nokton 35 1.4 and summilux 35 1.4 choosing & result

[craygc]

I shoot with the Leica 35 Asph Lux as my primary lens, however, my complaints are i) wide open the bokeh can be a little distracting as compared to some of the other lenses in the Leica line up, and ii) as others have mentioned, prone to flare. I have no experience with the comparable CV lens.

The attached image is an example of flare from this lens wide open. The only light source anywhere near this shot was the kerosene lamp.

 

[Bill Blackwell]

Very interesting Bill. I assume you have prove for that. Rudy

I shot with all three lenses (along with some others) using each stop through f/8 on the same Leica M7 camera using slide film. I used my normal testing procedure with a sheet of paper in each shot identifying the lens and f-stop used. Although my testing procedure is not scientific, I use a tripod in controlled conditions using a combination of flash and indoor available light. I did not keep the test roll, so you'll just have to take my word for it.

Believe me I have no motivation to bash my nine Leica lenses.

 

[Harry Lime]

When I had the CV 40mm f/1.4 Nokton I did a comparison with both my 50 Asph Summilux and 35mm Asph Summilux. The Nokton was noticeably sharper wide open than either of the Leica lenses - evening out (where the Leica glass was marginally superior) at about f/5.6 - I could not believe it!

Errrr, Bill...I read your posts and think you are a very knowledgeable guy, but you probably can't blame me for being skeptical about this one. I've shot the 50 Lux ASPH and am pretty sure that it is among the sharpest lenses (at any stop) that I've ever seen. It better be for the price!

 

[Harry Lime]

I shoot with the Leica 35 Asph Lux as my primary lens, however, my complaints are i) wide open the bokeh can be a little distracting as compared to some of the other lenses in the Leica line up, and ii) as others have mentioned, prone to flare. I have no experience with the comparable CV lens.

The attached image is an example of flare from this lens wide open. The only light source anywhere near this shot was the kerosene lamp.

Yes, you are seeing geometry from a lens flare (which you would see with any lens), but unlike most other lenses the frame isn't washed out by veiling glare. If I tried that with my Nikkors or maybe even the EF1.4/35L I would probably be out of luck.

 

[Anupam]

Yes, you are seeing geometry from a lens flare (which you would see with any lens), but unlike most other lenses the frame isn't washed out by veiling glare. If I tried that with my Nikkors or maybe even the EF1.4/35L I would probably be out of luck.

Veiling glare can at least be worked with in post processing or darkroom - but the glare in Craig's image manages to decisively ruin the shot.

This shot predictably had some overall glare - Nokton 40 - but it could be worked with. A blob over the grooms face would have ruined it beyond repair.

-A

 

[Tom A]

Believe me I have no motivation to bash my nine Leica lenses.[/QUOTE]

I dont "bash" Leica lenses, but at the moment I feel that what they charge for their glass does not correspond to the performance they deliver!
Leica is producing two of the best 35mm lenses ever made at the moment, the 50/1,4 Asph and the 75/2 Summicron. They are stinkingly expensive, but worth it. The rest of their lenses are equal to in most cases the offerings from CV and Zeiss, but at prices that are 3-4 times those! I do not collect lenses, I use them and there is a point that what you pay for is not what you get. In the last decade, Leica has for the first time since the 60's seen stiff competion and they better wake up to that. The Summarit line is a step in right direction, but would I pay $1400 for a 35/2,5 when the same money would get me a 35/1,4 and a 35/2,5 VC II and enough money left over for a couple of 100 rolls of film? No way!
I have probably 20-25 Leica lenses and I use them all. Some are sentimental favourites, 35/2 version 1, Elmarit 28/2,8 III, my old DR Summicron, a collapsible 90f4 (for the engineering and mechanical quality), the 21/3,4 Super Angulon, etc.
Compared to the new offerings from Zeiss and CV, these lenses are old technology but I still like them. Shooting medium speed black/white, ultra high resolution, extreme contrast etc is not critical to me. I just want the lens to do what I want and I want consistency in its performance. Nothing worse than having a lens flaring out so badly that it opaques out the image and you thought that the shot was OK when you took it. It only has to happen once or twice and then you loose "faith" in the lens and it becomes a "blob" in your lens cabinet, collecting dust.

 

[Bill Blackwell]

Errrr, Bill...I read your posts and think you are a very knowledgeable guy, but you probably can't blame me for being skeptical about this one. I've shot the 50 Lux ASPH and am pretty sure that it is among the sharpest lenses (at any stop) that I've ever seen. It better be for the price!

Understood. But I wouldn't have put my head on the chopping block if I didn't believe what I wrote. As Tom points out, the CV and Zeiss lenses are giving Leica some stiff competition as to image quality. But Leica worshipers don't seem to want to hear that.

In the future, I will be sure to save and post my results.

 

[monster]

thanks for everybody's useful reply 🙂

i think i have my choice.