Nokton 40/1.4 faqs

[kossko]

Hi gents,

Having no experience with RF cameras but after studying some of the threads, I'm thinking of having a Bessa R3M + the Nokton 40/1.4
Could you give me some help with these?
1) Are the 40mm viewfinder framelines in par with the lens? I've read that is only by approximation since it has the same margins as the 35mm framelines of the R2
2) For having a more gentle tone degradation in color photography would you recommend the SC or the MC version? Generally I like nature and landscape photography, but want the gentle tone degradation for the highlights
3) Can you suggest a single (not multi) coating protector lens for 43mm or 39mm?

Thank you

 

[ferider]

1) the 40mm framelines of the R3* are certainly smaller than the 35mm lines of the R2. The lens "breathes". If I remember right, the R2 35mm lines work from 3m to infinity, where the R3* 40mm lines work down to less than 1m, but give you more space for cropping at infinity.
2) the difference is minimal, the SC will have a little more "veiling flare" for extreme highlights. So there is a tiny difference in how the shadows are rendered,
3) you can get an older 43mm walz filter or similar, if you want single coated. B+W still makes both single and multi-coated filters; single coated are cheaper 🙂; like this: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/11959-REG/B_W_65070074_43mm_Ultraviolet_UV_Filter.html

Roland.

PS: here is an example of what SC does (using a 35 Nokton). Look at the book:

 

[SaveKodak]

The R3 and R2 have different finder magnifications so yes the 40 lines in the R3 are accurate. They take up pretty much the whole finder. The SC/MC thing is pretty much beyond subtle, leading me now to believe that you should just go for the MC. I've used an SC 40 and an MC 35 (both of the 'classic' CV lenses that come multi or single coated). I only noticed that the SC flares quite a lot wide open, where as the MC is less likely to do so. The contrast of my photographs were pretty much the same. The flare in this case are bright red rings in the images. Using a low contrast film and developer combination will do much more for you than the coatings on these particular lenses. Not sure about actual vintage lenses that come before modern coating. For example my Rolleiflex 2.8 Planar gives a low contrast look that I love, but it wasn't at all like the look I got from the SC lens that I used.

If you do choose to go with the SC, B+W makes single coated filters and are marked as such. However, the coating on your filter won't effect what your lens does to the image, so you'd only be increasing likelyhood of flare even further.

 

[kossko]

Thanks you guys

By the way, is there any issues with the credibility of the light metering of the bessa's ?

 

[kshapero]

1) the 40mm framelines of the R3* are certainly smaller than the 35mm lines of the R2. The lens "breathes". If I remember right, the R2 35mm lines work from 3m to infinity, where the R3* 40mm lines work down to less than 1m, but give you more space for cropping at infinity. 2) the difference is minimal, the SC will have a little more "veiling flare" for extreme highlights. So there is a tiny difference in how the shadows are rendered, 3) you can get an older 43mm walz filter or similar, if you want single coated. B+W still makes both single and multi-coated filters; single coated are cheaper 🙂; like this: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/11959-REG/B_W_65070074_43mm_Ultraviolet_UV_Filter.html Roland. PS: here is an example of what SC does (using a 35 Nokton). Look at the book:

nice look.

 

[De_Corday]

FWIW -- I like shooting old lenses... I searched high and low for an SC version of this lens, couldn't find one, and "settled" on the MC -- I love it. It's one of my favorite lenses. It's not a terribly modern lens in its drawing in either form, IMHO.

 

[Tom A]

H299 #3 Oppenheimer Park by T&T and Mr B Abrahamsson, on Flickr

The 40mm f1.4 (i have both the MC and the SC) is one of my favourite lenses. Usually stuck on a M2 with the "claw" filed down to engage the 35 frame. The Bessa R3's 40 frame is a bit tight if you wear glasses, but not too bad. The lenses are very sharp, "clean" rendition - even at f1.4. The difference between the SC and MC is subtle - slightly more detail in the deeper shadows with the SC.
Picture is a wooden whale skeleton at the Japanese Festival a couple of weeks ago.
Leica M6, Nokton 40mm f1.4 MC, Arista Premium 400 in Td 201 developer.

 

[grouchos_tash]

I have the MC, its probably my most used lens. I wear glasses so the whole viewfinder window with my R2a and M6 matches the 40mm FOV nicely.

Here are some examples.

Voigtlander Bessa R2a - Nokton 40mm 1.4 - Kodak Trix - Ilford ID11





Voigtlander Bessa R2a - Nokton 40mm 1.4 - Kodak Ektar
(Could be mistaken for digital)





Voigtlander Bessa R2a - Nokton 40mm 1.4 - Kodak Tri-x
(Probably my favourite of my own photos)





Voigtlander Bessa R2a - Nokton 40mm 1.4 - Kodak Tmax 100 - Ilford ID11
(Theres a 'glow' here wide open)