Nokton 1.5 vs ZM Sonnar c 1.5

the sonnar is more compact. I think its a great lens and would choose it except that I sold it in favor of 35mm lux Asph.
 
With the advice of everyone, and all things considered, I will be going with the Nokton. With the left over cash I'm thinking of getting another CV lens something wide. Any suggestions?
 
Here are some of my ZM C Sonnar shots:
1193169476_d1ede22559.jpg


1192296655_96aa2a2911.jpg


186021799_505a248097.jpg
 
Ack Akiva, those are nice and throwing my decision into question. My main issue with the Sonnar is it's close focus. I do a lot of it and that focus shift scares me. Out past that range the lens does beautiful things.

Thanks Joe.
 
I haven't found this

I haven't found this

with the M6 or RD1. I have also found almost no difference with the 28/1.9 and 2 setting (probably as expected), and the Ultron 35's 1.7 is very close to f2, but my Nokton 50/1.5 definitely about an extra stop over f2.

It's possible they vary though.

pau3 said:
By the way, if you're looking for a fast lens you should take into account that the
50/1.5 Nokton is closer to 1.8 - or even 1.9 - than to 1.5 lens. It is good,
but it's not that fast.

Pau
Click to expand...
 
ferider said:
Be patient Chris, the Summilux will find you :)
Click to expand...

I discussed it with the missus and we agreed that the Noktonwill work for now and later, maybe next year if I still really, really want it, I will buy the summilux. I've spent a lot recently and it's probably time to put the brakes on.

:D
 
I'll try to support my claim on the true speed of the nokton.
I made a simple test. I shot three frames of an evenly grey
surface, 30@f1.5, 60@f2 and 125@f2.8. The frames shot at
f2 and f2.8 showed the same density, but the frame at f1.5
had clearly less density. Since I don't have a desitometer,
I also shot other three frames, this time 30@f.15, 60@f2.4
and 125@f3.4 (that is, I opened half stop the ones I wanted
to compare with). The frames at f2.4 and f3.4 had the same
density, but the shot at 1.5 had still less. This means that my
copy of the lens, at full aperture, is less than f1.7.

It is true that the real speed of a lens at full aperture is rarely
the claimed one, and more often less. In the case of my copy
of the nokton, is at least half stop less. But it is still a good lens,
a great value for the money.

Pau
 
You are not alone, Pau. Sean Reid also evaluated the lens at f1.6, effectively half a stop slower than the f1.4 it is usually compared to.

That in combo with the size (most of my SLR 50s are smaller) and min. distance, and the occasional barrel wobble problem really turned me away from it, although I had several samples.

I care less about speed than about shallow DOF for portraits. Speed can often be corrected with faster film. And a modern 50/2 Hexanon or Summicron will give you more shallow DOF than the Nokton wide open at close distance.

The Canon 50/1.4, for example, is smaller, better built and a true 1.4, in my experience. The classic Nikkor 50/1.4 is really fun to use at .7m. Etc.

Did I say I love the 40/1.4 ? :)

Best,

Roland.
 
Last edited:
pau3 said:
I'll try to support my claim on the true speed of the nokton.
I made a simple test. I shot three frames of an evenly grey
surface, 30@f1.5, 60@f2 and 125@f2.8. The frames shot at
f2 and f2.8 showed the same density, but the frame at f1.5
had clearly less density. Since I don't have a desitometer,
I also shot other three frames, this time 30@f.15, 60@f2.4
and 125@f3.4 (that is, I opened half stop the ones I wanted
to compare with). The frames at f2.4 and f3.4 had the same
density, but the shot at 1.5 had still less. This means that my
copy of the lens, at full aperture, is less than f1.7.

It is true that the real speed of a lens at full aperture is rarely
the claimed one, and more often less. In the case of my copy
of the nokton, is at least half stop less. But it is still a good lens,
a great value for the money.

Pau
Click to expand...
Which lens are you talking about, again?
 
Man Roland you're killing me...

here's my dillema. I can afford a summilux or I can afford a Nokton and vc 21/4. If I go the Nokton route, I can keep my summicron, if I get the lux I'd have to get rid of the cron.

