More 'versus' : 50 Nokton, DR Summicron

[Takkun]

My background information:
I shoot lots of low-light, and lots of Delta 3200. It's an addiction.

My kit currently consists of a Bessa R3a and 35 f/2.5 lens. Decent lens, but I'm probably replacing it with the 40 Nokton.

To go along with it, I'm planning to build a three-lens kit: 40, 50, and 75 (or maybe a 90 if I can find an affordable one.

Anyway, the 50 is what I'm waffling on. One side of me wants a brand new, fast and contrasty lens, because that's part of my style. Nokton fits that perfectly.
On the other hand, I've got an opportunity to pick up a Dual-Range summicron, minus goggles, for a good price. The downside here is it's chrome (as an artist, I'm big on aesthetics , and a stop slower. I want that extra stop, but I'm not sure I'm willing to give up that creamy bokeh.
From what I understand, the Nokton's bad bokeh comes out when provoked, ie, with high-contrast, distant backgrounds with point light sources. Well, bingo, that's what's in most of my photos.

So I'm at a quandry here. Anybody care to chime in on it?
I should note that both of these are in my budget, and no more. I have researched my options and these are really the only two 50mm lenses I'm interested in. So it comes down to that 'Leica look' or speed.

 

[furcafe]

It's obviously your call & boke quality is very subjective, but I've never had a problem w/the CV 50/1.5 Nokton's boke, as it's really no worse (IMHO) than my other fast Leica-compatible 50s (& I have a lot of them). Bad, distracting backgrounds w/point light sources are bad, distracting backgrounds, period, & a lens can only do so much (kind of like dealing w/crappy red gels when you're shooting color).

More to the point, I also do shoot a lot of available darkness (only Neopan 1600 is my film of choice) & back when I was in the position you seem to be in (limited lens budget) the extra stop was far, far more useful to me than any boke considerations. You can always stop down a fast lens, but you can't make a slow lens faster. My only complaints about the CV 50 Nokton are ergonomic--it's a fat lens (but lightweight), which can be a problem if you have to pack a body + lens into a small bag & it blocks a lot of the VF when mounted on an old "Barnack" thread mount Leica, & the aperture ring on mine is a little loose for my taste. Otherwise, I think it's a great value, particularly when bought used.

That said, that particular version of the 50 Summicron is a classic (fine lens but overrated in my experience) & is worth owning once in your life if only to get it out of your system.

I noticed that you wrote that you're only considering these 2 lenses, but I would seriously recommend that you consider the Canon RF 50/1.4: it's well within your budget & is kind of a compromise between modern & old-school optics.

My background information:
I shoot lots of low-light, and lots of Delta 3200. It's an addiction.

My kit currently consists of a Bessa R3a and 35 f/2.5 lens. Decent lens, but I'm probably replacing it with the 40 Nokton.

To go along with it, I'm planning to build a three-lens kit: 40, 50, and 75 (or maybe a 90 if I can find an affordable one.

Anyway, the 50 is what I'm waffling on. One side of me wants a brand new, fast and contrasty lens, because that's part of my style. Nokton fits that perfectly.
On the other hand, I've got an opportunity to pick up a Dual-Range summicron, minus goggles, for a good price. The downside here is it's chrome (as an artist, I'm big on aesthetics , and a stop slower. I want that extra stop, but I'm not sure I'm willing to give up that creamy bokeh.
From what I understand, the Nokton's bad bokeh comes out when provoked, ie, with high-contrast, distant backgrounds with point light sources. Well, bingo, that's what's in most of my photos.

So I'm at a quandry here. Anybody care to chime in on it?

 

[elude]

Hi,
I have owned both these lenses.

Since the Nokton is really low contrast, with poor definition at F/1.5, i would not recommend it, unless you're not crazy about enlargments, I guess for 20x30cm it's still okay. About the "bokeh", my heart goes to the Summicron; it's really creamy at F/2.0. Not that the nokton has an ugly render, but I have found that the Leica has character when the Nokton is insipid. I miss my Summicron, I don't miss my Nokton at all.

By the way, I find it weird to carry a 40 and a 50, they are quite close.

 

[Takkun]

It's obviously your call & boke quality is very subjective, but I've never had a problem w/the CV 50/1.5 Nokton's boke, as it's really no worse (IMHO) than my other fast Leica-compatible 50s (& I have a lot of them). Bad, distracting backgrounds w/point light sources are bad, distracting backgrounds, period, & a lens can only do so much (kind of like dealing w/crappy red gels when you're shooting color).

More to the point, I also do shoot a lot of available darkness (only Neopan 1600 is my film of choice) & back when I was in the position you seem to be in (limited lens budget) the extra stop was far, far more useful to me than any boke considerations. You can always stop down a fast lens, but you can't make a slow lens faster. My only complaints about the CV 50 Nokton are ergonomic--it's a fat lens (but lightweight), which can be a problem if you have to pack a body + lens into a small bag & it blocks a lot of the VF when mounted on an old "Barnack" thread mount Leica, & the aperture ring on mine is a little loose for my taste. Otherwise, I think it's a great value, particularly when bought used.

