Nokton 50/1.5 Asph. vs. ZI Zeiss Planar 50mm/2

[alexz]

Is there any comparative analysis/review of these stucked each against other ?
I'm trying to pick my standard lens for my future RF foray with R3A, made up my mind to start with just one lens (has to be a standard one).
Nokton 50/1.5 Asph. sounds to be a good one, however some reviews claim it is quite flare -prone, so how it fairs agaisnt ZI Zeis Planar 50mm/2 optically and mechanically ?
Is 300$ difference justified ?

Thanks, Alex

 

[Turtle]

I doubt you would go wrong on either. I do not own the Nokton, but know it is a little larger and heavier than the Zm planar but then again it is almost a stop faster. According to Putz, the ZM is equal to the current summicron. Accoding o another creible reviewer (forget the name but look on luminous landscape) the nokton is better than the previous non-asph summilux but a little way behind the asph wide open. I was happy to go for the zeiss for smaller size, smaller filter and great review. As I planned to get other zeiss ZM lenses I knew it would handle the same as the others so it made sense.

 

[Avotius]

I think the zeiss lenses produce colors that are more vibrant then the voightlander lenses, that said it come down to how you use the lens too, your film, scanning technique, etc etc etc...if I had to make the choice I would choose the zeiss, but then again I would choose the new sonnar 1.5 over the 2.0 but yeah, still the zeiss for me, seen some good photos from that lens.

 

[Flyfisher Tom]

It is good to remember that reviews are by necessity anecdotal, one lens sample, one subjective pair of eyes. For every reviewer who observes a perceived problem with a lens, there are probably thousands perfectly happy with theirs.

So take my experience subjectively as well 😉 I've shot with the Nokton 50/1.5, exceptional sharpness across the range, larger in size but not overly burdensome (52mm filter). Not a single complaint about flare or the optics. Only minor complaint about its relative size. If compact is what you are looking for, it is not it. But neither is the Zeiss.

The optics of the Nokton and Zeiss will not fail you. The more pertinent consideration is whether you (1) need the extra speed; (2) whether the relatively smaller size of the Zeiss appeals to you.

Modern optics are pretty much in the same league in terms of competence, what nuance there is, is nuance 🙂 Granted, some people do associate performance to brand names, and are pretty 'religious' about it, but a lot of us don't. For me, the biggest difference in modern optics is in ergonomics. Pick the speed you need, and then the size you need, and I think you will do fine with either lens. good luck

 

[alegalle]

Take this with a pinch of salt because I have not used the nokton, but the planar 50mm zm, close up and at wide apertures is just incredible, better I'd say than the current 50mm summicron and the drawing is beautiful.

Andy

 

[x-ray]

It is good to remember that reviews are by necessity anecdotal, one lens sample, one subjective pair of eyes. For every reviewer who observes a perceived problem with a lens, there are probably thousands perfectly happy with theirs.

So take my experience subjectively as well 😉 I've shot with the Nokton 50/1.5, exceptional sharpness across the range, larger in size but not overly burdensome (52mm filter). Not a single complaint about flare or the optics. Only minor complaint about its relative size. If compact is what you are looking for, it is not it. But neither is the Zeiss.

The optics of the Nokton and Zeiss will not fail you. The more pertinent consideration is whether you (1) need the extra speed; (2) whether the relatively smaller size of the Zeiss appeals to you.

Modern optics are pretty much in the same league in terms of competence, what nuance there is, is nuance 🙂 Granted, some people do associate performance to brand names, and are pretty 'religious' about it, but a lot of us don't. For me, the biggest difference in modern optics is in ergonomics. Pick the speed you need, and then the size you need, and I think you will do fine with either lens. good luck

Words of wisdom Tom!

