ferider
Veteran
To my eyes, the Nokton draws very differently from the Summarit, at any f-stop, in particular wrt. distortion.
Great photos, Kristian. And sorry for the accident.
Roland.
Great photos, Kristian. And sorry for the accident.
Roland.
leicashot
Well-known
Thanks Roland. Unfortunately the cost of the accident has delayed my purchase of my next lens, but at least I and on one else was hurt.
gdi
Veteran
Just the typical attitude of many of his posts.
I think most of these are great shots, the Nokton and M9 seem to be a great combo.
LeicaFoReVer
Addicted to Rangefinders
I think all the photos you posted are inspiring.
so "meh" means I dont care? So why bother commenting? Just write which ones you liked. Trying to say something?
so "meh" means I dont care? So why bother commenting? Just write which ones you liked. Trying to say something?
typhillips
Established
Absolutely beautiful work, leicashot. If I could take photos that were 1/10th as good I'd be very happy. Kids are fun to shoot because they're typically so uninhibited.
------ begin shop talk -------
I think the lens looks great. I must say, however, that I continue to be unimpressed by the dynamic range of digital sensors, which for some reason (to my admittedly challenged eyes) seems to be much more obvious when converted to B&W. I mean, if the M9 can't handle those highlights, what camera can? Or maybe it's not so much the dynamic range, but the very straight curve.
Before everybody jumps all over me, though, I must say that it's not really a fair statement for me to make considering I don't know all of the conditions of exposure and post processing, not to mention the fact that I am a humble photo hobbyist. So take my comments with a grain of salt.
------ end shop talk --------
Either way, I love these shots and really enjoyed looking at them. Best of luck in your endeavours and very glad to hear you survived the accident.
------ begin shop talk -------
I think the lens looks great. I must say, however, that I continue to be unimpressed by the dynamic range of digital sensors, which for some reason (to my admittedly challenged eyes) seems to be much more obvious when converted to B&W. I mean, if the M9 can't handle those highlights, what camera can? Or maybe it's not so much the dynamic range, but the very straight curve.
Before everybody jumps all over me, though, I must say that it's not really a fair statement for me to make considering I don't know all of the conditions of exposure and post processing, not to mention the fact that I am a humble photo hobbyist. So take my comments with a grain of salt.
------ end shop talk --------
Either way, I love these shots and really enjoyed looking at them. Best of luck in your endeavours and very glad to hear you survived the accident.
thompsonks
Well-known
CA & fringeing
CA & fringeing
I too use a 35 1.2 Nokton in low light & find it an OK lens, but I can't chime in with unqualified praise. Perhaps the praise comes from those who don't shoot much color at wide apertures. In those areas it has noticeable problems with chromatic aberrations & with color friginging around specular highlights. It's also liable to pincushion distortion. You can work on this in Photoshop, but it adds to your post-processing. I'd rate it as a useful lens & a bargain, despite these noticeable flaws.
Kirk
CA & fringeing
I too use a 35 1.2 Nokton in low light & find it an OK lens, but I can't chime in with unqualified praise. Perhaps the praise comes from those who don't shoot much color at wide apertures. In those areas it has noticeable problems with chromatic aberrations & with color friginging around specular highlights. It's also liable to pincushion distortion. You can work on this in Photoshop, but it adds to your post-processing. I'd rate it as a useful lens & a bargain, despite these noticeable flaws.
Kirk
mathomas
Well-known
Well, I have to say that initially, I 'settled' for the Nokton over the Summilux ASPH due to financial reasons. I haven't owned this lens since It was first released some time ago, using it on my M6.
Since using it over the last few weeks I have come to adore it's qualities once again on digital full frame and would like to share some images I took today to help me get over a very bad ending to my day - car accident.