That said, that particular version of the 50 Summicron is a classic (fine lens but overrated in my experience) & is worth owning once in your life if only to get it out of your system.

I completely understand what you're saying on backgrounds! a lot of what I shoot is outside, and I shoot wide open to try and get rid of streetlights, windows, skyline, etc. I agree: I DON'T like using OOF highlights as a part of the photograph becaus they're distracting.
I've seen lots of good stuff from the Nokton. But I've seen lots of bad things. Of course, a lot of these 'lens tests' are people trying to aggravate it, which i don't think I'd really do with my photography.
I'll have to look around for a used one, then. I'd feel better about owning two 50s if I hadn't spent that much on them.

 

[Sparrow]

Hi,
I have owned both these lenses.

Since the Nokton is really low contrast, with poor definition at F/1.5, i would not recommend it, unless you're not crazy about enlargments, I guess for 20x30cm it's still okay. About the "bokeh", my heart goes to the Summicron; it's really creamy at F/2.0. Not that the nokton has an ugly render, but I have found that the Leica has character when the Nokton is insipid. I miss my Summicron, I don't miss my Nokton at all.

By the way, I find it weird to carry a 40 and a 50, they are quite close.

Surely you jest? That or you really need to get that Nokton fixed

 

[ferider]

I've used both and actually find them very comparable optically, at f2. Color, contrast, OOF, etc.

Even the great/"creamy" bokeh lenses can be provoked to show "bad" background. Also note that people complain more often about the 40 than the 50 Nokton. Even the 40 complaints are highly exagerated, IMO. Maybe you misread ?

I do advise to choose depending on ergonomics. The Nokton is big and lightly built. The black version brasses quickly. The DR Summicron is very well built - but many have significant coating defects, reducing contrast.

Maybe you want to get a 40, skip the 50 entirely, and save the money towards a good 75 ? The Bessa R3a is really, really nice to use with a 75.

Best,

Roland.

 

[Takkun]

I'm considering heading over to Calumet in Cambridge or, if worst, plan a day trip down to Manhattan to play around with some of these!
I never thought about how close the 40 and 50 are. I got the R3 because of the bigger finder for longer lenses...50s and 75s are my sort of thing (though I love shooting with a 40mm for medium format). I wanted a wideangle lens that I had framelines for and I feel strangely uncertain with the 35...

 

[x-ray]

Hi,
I have owned both these lenses.

Since the Nokton is really low contrast, with poor definition at F/1.5, i would not recommend it, unless you're not crazy about enlargments, I guess for 20x30cm it's still okay. About the "bokeh", my heart goes to the Summicron; it's really creamy at F/2.0. Not that the nokton has an ugly render, but I have found that the Leica has character when the Nokton is insipid. I miss my Summicron, I don't miss my Nokton at all.

By the way, I find it weird to carry a 40 and a 50, they are quite close.

I have to completely disagree. I've shot both these lenses and a load of others. My Leica experience goes back many years and I've shot under just about the worst possible conditions on earth. I currently have a Nokton, asph Summilux and Planar. I shot Summicrons for about thirty eight years and a 50 1.2 Noctilux for many. My first summicron was in 1968 and was a standard rigid which I traded for a DR version and then in the 70's a black Wetzlar. Later I purchased the tabbed version and sold it about three years ago. Notice I say I shot not I shoot Summicrons. Although the summicron is good it's not in the class with the Nokton, Planar or ASPH Summilux. Many folks like the Summicron and it is a fine lens but it is a very old design and quite prone to flare when light sources are in or near the edge of the frame. It's OK wide open but not super. No question it's a really good lens but time has given us better lenses. I now interchange between the Nokton, asph Summilux and Planar with the Planar being the hands down favorite. The differences in the three are slight with the Nokton being a very close contender with the asph summilux. At full wide aperture the Nokton is a stellar performer with the asph Summilux being only slightly better. The resolution is excellent out to the edges and the contrast is very good with very well controlled flare. Contrast is high as is resolution and by 2/2.8 it's on par with the summilux. The differences in the asph summilux and the Nokton are so slight I've thought of selling the asph and may one day when the prices go back up. I will also say that I've found the mechanical construction of many of the new Leica lenses to be rather shoddy compared to even CV lenses.

Don't know if you have a bad lens or just having problems with technique.

 

[ferider]

I'm considering heading over to Calumet in Cambridge or, if worst, plan a day trip down to Manhattan to play around with some of these!
I never thought about how close the 40 and 50 are. I got the R3 because of the bigger finder for longer lenses...50s and 75s are my sort of thing (though I love shooting with a 40mm for medium format). I wanted a wideangle lens that I had framelines for and I feel strangely uncertain with the 35...

Sounds like a good plan.

Much really boils down to handling those lenses, which is the only reason why I got rid of the 50 Nokton.