I like nice Bokeh, shallow DOF and speed. Size is also a consideration.

Once I pull the trigger, I know I'll be fine, but all this hemming and hawing is driving me batty.
 
I were you, I would either

.) keep the Summicron, add a fast lens with character; a Sonnar (Nikkor, ZM, Canon 50/1.5) or some other classic like the Canon 50/1.2.
.) sell the Summicron, buy a Lux as young as you can afford.

Wider than 28 is for lens tests :)

Cheers,

Roland.
 
First the caveats. I am fairly new to 35mm RF, coming into this world when I bought my R-D1 a little over 3 years ago; secondly, my experience is pretty much limited to the Epson which has a multiplier, so that when I use my 50mm lenses, I am using them in short tele situations.

I have the Nokton, the Canon sonnar, and the Zeiss sonnar. The Nokton is the one I have had the longest and have used the most. I bought the Canon after being seduced by it at a local RFF gathering, and do love its unique look at wide aperures. I recently bought a used Zeiss, because it was priced as an offer I could not refuse.

I would keep the summicron. Buy the Nokton. And keep your eyes open for a Canon; as Ken said earlier, they appear for sale from time to time (though not so frequently that I don't feel lucky for having grabbed mine when I did.) In time, you can buy the lux, which is what you really want. (I have left the Zeiss out of the equation, because generally it is more expensive than the Nokton/Canon combination).

Coming from an Olympus OM background, I don't find the Nokton huge (but see the caveat: I'm comparing it more to say my 85mm Zuiko). I also was surprised that the Zeiss is not dramatically smaller. For closer focusing situations, you will still have your
Summicron.

A final caveat: I have only had the Zeiss for a few weeks; it is possible it will lead to my using my Nokton a lot less. But even if it does, I got 3 years good use out of the Nokton -- with no regrets.
 
...Wider than 28 is for lens tests...

25 is a wonderful focal length, no distorsion and just a bit more 'edge' than a 28.
and 21 is great to use, fun to play with and learn on.

joe
 
pau3 said:
I'll try to support my claim on the true speed of the nokton.
I made a simple test. I shot three frames of an evenly grey
surface, 30@f1.5, 60@f2 and 125@f2.8. The frames shot at
f2 and f2.8 showed the same density, but the frame at f1.5
had clearly less density. Since I don't have a desitometer,
I also shot other three frames, this time 30@f.15, 60@f2.4
and 125@f3.4 (that is, I opened half stop the ones I wanted
to compare with). The frames at f2.4 and f3.4 had the same
density, but the shot at 1.5 had still less. This means that my
copy of the lens, at full aperture, is less than f1.7.

It is true that the real speed of a lens at full aperture is rarely
the claimed one, and more often less. In the case of my copy
of the nokton, is at least half stop less. But it is still a good lens,
a great value for the money.

Pau
Click to expand...


You're assuming your shutter speeds are accurate. Most likely there is some variation in your shutter. It is however possible there is some variation in the aperture settings of your lens. Of the two Noktons I have had none have been less than advertised as far as aperture.

Get your shutter checked and see if that makes a difference. It's true that the T stop is different than the F stop but with a simple lens like this it shouldn't make any real difference. When doing motion picture work I work in T stops (transmission) because of the very complex design and the many elements in some of the cine lenses. Some lenses like zooms will loose up to a stop or more in speed.

By no means is the Nokton huge. I don't know where these exagerations come from but they are out there. The lens hood makes it look larger than it is but it's not large. I had a comparison about a year ago regarding this with Zeiss and Leica lenses. The stories were going around how huge the 35 biogon is so I maed a series f comparison shots side by side with a 35mm box of film. In that I included a couple of lenses that folks considered to be reasonable in size and by golly the Biogon was the same size. Some of these statements are grossly over exaggerated so pick the lens that fits your needs and buy it. All of the mentioned are excellent and you'll have to be one heck of a photographer to see any difference if you can then. Through real world experience I've found most of the differences are in a persons head and not in the image.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom