two.
Cheers,
They're hanging up to dry now - should get them scanned within the next day or two.
Cheers,
fixbones
.......sometimes i thinks
Would be very interested to see the comparisons!!!
Can't wait
Can't wait
oscroft
Veteran
OK, I've put two sets of photos up on Flickr...
CV 35/2.5 Skopar
CV 35/1.4 Nokton SC
I've put them in two sets to make them easier to compare in two browser windows.
I shot the same scenes with each lens, at the same aperture (but I didn't note the apertures - they were variously between f/4 and f/8). For each shot, I've shown the full frame and a selected close-up.
I wasn't really surprised to see that the Skopar gives more contrast and sharpness - it's a very well corrected lens. But it is quite nice to see that the Nokton isn't very far behind.
Hope this is of some interest.
Cheers,
CV 35/2.5 Skopar
CV 35/1.4 Nokton SC
I've put them in two sets to make them easier to compare in two browser windows.
I shot the same scenes with each lens, at the same aperture (but I didn't note the apertures - they were variously between f/4 and f/8). For each shot, I've shown the full frame and a selected close-up.
I wasn't really surprised to see that the Skopar gives more contrast and sharpness - it's a very well corrected lens. But it is quite nice to see that the Nokton isn't very far behind.
Hope this is of some interest.
Cheers,
funkaoshi
Well-known
That lens was the first lens I bought for my M-Mount cameras. It's crazy sharp and pretty high-contrast. I ended up selling it when I bought the Ultron f/1.7.
marduk
Well-known
Thanks! However the caption of first set should be fixed: 35/1.5 should be 35/2.5.
maddoc
... likes film again.
From memory, high contrast lens. Not something that I would prefer for BW anymore. For color-slides, especially Provia, it was OK though.
oscroft
Veteran
Thanks, I've fixed it.
Graham Line
Well-known
Oscroft's set shows pretty strong contrast. Using NPS 160, Delta 400 and XP2 Super, which are lower contrast films, I get very satisfactory results.
The results seem vary comparable to the VC 28/3.5 and the 50/2.5, so I wouldn't say the 35/2.5 is abnormally contrasty. It's easy to control.
The results seem vary comparable to the VC 28/3.5 and the 50/2.5, so I wouldn't say the 35/2.5 is abnormally contrasty. It's easy to control.
Sparrow
Veteran
The clue is in the name, Colour Skopar, it has a enough contrast to put a good looking neg on a colour neg film.
ferider
Veteran
Thanks for that Alan. It might just mean that f/4 on the Color Skopar and f/4 on the Nokton are slightly different things.
If you find the Color Skopar too contrasty, expose half a stop more
Love my Nokton SC, BTW.
Cheers,
Roland.
david.elliott
Well-known
Plenty of photos in the 35/2.5 photo sharing thread I started some time back. Just fyi.
Turtle
Veteran
Have a peek at this: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=75898
It is moderately high contrast, but not Zeiss ZM/Leica 28 elmarit asph/50 Lux asph contrasty in my experience. Its contrast is on the heels of the 35 f 2 biogon but aprpeciably behind the 21/25 2.8 ZMs. It has a hair but not much less contrast than my f2 biogon (side by side test) but more than a 35 summaron 2.8 for example.
I feel I am always waffling on about this, but there is nothing (nothing) harsh about a high contrast lens with appropriate exposure and development for B&W. With modern lenses there tends to be higher resolution, more shadow contrast etc (again, E, D&P dependent), less veiling flare and fewer other 'imperfections' so you get a 'cleaner image'. Contrast can be adjusted for in processing assuming you can control the process. Where you hav an issue is shooting high and low contrast lenses together on the same film.
Many, but not all people, who slam high high contrast lenses for their awful pictoral qualities are getting them developed at a lab and either having machine prints done or trying to scan dense negs.
IMHO, from testing and now shooting in earnest, the little skopar (mine is the pancake) is a cracking performer with decent bokeh (unlike some third hand rumours backed up by awful jpegs plucked from the web with no clue as to postprocessing etc). The ZMs have lovely, smooth and gentle pictiral qualities if exposed and developed appropriately and the skopar is the same. However, I would say that in contrast terms,as a complete guess because I dont have one, the contrast looks about the same as a V4 cron a couple of stops down ie more than a summaron 2.8 (which I have) but a touch less than a 35 biogon f2.
It is moderately high contrast, but not Zeiss ZM/Leica 28 elmarit asph/50 Lux asph contrasty in my experience. Its contrast is on the heels of the 35 f 2 biogon but aprpeciably behind the 21/25 2.8 ZMs. It has a hair but not much less contrast than my f2 biogon (side by side test) but more than a 35 summaron 2.8 for example.
