Lux logical upgrade to CV 40/1.4?

[akptc]

I like the speed and sharpness of the 40/1.4 Nokton but sometimes the oof rendition of point light sources makes the image less enjoyable to look at. If I want speed, sharpness, and smooth oof is Summilux my only or natural choice? And if so, which version? I hear the new ones are too sharp and lack personality but have not experienced them yet. I'd appreciate any feedback.

 

[peter_n]

I use a pre-ASPH Summilux and like it a lot. I have some color pictures taken with it here but nothing scanned. I believe flickr allows you to view shots by lens used so you should visit there and compare.

 

[Toby]

A good thing to do is to search flickr for summilux images to get a real broad spread of examples. I guess it's hard to hire these lenses so trying them that way is out unless you can find a dealer who would sell you one on 1 month's approval.

 

[kevin m]

I haven't shot the Nokton with point light sources in the frame yet, (it's off to have the stiff focus fixed) but I'm not seeing any "ugly" OOF areas so far.

For your consideration, I'm attaching a comparison shot between the 40mm SC Nokton and the 35 Aspherical Summilux. Both wide open, and near close focus. I should add that both images were handled the same. Fuji Pro 400, JPEG Noritsu scans, 50% sharpening (I did some local contrast work on the eyes in both pics, too. Vanity...🙂 )

 

[kevin m]

...and here's a shot with the Nokton directly into the sun. It's not flaring too badly in this example, especially for a single coated lens, but I'll check it out against interior point light sources when it comes back. 🙂

 

[hth]

I do not like the OOF area in the second one. Especially the lines between the bricks makes me feel almost sick.

I guess it is the Nokton? If it was the Summilux I would cross it from my very short list of things I lust for, saving a lot of money...
(But on the other hand, they are small jpegs so I could be an effect of that?)

/Håkan

For your consideration, I'm attaching a comparison shot between the 40mm SC Nokton and the 35 Aspherical Summilux. Both wide open, and near close focus. I should add that both images were handled the same. Fuji Pro 400, JPEG Noritsu scans, 50% sharpening (I did some local contrast work on the eyes in both pics, too. Vanity...🙂 )

 

[akptc]

Peter, Toby – thank you for the suggestion, taking a peak at flickr sounds like a good idea.

Kevin, was the picture on the right taken with the Nokton? If so, than I kind of have to agree with Hakan about the bricks, the look a bit off to my eyes.

Thanks everyone for the posts, I appreciate the feedback.

 

[Paul Connet]

I do not like the OOF area in the second one. Especially the lines between the bricks makes me feel almost sick.

I guess it is the Nokton? If it was the Summilux I would cross it from my very short list of things I lust for, saving a lot of money...
(But on the other hand, they are small jpegs so I could be an effect of that?)

/Håkan

OK, I'll bite - what exactly is it that you do not like about the OOF area in the second shot. You note the lines between the bricks, but that is not a brick wall. Looks more like some sort of composition shingle siding to me, and looks very normal for what it is. Please explain your thoughts.

I am struggling with the whole concept of good and bad OOF, so when I see a shot that has a nicely rendered sharp subject and something behind it a few feet away that is not in focus but looks pretty normal, I do not blame the lens. I might be inclined to dislike a photo if the background is just an ugly background or otherwise an unacceptable distraction from the subject, but again would probably not blame the lens.

Regards, Paul C.

 

[dreamsandart]

I'll say that if you are looking for a lens that has really beautiful and smooth 'bokeh' the pre-ASPH Summilux is your lens ( the 'smooth' means the gradual transition of focus, a nice effect in itself, the newer ASPH lenses in general have a sharp fall-off of focus/in-focus ). I call it my 'art lens' because it does what no other lens in 35mm format I've had can do. I have both this lens and the new ASPH, the still use and love the older lens for its image qualities and its compact size, also very well built ( once dropped one about 20 feet with only a bent hood to show for it ).

It does have its flare issues, sometimes adds to the atmosphere, sometimes not, but if I'm in those situations I take my chances or try to have the ASPH with me these days. The ASPH is a 'no hold back' lens; wide open, close-up, and in difficult light it always does it great, not quite as 'beautiful bokeh' as the pre-ASPH but still very nice, and of course at a price.

 

[back alley]

what about the cv 35/1.2?

 

[akptc]

When you say "pre-Aspherical" do you mean the very last version before aspherical?

 

[amateriat]

what about the cv 35/1.2?

What, indeed. I've been somewhat curious, off-and-on, about the big, fast Nokton's characteristics, mostly when wide-open. Can't recall if I've seen any shots taken with it here.

(Watching the Discovery shuttle launch online as I write this...)


- Barrett

 

[back alley]

todd had one for awhile and i think he has some posted shots in his gallery.
that's what made me think about it.

 

[amateriat]

(Hmm...T-minus nine minutes with a 15-minute hold...)

Anyway, much as I love lens speed, the only thing that makes me a tad leery about the Nokton is that it reminds me a bit of why I gave up my SLRs and their fat 'n fast lenses (of course, the two big zooms I had, which most digi-PJs carry now as standard-issue these days, were no faster than two of my three Konica RF primes, and slower than the third). But that lens still intrigues me...I could find some use for it, flying solo with it at night on of the HRFs, like I used to do with my Hexar AF when I had it. If I knew the Bokeh were just right with this Nokton...


- Barrett

 

[dreamsandart]

Haven't used one myself, hear they are great optically and for sure nicely priced, but just looked a one the other day at a shop and would have to think long about the size factor. Its not a compact lens, bigger than an ASPH Summilux by more than a bit and viewfinder blockage is getting on the high side.

 

[dreamsandart]

When you say "pre-Aspherical" do you mean the very last version before aspherical?

Yes, the pre-ASPH is the compact black anodized version with the plastic focus tab and hood that fits series 7 filter. If its an earlier chrome version its for a collector.

 

[amateriat]

(Lift-off...wow...)

Yep, I'd like to know just how much VF cutoff there is with this puppy...I can deal with a certain percentage, but this could break that threshold.


- Barrett

 

[kevin m]

The picture on the right is from the Nokton. Since this discussion isn't taking place in a vaccum, financial or otherwise, it must be noted that the Nokton is more than $3,000 less expensive than the lens that took the picture on the left.

I do see a subtle difference in the OOF areas, but certainly nothing too unpleasant. And those are cedar shingles, not bricks.

As I said earlier, when my Nokton comes back from DAG I'll do some shooting with point light sources in the frame wide open and see how it does. 🙂

 

[hth]

To me the lines do not seem to stand still. I do not know what kind of wall it is, but in this case I took a specific look at the images OOF areas. I might very well not have seen/experienced it if I was not looking and comparing.

Now I can almost not look at the image without having my eyes drawn to that wall.

It can very well not be present in a bigger picture. It might just be me, but I do not like the effect it is having on me, at all.

There are also a very big price difference between these lenses and I have seen the 40/1.4 perform in a wonderfully in many examples. I have however also seen some (few) bad examples from it.

I guess people just are different, some like to experiment with all kinds of B&W development, I just get bored trying to even think about it and just dunk it in for the recommended time in Rodinal. Some does not care much about OOF rendering at all (it was it is sharp that counts), while others can get disturbed by it, and I guess disturbed in different ways.

What you have as background naturally have a lot of influence on the OOF area. The lens have an effect of how it is rendered. I do not think it is a good thing to be too sensitive to it, as it can destroy the way you look at and enjoy pictures.

/Håkan

OK, I'll bite - what exactly is it that you do not like about the OOF area in the second shot. You note the lines between the bricks, but that is not a brick wall. Looks more like some sort of composition shingle siding to me, and looks very normal for what it is. Please explain your thoughts.

I am struggling with the whole concept of good and bad OOF, so when I see a shot that has a nicely rendered sharp subject and something behind it a few feet away that is not in focus but looks pretty normal, I do not blame the lens. I might be inclined to dislike a photo if the background is just an ugly background or otherwise an unacceptable distraction from the subject, but again would probably not blame the lens.

Regards, Paul C.

 

[back alley]

for 3 grand less that 40 is looking better all the time.

at my level of expertise and talent i could not justify the more expensive lens.
joe