Thanks to you I have a Nokton that will be here this week. I really didn't need another 50 since I allready have the asph summilux 50 but i'm putting together a second kit. I'm with you on brand loyalty. Brand makes no difference. Most current lenses are so good that most of us would know little to no difference from one to the other. Tom, the 28 Ultron that I purchased from you recently has become a favorite of mine. I had three earlier versions of the Leitz 28mm and never liked them. The Ultron is fantastic at all apertures and the ergonomics are exactly as I like. I've always hated the leitz focusing tabs and like a lens substantial enough to have a well seperated focusing ring from the aperture ring. This lens fits the bill and optically it's way ahead of any 28 that I've previously owned. A couple of weeks ago a friend brought his 28 summicron over and I shot some with it at f2 and f4. Certainly it's impressive but the f2 performance of the Ultron is so close that it would never show a difference in anything I will shoot. Stopped down a couple of stops it equals the summicron. Even the difference at f2 is so slight that I don't think I could seperate images shot with each lens.

I will say that I'm extremely pleased with all the non Leica lenses that I own. I will also say that some of the most disappoing lenses and some of the best lenses that I've owned have been Leitz.

 

[Nachkebia]

I have to admit focusing tab really is a pain in the bud, Just mounted back biogon 35mm and feels like heaven after 28mm elmarit ASPH 🙂

 

[Adam-T]

The first thing I did out of the box was to ditch the Nokton hood/cap setup and clap a Nikon lens cap on (Thankfully it uses a standard 52mm filter size and not one of the weirdo sizes which rangefinder lenses tend to have) - it reduces the length, there`s no slide-on cap to slide off and I`ve not had flare issues 🙂 ..

My only gripe with the Nokton is the aperture ring which has very light detents compared to the rest of the CVs so is easily knocked off setting (more like a Leica `Lux in this respect than a CV), I got the Chrome one because the black paint has a rep for coming off at the drop of a hat and the Chrome one looks sooooo like a 1960s Summilux anyway ;-)

 

[Huck Finn]

Let me note first that I have not used either of these lenses although I have played around with the Nokton & I have seen other's pictures from both & I have read reviews of both.

I agree with Tom & Ray that either of these lenses are good enough that you can make fine pictures with them. The lenses don't take the pictures, the photographer does.

There are some differences between them. The size difference has been mentioned. The price difference has been mentioned as well, although it should be noted that the Nokton requires the added expense of an LTM adapter, making the difference in cost a little over $200 rather than $300. There is a difference in minimum focus distance of about 8 inches. The Nokton will only focus to a little under 3 feet while the Planar will focus to just over 27 inches. Maybe not a big issue with a 50 mm lens, but only you know how you like to shoot.

Finally, there is the difference in speed. The Nokton is obviously better at f/1.5 than the Planar is. (It should be noted that Popular Photography measured it to be actually a little slower than advertised - more like f/1.6.) If you need the extra speed, then it's no contest & the real comparison would be between the Nokton & the much more expensive C-Sonnar. OTOH, the general rule of thumb is that it is much more challenging to build an f/1.5 lens of the same optical quality as one of f/2. And it's not just a matter of stopping it down. The lens is still built for the capacity to let in all that extra light, making it more difficult to control aberrations. The reviews I've seen on the Nokton have been mixed on this point although as Tom says, here you're probably into the realm of nuance that will not be an issue in 90+% of your shots. And none would say that it's anything other than a very fine lens.

In regard to the issue of flare, the Zeiss lenses of which I have 2 at other focal lengths seem to be uniformly highly resistant to flare. I can't comment on the Nokton although I have probably read the same reports you have. I would just note that in contrast to Puts' claim that "the Nokton is quite sensitive to flare," Pop Photo found in its tests that "flare is very well controlled throughout." I would rely on Tom's comments of his experience with the lens in actual use in this regard.

In the end you have to go with your gut. Either way you'll probably be second guessing yourself until you actually go out & start taking. Then it's the pictures that will matter more than the equipment, which is as it should be. 🙂

 

[Dan Unkefer]

I have been using a Nokton 1.5 for the last two years. I have come to rely on this lens, I have not had any issues at all. I am delighted with the lenses' signature.

Recently I went for a Canon 1.2 so that I could have a distinctly different signature. Boy is that ever right🙄

I enjoy using my Nokton as much as I used my old Dual Range Summicron, I really think I prefer the new Nokton over that. Seems like the ZM might be like the Summicron, it seems to me.