bwcolor
Veteran
Great images..
Perhaps this has been posted, but for what it is worth.. ie.. images above may be more relevant.
Here is a rather extensive testing on a NEX-5..
In Depth V2 Test
Perhaps this has been posted, but for what it is worth.. ie.. images above may be more relevant.
Here is a rather extensive testing on a NEX-5..
In Depth V2 Test
ashwinrao1
Ashwin Rao
Kristian, Ryan, Jeff, and all, it's been a long hiatus from this forum, but your images and comments have made me crawl back, trying to clutch batch the desire to click the "order now" button on this len. So much of what you have captured is related to your excellent skills in seeing, composing, capturing, and processing the images....
That being said, the new Nokton looks nice, rather like the old version but with more contrast and a bit more sharpness, in a slightly smaller size, but equally good bokeh....I just sold the old version in chrome a couple of months back and find myself wonderuing about whether it's worth getting the new one...the major hang up for me is size, and I am really tempted to get the f/1.4 Nokton for its size....have any of you compared the look of this lens at f/1.4 with the Nokton f/1.4 wide open?
That being said, the new Nokton looks nice, rather like the old version but with more contrast and a bit more sharpness, in a slightly smaller size, but equally good bokeh....I just sold the old version in chrome a couple of months back and find myself wonderuing about whether it's worth getting the new one...the major hang up for me is size, and I am really tempted to get the f/1.4 Nokton for its size....have any of you compared the look of this lens at f/1.4 with the Nokton f/1.4 wide open?
leicashot
Well-known
To be honest Ashwin it's more similar to V1 than its improvements suggest. If you weren't much into V1, then I think the feelings will be the same about V2, even with it's minor improvements. I'd only go for V2 if you can deal with the size, which isn't a lot smaller than V1.
Alnitak
Established
Ashwin, I agree with Kristian. The only real difference between the V1 and V2 lenses is the size and the new 0.5m MFD of the V2 (and a much better hood). I will say that I had one V1 that I just didn't like; too soft and too much halation wide open. The copy I am using right now is incredible--it's sharper than the V2 I have, and both my V2 and the V1 are sharper than my 35 'Lux ASPH (non-FLE). As with all the Voigtländer lenses, one has to be aware of sample variation due to the spotty QC process.
The 35 Nokton has a different look wide open--a bit softer and more like a classic pre-ASPH Summilux. It's also got some pretty serious focus shift, so you really need to use it wide open or stopped down to f/5.6 or more if you're shooting at the MFD.
Jeff
The 35 Nokton has a different look wide open--a bit softer and more like a classic pre-ASPH Summilux. It's also got some pretty serious focus shift, so you really need to use it wide open or stopped down to f/5.6 or more if you're shooting at the MFD.
Jeff
leicashot
Well-known
Jeff, IMHO the Nokton is nothing like the pre-ASPH Summilux, especially the newer model. The V1 was more like the Summilux ASPH with less cotrast wide open, and the V2 is sharper, and at 1.4 it's on par with the ASPH/FLE but with smoother bokeh. Also, where is the focus shift? i've never seen it and it's not known to suffer from focus shift.
This is all news to me.....
scottwallick
ambition ≥ skill
The immediate difference I noticed between CV's 35/1.2 versions and the 35/1.4 is barrel distortion. The 35/1.2 exhibits (minor) barrel distortion, but the 35/1.4's is severe/extreme (in my observations).
leicashot
Well-known
If only the Nokton 35/1.4 was just a bit better. I actually like the character in it's bokeh. Either way I appreciate Voigtlander's effort in making the 1.2 slightly better.
D&A
Well-known
I think in some respects, some of the differences we're describing in the comparisons between either or both VC 35mm f1.2 lenses to the Leica 35mm Lux asph (non FLE) is more a consequence of sample variation as Jeff pointed out than the subjective nature of personal interpretation. There doesn't appear to be a "constant" qualitative performance in either the V1 of the VC nor with the Lux asph (pre FLE). I've tested enough samples of the 35mm Lux asph to take note of variable sample performance at f1.4. What if any sample variation exists in V2 of the VC lens is yet to be determined.
I agree with Kristian...I've yet to see any real, meaningful focus shift in either V1 or V2 of the VC 35mm lenses....so this observation has me perplexed.
Dave (D&A)
I agree with Kristian...I've yet to see any real, meaningful focus shift in either V1 or V2 of the VC 35mm lenses....so this observation has me perplexed.
Dave (D&A)
leicashot
Well-known
Basically I think I know where the sample variation lies in the V1. Later, more recent production V1 samples I've tried are very very similar to the V2. Older production samples have lower contrast and sharpness wide open. This has been my experience with 3 recent later production samples that do rival the V2 in contrast wide open, like in my first samples, but do fall short of sharpness.
Maybe there was a coating upgrade somewhere during the life cycle of the V1, but really, who knows?
D&A
Well-known
Kristian, your observations regarding early vs. late samples of the V1 lens and their performance characteristics at f1.2 and f1.4, parallel closely what I observed in some samples I shot with during it's production run. I think though some sample variation may have also been involved and separating all these factors is a bit complicated. It's just a guess but if a running change of some sort was applied to the V1 lens, my take is that it happened in the latter part of the production run....maybe during the early stages of the V2 lens development?
