WJJ3
Well-known
Overflowing with great options might be a better way to describe their VM lens lineup.
I think it’s reasonable to expect they could still develop and release a high spec 35mm f1.4 with floating elements. The update to the 35mm f1.2 appears to be them carrying advanced designs they developed for the 40mm and 50mm f1.2s over to the 9 year old 35mm f1.2 V2, rather than an all new lens. If recent patterns are any indication, they will release the E mount 50mm f2 APO Lanthar in VM mount soon, and if we are lucky, an all new high spec 35mm f1.4 that is smaller than the ZM Distagon, and a fraction of the price of the 35mm f1.4 Summilux FLE within a year or two...
Archiver
Veteran
Very interesting announcement. Was the V2 better than the V1 wide open? I use the V1 a fair bit, but find the soft glow at f1.2 a bit annoying sometimes, especially when the recent 40mm and 50mm f1.2 lenses seem to be very sharp and not glowy. Will the V3 be more like the new 40 and 50 in this regard?
It's a real shame that the Ultron 35/1.7 M is discontinued. I'm a huge fan of the LTM version and would love to try out the later M version. Do they intend to replace it with something else, or is Cosina trimming their lines?
It's a real shame that the Ultron 35/1.7 M is discontinued. I'm a huge fan of the LTM version and would love to try out the later M version. Do they intend to replace it with something else, or is Cosina trimming their lines?
derekuu2
Newbie
I'm guessing the 35mm 1.7 Ultron was replaced with the new smaller F2 Ultron.
If the sharpness and rendering of this lens is good, Voigtlander did a great job with this lens. Biggest complaint of the old one was the size/weight.
Archiver
Veteran
I'm tossing up whether to shoot at a wedding tomorrow with the f1.2 v1 or the f1.4 MC. I somewhat prefer the rendering of the v1, but definitely prefer the lighter weight of the f1.4. I've just messed up the focus of my f1.7 LTM by attempting to tighten the loose aperture ring, so I'm back to the f1.2 and f1.4 now.
bchalifour
Newbie
I just got my new Voigtlander/Cosina 35 mm Nokton f 1.2 version III from cameraquest.com, 24 hrs after ordering it ($ 1,050). I already had the version II. This new one is a real improvement: shorter (which means better clearance in the viewfinder), lighter, new lens design (9 elements in 7 groups instead of 10 elements in 7 groups int version II). Now how does it perform? To make a long answer short, better. The new optical design allows for better sharpness at wide apertures (f 1.2 and f 1.4) from edge to edge (edges were soft to say the least at those apertures with version 2). The only caveat I can see is that it looks as if there is a little more vignetting but nothing not solvable if you work digitally (most image-processing software will take care of that and for those who systematically add vignetting to their images in Lightroom—I happen to know a lot of these and they drive me crazy—you do not have to do anything).
The reasons I bought it were that it seemed to address the two caveats mentioned above: weight and length. And it does: 50.5 mm long against 62 mm, 332 g against 470 g. The lens has also been redesigned to allow such a compression in size: 9 elements in 7 groups instead of 10 elements in 7 groups for the previous version (II) [for a comparison, the Rolls Royce of 35 mm, the Leica Summilux has 9 elements in 5 groups]. The aperture is composed of 12 blades which provides a smooth out-of-focus image (aka bokeh). The lens is very sturdy with an all-metal barrel. Both version II and version III contain aspherical elements which account for the image quality one gets out of these two lenses. At this point version III is between $ 100-150 more expensive than its predecessor (around $900 versus $1050) and in my opinion is worth the difference although in image quality both lenses are very close.
After testing version III with my M240 on Monday, I went out again with the older version II on Wednesday and here are my conclusions:
1-At its widest apertures (f 1.2 and f 1.4) version III looks definitely sharper (comparison made at 100% enlargement in Adobe Camera Raw) especially on the edges and in the corners. Those corners were soft with version II. As a note, they can be extremely soft in the two other iterations of 35 mm lenses produced by Voigtlander, the f 1.4 Classic and MC (Multi-Coated) which are very compact but whose images are really soft in the corners at f 1.4 and f 2.