I feel I am always waffling on about this, but there is nothing (nothing) harsh about a high contrast lens with appropriate exposure and development for B&W. With modern lenses there tends to be higher resolution, more shadow contrast etc (again, E, D&P dependent), less veiling flare and fewer other 'imperfections' so you get a 'cleaner image'. Contrast can be adjusted for in processing assuming you can control the process. Where you hav an issue is shooting high and low contrast lenses together on the same film.
Many, but not all people, who slam high high contrast lenses for their awful pictoral qualities are getting them developed at a lab and either having machine prints done or trying to scan dense negs.
IMHO, from testing and now shooting in earnest, the little skopar (mine is the pancake) is a cracking performer with decent bokeh (unlike some third hand rumours backed up by awful jpegs plucked from the web with no clue as to postprocessing etc). The ZMs have lovely, smooth and gentle pictiral qualities if exposed and developed appropriately and the skopar is the same. However, I would say that in contrast terms,as a complete guess because I dont have one, the contrast looks about the same as a V4 cron a couple of stops down ie more than a summaron 2.8 (which I have) but a touch less than a 35 biogon f2.
Turtle
Veteran
Ferider,
Smack on! Thank goodness someone else is saying it. Taking a Mono centric perspective, if your B&W negs are too contrasty with the skopar, drop film speed by 1/3 to 1/2 stop and reduce development and.... Hey presto, nicely balanced negs! Not easy if you are shooting with an old 50 elmar on the same roll tho. Yuu'd need grade 10 for the elmar prints! Digital is a completely different matter and I would not be using ZMs or Leica asphs much for the reasons of dynamic range etc
FWIW and this is not meant as an attempt to brag, but I have of course been getting my workflow right for me and in my MPs I typically rate films as follows for Xtol 1+2:
FP4+/D100 (64-80, depending on scene contrast but in dead flat light, 100)
Neopan 400 (250-320, flat light 400)
Foma 100 (50-64)
Foma 200 (64-80)
etc
My speeds are lower than some Leica users and it is probably because I use contrasty ZMs.. bearing in mind dilute Xtol gives full speed. Shooting with the summaron, I would increase film speed by 1/2 stop straight off the bat!
I took a bunch of negs to a well known UK printer recently and chatted with him about my negs as I wanted to dial in for what he wants (I am stopping printing for project work). His response was that my negs were smack in the middle of the small band that allows for the best prints in the darkroom (which he is far better at than I am). I also develop for longer than the manufacturer's times in many cases. He again, though development was just as he likes it.
The point that I am laboriously making is that some very vocal users forget to mention that they scan with a scanner with poor Dmax or use an insanely high contrast condensor enlarger with collimated light source and so use incredibly short dev times and expose conservatively to get the finest grain possible with a whiff of shadows that they can play with in PS. For them, ZMs, Skopars etc are often no-nos as they can produce hot highlights for such a workflow and neg shadows drop out under their minimal exposure and devt approach, but for the darkroom user with a diffuser, the ZMs and Skopars are just fine. Better still, you dont have to go hunting at the top end of the contrast range with negs shot on a dull day. I have not printed at less than G2.5 in three years using ZMs.
Smack on! Thank goodness someone else is saying it. Taking a Mono centric perspective, if your B&W negs are too contrasty with the skopar, drop film speed by 1/3 to 1/2 stop and reduce development and.... Hey presto, nicely balanced negs! Not easy if you are shooting with an old 50 elmar on the same roll tho. Yuu'd need grade 10 for the elmar prints! Digital is a completely different matter and I would not be using ZMs or Leica asphs much for the reasons of dynamic range etc
FWIW and this is not meant as an attempt to brag, but I have of course been getting my workflow right for me and in my MPs I typically rate films as follows for Xtol 1+2:
FP4+/D100 (64-80, depending on scene contrast but in dead flat light, 100)
Neopan 400 (250-320, flat light 400)
Foma 100 (50-64)
Foma 200 (64-80)
etc
My speeds are lower than some Leica users and it is probably because I use contrasty ZMs.. bearing in mind dilute Xtol gives full speed. Shooting with the summaron, I would increase film speed by 1/2 stop straight off the bat!
I took a bunch of negs to a well known UK printer recently and chatted with him about my negs as I wanted to dial in for what he wants (I am stopping printing for project work). His response was that my negs were smack in the middle of the small band that allows for the best prints in the darkroom (which he is far better at than I am). I also develop for longer than the manufacturer's times in many cases. He again, though development was just as he likes it.
The point that I am laboriously making is that some very vocal users forget to mention that they scan with a scanner with poor Dmax or use an insanely high contrast condensor enlarger with collimated light source and so use incredibly short dev times and expose conservatively to get the finest grain possible with a whiff of shadows that they can play with in PS. For them, ZMs, Skopars etc are often no-nos as they can produce hot highlights for such a workflow and neg shadows drop out under their minimal exposure and devt approach, but for the darkroom user with a diffuser, the ZMs and Skopars are just fine. Better still, you dont have to go hunting at the top end of the contrast range with negs shot on a dull day. I have not printed at less than G2.5 in three years using ZMs.