Dave (D&A)
noimmunity
scratch my niche
I had both for a while. The color that came out of the v1 35/1.2 was, to my mind, vastly preferable to what came out of the 35/1.4 . The latter was an SC version, which might have had something to do with it. Others have posted photos taken with the SC version that have an appealing pastel effect, but it really has to match the mood and subject matter.
Leica All Day
Veteran
Hey Kristian.......do you happen to have any idea of serial numbers that would help determine between and early production V1 and a later production V1?.......
I have a chrome one that I use daily.....but I also have a BNIB black one (v1) that I would like to check where it lies in the production run......
cheers, michael
leicashot
Well-known
No, no idea Michael, but I do know that all chrome's (i've owned 4) seem to be of modern contrast, so check the serial numbers and see if your black is close to your chrome. I guess maybe Stephen or Tom A may have the answer....
D&A
Well-known
I've used a few of the chrome ones and all as Kristian mentioned, they all appeared to behave the same optically. I am/was under the assumption that all the limited edition chrome ones were all made "basically" in a single production run. Whether their serial #'s reflect this, I don't know.
Dave (D&A)
Last edited:
leicashot
Well-known
D&A
Well-known
I think if a fair # of people with Chrome V1 lenses posted their serial #'s, there would be a chance to see if there is some sort of clustering of #'s. Hard to say how VC organized their production since only approx 300 were made.
Dave (D&A)
Alnitak
Established
Sorry, popped off the thread for a while. I was referring to the 35/1.4 Nokton, not the 1.2. The 1.4 was designed to emulate a pre-aspherical summilux, and it does a great job of it, but it does have pretty bad focus shift due the simple design and lack of correction for spherical aberration. It can be quite sharp on center wide open, but it does shift, and it's a function of the design. If you're shooting closer to infinity focus, you'll never notice it, but if you shoot a lot near the MFD, its an issue.
The 1.2 Nokton's (both versions) are remarkably free of focus shift. It's a big plus of this lens.
Jeff
leicashot
Well-known
haha, I did work that out in the end Jeff ;-)
leicashot
Well-known
Ok, so considering how happy I am with this lens, I bought her the lens hood. I am yet to see proper pictures of it so here are a few for you all.
Firstly, I wasn't expecting it to be so small. While it may appear to be large in pictures, it's relatively small in comparison to the lens, shorter than the V1 'accessory' hood and maybe a couple millimeters more than the standard hood. It's made of metal and of high quality, matching the $350 accessory Leica hood I bought for the Summicron 28/2, so I guess the $109 isn't such a bad deal, although I still think VC should have included it, considering most of their other lenses have always come with hoods. This is obviously a new trick they learnt from their buddies in Zeiss marketing.
It's a bayonet mount with a little spring in it, so it turns in then pops out a millimeter or two. It then has a little play of about 3-4mm to the right, which is fine and doesn't move around in actual use as it locks in tight, and needs to be pushed in 2mm before turning to release. Viewfinder blockage is not an issue, but the lens hood even with it's cutout obviously intrudes more into the frame.
So overall, I'm very satisfied with this hood, mainly because of it's short length and small dimensions overall, which is more important to me in keeping the lens's overall size down, compared to it's abilities as a flare reducer....as this lens is incredible against flare as can be seen by the examples in this thread.
Firstly, I wasn't expecting it to be so small. While it may appear to be large in pictures, it's relatively small in comparison to the lens, shorter than the V1 'accessory' hood and maybe a couple millimeters more than the standard hood. It's made of metal and of high quality, matching the $350 accessory Leica hood I bought for the Summicron 28/2, so I guess the $109 isn't such a bad deal, although I still think VC should have included it, considering most of their other lenses have always come with hoods. This is obviously a new trick they learnt from their buddies in Zeiss marketing.
It's a bayonet mount with a little spring in it, so it turns in then pops out a millimeter or two. It then has a little play of about 3-4mm to the right, which is fine and doesn't move around in actual use as it locks in tight, and needs to be pushed in 2mm before turning to release. Viewfinder blockage is not an issue, but the lens hood even with it's cutout obviously intrudes more into the frame.
So overall, I'm very satisfied with this hood, mainly because of it's short length and small dimensions overall, which is more important to me in keeping the lens's overall size down, compared to it's abilities as a flare reducer....as this lens is incredible against flare as can be seen by the examples in this thread.
Last edited:
Nick De Marco
Well-known
I just ordered the lens - in part reading this thread
I had the old 35/1.2 with my M8. Ended up selling it. Loved it but found the size a bit too much. But regretted selling it afterwards. I think I shall prefer the 35/1.2 with the M9 and my film Ms - anyone used it with film yet and got a photo to post?
It looks a little lighter and is apparently a bit lighter. I'm pleased to hear the hood is not essential - as the old hood really added size. But also pleased to see from the above post that the new hood looks smaller and easier to attach.
I had the old 35/1.2 with my M8. Ended up selling it. Loved it but found the size a bit too much. But regretted selling it afterwards. I think I shall prefer the 35/1.2 with the M9 and my film Ms - anyone used it with film yet and got a photo to post?
It looks a little lighter and is apparently a bit lighter. I'm pleased to hear the hood is not essential - as the old hood really added size. But also pleased to see from the above post that the new hood looks smaller and easier to attach.