These were some extras on a set I was shooting on today. Very quick 5 sec setups, nothing special but I enjoyed shooting these kids. Nikon D3s in one hand, and of course the M9 in the other. Images taken from jpegs from camera set to vintage B+w and med-high contrast. Slight contrast added to images in PP, nothing else.
f/1.2
f/1.2
f/4
f/1.2
f/2
f1.2
f/1.2
f/1.2
f/1.2
These are all phenomenal, no "meh" about it. Maybe I'll have to try one of these lenses. Thanks for sharing...
Turtle
Veteran
K,
Yes, I'd be looking to use the cv 35 1.2 only when I knew I would likely need the low light capability. Examples would be when shooting inside buildings, low light documentary work etc. In those situations I can imagine I would be shooting mainly from wide open to F2.8 but also with the odd frame at f4 or 5.6.
I would not have an issue with the low contrast for low light work as it effectively allows you more film speed. I could rate the film 1/3 to a half stop faster and develop slightly longer to get a full range (assuming no very bright sources of light). In essence, I would probably treat the film as I do from my canon SLR lenses (which I rate 1/3-1/2 faster than I do with my ZM or modern leica lenses). Seeing as I normally shoot with one lens on one body for that sort of work it should not be any trouble.
To be honest I should have bought this lens 6 months ago. I waited for the new Leica with the assumption it would follow more in the vein of the new lux asphs (I figured this was a deliberate decision by Leica in response to digital sensors). I just cant justify $5K for a very high contrast lens with not so nice OOF.
This would leave me with a low light set up of: 24 lux, 35 Nokton and 85 1.2L II. I might also look at a CV 50 1.5 considering the price and unavailability of the 50 lux asph.
Yes, I'd be looking to use the cv 35 1.2 only when I knew I would likely need the low light capability. Examples would be when shooting inside buildings, low light documentary work etc. In those situations I can imagine I would be shooting mainly from wide open to F2.8 but also with the odd frame at f4 or 5.6.
I would not have an issue with the low contrast for low light work as it effectively allows you more film speed. I could rate the film 1/3 to a half stop faster and develop slightly longer to get a full range (assuming no very bright sources of light). In essence, I would probably treat the film as I do from my canon SLR lenses (which I rate 1/3-1/2 faster than I do with my ZM or modern leica lenses). Seeing as I normally shoot with one lens on one body for that sort of work it should not be any trouble.
To be honest I should have bought this lens 6 months ago. I waited for the new Leica with the assumption it would follow more in the vein of the new lux asphs (I figured this was a deliberate decision by Leica in response to digital sensors). I just cant justify $5K for a very high contrast lens with not so nice OOF.
This would leave me with a low light set up of: 24 lux, 35 Nokton and 85 1.2L II. I might also look at a CV 50 1.5 considering the price and unavailability of the 50 lux asph.
jamato8
Corroding tank M9 35 ASPH
I often see shots I just don't like (including very often my own) and unless pressed, say nothing (except for my own). I only write this because I like what you have shot here. I just plain enjoy looking at them.
ederek
Well-known
leicashot - glad you are ok, and very nice images. Adding the 100% crops really helps with our low-rez web display here, and are great to see. I like the highly exposed look in this case, especially with the subjects, and agree with Helen that as a series, they really come together (such as the frame with the kite). Glad you could squeeze in a bit of fun on a work assignment!!
Nikkor AIS
Nikkor AIS
Very nice images. Thanks for sharing. I would love to see more from you using this combo. The B+W conversion is spot on.
Last edited:
Alnitak
Established
Nice series of images. The Nokton is a great lens, although I felt it needed a good bit of post-processing to get the results I wanted on my M8 and M9. In the end, I got rid of it because it was so big. The 35mm f/1.4 Nokton is nearly as good in a very compact package.
leicashot
Well-known
I agree, those are the two major downsides, especially for my style of photography. I do have to add a decent amount of contrast back into the image, and the size is an issue, but considering I don't have any other lenses right now, and I shoot a D3s on a daily basis, I can live with it's size, for now because the quality is certainly there.