When you are there, also try the next version of the Summicron ("rigid II", or "v3", typically has a serial # starting with 2 Mio). It's quite affordable, usually, very small, and is really nice in contrast and resolution. And focuses down to .7m. ..... And it's black (!) Then there are 50/2 Planar and M-Hexanon, both stellar performers, too.

Good luck !

Roland.

 

[furcafe]

Exactly. Maybe the difference is that I've seen (& taken) a lot of bad photos w/the DR Summicron (when I had one--I sold it to Mitch Alland, malland on this forum, years ago), too!

If you decide on the Nokton, I can always loan/sell you mine, as I have way too many 50mm lenses. It's chrome, BTW, so your aesthetic sensibilities won't be offended by any obvious wear marks, etc.

I've seen lots of good stuff from the Nokton. But I've seen lots of bad things. Of course, a lot of these 'lens tests' are people trying to aggravate it, which i don't think I'd really do with my photography.
I'll have to look around for a used one, then. I'd feel better about owning two 50s if I hadn't spent that much on them.

 

[Takkun]

The more I look, the more I like..
Definitely digging the Summicron. It's really got that look to it that reminds me (oddly) of the Zeiss Planar 50 I had for a Contax RTS that I miss dearly.
I suppose in the case of my purchase of a DR Summicron, a later 40mm would suffice both as a slightly wide lens and a super-fast lens.

As for the other suggested options:
I could not find an M-mount Planar for under $700; likewise with the third-generation Summicron. Oh well.
I once read that the key to affording Leica gear is patience. lots of it.

(as a side note, I'm officially a starving artist: I spent the last of this month's budget on film and my R3a. Old Bessa R's cranks snapped. pity.)

 

[Benjamin Marks]

I was going to echo the sentiment above that 40-50-75 is a pretty narrow range; but let's assume you know what you want. If you are officially a starving artist, I would go for a 40-C Summicron, a 1960's era 50 DR or rigid, and a used C/V 75. You could get great examples of these lenses for well under a $1000 US for the lot. The 40 Summicron, originally made for the CL, is the best value in M-mount glass these days, in my opinion.

Now if it was me, I'd get one lens from each of the following three groups: 21-24-28
35-40-50 and 75-90-105 -- I think things get really interesting when you approximately double the focal length in between lens choices. But horses for courses -- I happen to have really liked all the 50 Summicrons that I have owned -- not a bad lens among them, IMHO.

Ben Marks

 

[ferider]

Since you are a starving artist, skip the 50 and just get the 40 Summicron-C (or its cousing, the 40/2 Rokkor) and the 75/2.5 Heliar. Really good lenses and great paired up. And the "Leica bokeh king look".

Cheers,

Roland.

 

[chris00nj]

Let me chime in as I own both lenses. Simply put: I prefer the Nokton for color and the Summicron for black and white.

I've never been one to buy into the opinion that the Nokton has crappy bokeh, but for black and white, I prefer the Summicron. I can't put my finger on why. Here's an example of the Nokton with Delta 3200. I normally prefer Tri-X for B&W, so I don't have any examples of the Summicron.

The Summicron is smaller and is magnficiently made. The Nokton is made quite nicely, but I don't think anything can match the feel and quality of the 1960s Leica gear.

With 3200 speed film, the extra stop shouldn't matter too much.

 

[Sparrow]

Let me chime in as I own both lenses. Simply put: I prefer the Nokton for color and the Summicron for black and white.

I've never been one to buy into the opinion that the Nokton has crappy bokeh, but for black and white, I prefer the Summicron. I can't put my finger on why. Here's an example of the Nokton with Delta 3200. I normally prefer Tri-X for B&W, so I don't have any examples of the Summicron.

The Summicron is smaller and is magnficiently made. The Nokton is made quite nicely, but I don't think anything can match the feel and quality of the 1960s Leica gear.

With 3200 speed film, the extra stop shouldn't matter too much.

there you go

ps that is the ridged not the DR if that matters

 

[Takkun]

I'm waffling a bit on the 40/50 debate. It's hard...I like the 40 Nokton, but I've already got a 35 Skopar. that's wide enough 90% of the time when I'm shooting with a rangefinder. I guess I just really like the coverage of 50mm. It'll be the 'one' lens for me for a while, methinks.
I just got back from photographing at Harvard Square and figure, yeah, with 3200 that extra stop probably isn't necessary.
Benjamin: I agree with the doubling thing. Sometimes, with my Nikon, I'll carry my Tamron 17-35 and Nikkor 80-200. two totally different lenses and it helps me see things differently. I think a 90 might be a better fit for me than a 75. As the old saying goes, zoom with your feet. (possible 21)-35-50-90 makes more sense for a future kit.
Chris00nj: I looked around on your Flickr and found the Nokton group. most of what i'm seeing there I like. I suppose at this point my fears of the Nokton have been quashed and now it's a matter of just being able to play with the lenses some.

 

[Takkun]

unfortunately, the 40's got me thinking now.
Terrible, absolutely terrible!
I'm thinking go for it and skip a 50, or keep the 35 and get a 50.
decisions, decisions!