2-I looked at images minimally processed (raw) and uncorrected (jpg) by either by the camera (unlike other digital cameras, Leica Ms only recognizes and corrects the last generation of their lenses which integrate a 6-bit code) or the software (no profile to be found for the Nokton III). Under such circumstances vignetting looks slightly more pronounced in version III than version II. This latter issue being easily correctible does not stand as an issue for me.
In conclusion, when it comes to quality and budget, I would highly recommend the Voigtlander 35 mm Nokton f 1.2 version III. I am going to make further comparison with the Fuji X-series 23 mm f 1.4 (more voluminous although it is for an APS-C format sensor, and the new Nikon 35 mm f 1.8 (even more voluminous) [yes, after all, and with age, size matters to me].
The reasons I bought it were that it seemed to address the two caveats mentioned above: weight and length. And it does: 50.5 mm long against 62 mm, 332 g against 470 g. The lens has also been redesigned to allow such a compression in size: 9 elements in 7 groups instead of 10 elements in 7 groups for the previous version (II) [for a comparison, the Rolls Royce of 35 mm, the Leica Summilux has 9 elements in 5 groups]. The aperture is composed of 12 blades which provides a smooth out-of-focus image (aka bokeh). The lens is very sturdy with an all-metal barrel. Both version II and version III contain aspherical elements which account for the image quality one gets out of these two lenses. At this point version III is between $ 100-150 more expensive than its predecessor (around $900 versus $1050) and in my opinion is worth the difference although in image quality both lenses are very close.
After testing version III with my M240 on Monday, I went out again with the older version II on Wednesday and here are my conclusions:
1-At its widest apertures (f 1.2 and f 1.4) version III looks definitely sharper (comparison made at 100% enlargement in Adobe Camera Raw) especially on the edges and in the corners. Those corners were soft with version II. As a note, they can be extremely soft in the two other iterations of 35 mm lenses produced by Voigtlander, the f 1.4 Classic and MC (Multi-Coated) which are very compact but whose images are really soft in the corners at f 1.4 and f 2.
2-I looked at images minimally processed (raw) and uncorrected (jpg) by either by the camera (unlike other digital cameras, Leica Ms only recognizes and corrects the last generation of their lenses which integrate a 6-bit code) or the software (no profile to be found for the Nokton III). Under such circumstances vignetting looks slightly more pronounced in version III than version II. This latter issue being easily correctible does not stand as an issue for me.
In conclusion, when it comes to quality and budget, I would highly recommend the Voigtlander 35 mm Nokton f 1.2 version III. I am going to make further comparison with the Fuji X-series 23 mm f 1.4 (more voluminous although it is for an APS-C format sensor, and the new Nikon 35 mm f 1.8 (even more voluminous) [yes, after all, and with age, size matters to me].
Last edited:
Huss
Veteran
You would be correct.
Check this review:
https://phillipreeve.net/blog/revie.../#Compared_to_Sigma_35mm_12_Art_Long_Distance
The 1.7 is better. The new v3 1.2 has quite a lot of distortion and pretty severe purple fringing.
Purple fringing is really nasty though, this is one of the worst performances I have seen in a 35mm lens yet
vincentbihler
Member
One thing surprises me: how inconsistant is their lens cosmetics(21 classic, 35 1.2, 35 classic, 50 1.5, 75 1.5)... It could be optics from totally different brands and wouldn’t be shocking. I would love them to find something neutral enough to be consistant across a lens family. Leica have the same aesthetics for all their optics, and it looks way nicer! I’d be curious to have their thoughts about this. And i wish they will stop using chrome for their filter threads
bchalifour
Newbie
Nokton 35 mm III
Nokton 35 mm III
I would disagree all the latest Nokton have exactly the same shape (especially focusing ring) version II and III of the 35 mm only differ in size (length)).
Nokton 35 mm III
I would disagree all the latest Nokton have exactly the same shape (especially focusing ring) version II and III of the 35 mm only differ in size (length)).
Navalanche
Newbie
Is this lens blocking much in the viewfinder?
bchalifour
Newbie
Yes it somewhat does (more than any summicron 35 mm, close to a summilux 35 mm.