LightBender
Member
I like #2, if you care. Agreed, the highlights are blown but, shooting my Niyha in this lighting would be impossible. I think you made a good choice of development. Highlights or midtones; pick one. Its just the way it is.
eleskin
Well-known
Great photos with a great eye and lens!
Great photos with a great eye and lens!
I have very high regard for the images posted here. Once in awhile, we are treated to what an M is really designed for. Often we see many beautiful photos taken with digital M,s, but here the human subject immersed in the local traditions and culture shines especially well. I am sure any other camera would have been fine in that the photographer's vision is what it is no matter what. I am thrilled the 35mm Nokton showed what it can really do with a digital M. I have this lens and I belive it may be the finest value of any 35mm lens ever made (I tested my 35mm Summicron V 4 wide open with the M9 and I swear the 35mm Nokton on my M8 has better bokeh and sharpness in the area of focus). Back to the photos: Fantastic results with well chosen camera and lens!
Great photos with a great eye and lens!
I have very high regard for the images posted here. Once in awhile, we are treated to what an M is really designed for. Often we see many beautiful photos taken with digital M,s, but here the human subject immersed in the local traditions and culture shines especially well. I am sure any other camera would have been fine in that the photographer's vision is what it is no matter what. I am thrilled the 35mm Nokton showed what it can really do with a digital M. I have this lens and I belive it may be the finest value of any 35mm lens ever made (I tested my 35mm Summicron V 4 wide open with the M9 and I swear the 35mm Nokton on my M8 has better bokeh and sharpness in the area of focus). Back to the photos: Fantastic results with well chosen camera and lens!
RedLion
Come to the Faire
Just got my VC 35mm F1.2 !
Just got my VC 35mm F1.2 !
Using it on my M8.2.
It takes great pictures (though contrast seems a tad low at 1.2), focuses accurately wide open, etc... and it's not really all that big...
HOWEVER, it weighs a ton!
Joe
Just got my VC 35mm F1.2 !
Using it on my M8.2.
It takes great pictures (though contrast seems a tad low at 1.2), focuses accurately wide open, etc... and it's not really all that big...
HOWEVER, it weighs a ton!
Joe
DubilUC
Member
Its not so much the dynamic range per se. The digital sensors are pretty good these days. Maybe not as much as the best black and white films, but certainly have more than your average slide film!
The problem, as you hinted at is the straight curve - digital cameras have a linear response, whereas film has a 'S' shaped logarithmic response. Which means film handles overexposure much more gracefully. The highlights compress and bloom out in a very natural way. The compression retains a sense of detail in the highlights which is completely and abruptly lost in digital once you reach the 'clipping point'. This is why the technically 'correct' aethestic in digital capture (whether it be audio or visual) is to avoid clipping at all costs. Especially because digitals' linear response means it handles underexposure rather more gracefully. This is not to say the aesthetics can't be challenged with one's 'artistic prerogative'. The the old days of film, they hated grain and tried to minimise it at all costs, yet we have learned to love it now. Thats what artists are for, after all! To find the beauty in the ugly, the mundane, the accidents, and the not-so-accidental accidents
f/4
Quite nice...
viramati
Established
I would agree pretty much with this when it come to shooting in colour. I had been thinking of getting one of these but was really disappointed by the amount of chromatic aberration & colour fringing. Obviously this is not a problem with B&W
leicashot
Well-known
I also think that people are being overly harsh on this lens. It's a 35/1.2 for $899. It's a low contrast lens designed for low light. It's not the same as the 35 Biogon-C designed for daylight color uses...and it certainly not an all-rounder like the 35 Lux ASPH at $5k.
People can pixel peep the images all they like, but it's designed for low light use and that's where it shines. It also happens to be an incredible lens from f/2-4, equalling the Biogon-C in sharpness. I owned the two together and know exactly how they work, almost as opposites, but great at what they do, value or not.