Rogrund
Antti Sivén
More bokeh from the 35/1.4. Leica M2, Nokton 35/1.4, Superia 200.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Yes, Matus, both at 1.4, the first one exposed at 50 with yellow filter and the second one at 400 without it. Rodinal 1:50 14 minutes agitation every 3 minutes, and 18 minutes agitation every minute.
Cheers,
Juan
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
The Nokton 40 is one of the best lenses ever made in the world when you see its size, speed, price and rendering. Leica would be asking $1,800 for it... They got people so doomed, they would easily make it to sell it more than the CV!
Cheers,
Juan
Cheers,
Juan
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
If there's a mod around: I made a foolish mistake voting, and gave my vote to the 35MC instead of my 40MC, but couldn't find a way to correct it... Thanks!
ferider
Veteran
The 35's barrel distortion is really, really awful ..... 
I love that lens.
(MC version on BW400CN, no geometry changes in PS)
PS: lenses that exhibit similar distortion but never get the same "credit": Nokton 35/1.2, UC Hexanon, Hexar AF, ... Summilux 35/1.4 ASPH and Noctilux get close.
I love that lens.
(MC version on BW400CN, no geometry changes in PS)
PS: lenses that exhibit similar distortion but never get the same "credit": Nokton 35/1.2, UC Hexanon, Hexar AF, ... Summilux 35/1.4 ASPH and Noctilux get close.
Last edited:
Dominum
Member
Personally i have the 35mm SC and I'm loving it! I feel that distortion is not usually a concern unless you shoot architecture for a living.
Alot of people hate on this lens about its harsh bokeh and obvious distortion but it's really not that bad. It's nice and compact which gets you less stares on the street.
Alot of people hate on this lens about its harsh bokeh and obvious distortion but it's really not that bad. It's nice and compact which gets you less stares on the street.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Roland, it certainly looks awful at close distances and with vertical or horizontal lines near frame borders.
Not a big problem for every shot, but it's there... The books shot has nothing to do with your example...
Cheers,
Juan
Not a big problem for every shot, but it's there... The books shot has nothing to do with your example...
Cheers,
Juan
ferider
Veteran
It never bothered me.
But to whoever is bothered: think about which other M lens could take the bookshelf shot (35mm, focus closer than 0.9m) at f1.4 with less barrel distortion ?
Other than the Summilux ASPH, there is none.
As I said, the Summilux asph comes close; when you read Puts' measurements it distorts quite heavily, compared to Summicron or pre-asph Summilux.
I did like the 40 samples that I had.
Bokeh of both 35 and 40 1.4 Noktons is nothing short of the "bokeh king" from f2 and up. The 40 bokeh is a bit "rougher" than the 35.
Roland.
But to whoever is bothered: think about which other M lens could take the bookshelf shot (35mm, focus closer than 0.9m) at f1.4 with less barrel distortion ?
Other than the Summilux ASPH, there is none.
As I said, the Summilux asph comes close; when you read Puts' measurements it distorts quite heavily, compared to Summicron or pre-asph Summilux.
I did like the 40 samples that I had.
Bokeh of both 35 and 40 1.4 Noktons is nothing short of the "bokeh king" from f2 and up. The 40 bokeh is a bit "rougher" than the 35.
Roland.
Last edited:
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Your point is clear and I agree: differences are small between both an other lenses if compared doing the same scene at the same distance.
pagpow
Well-known
I got the 40 1.4 multi-coated after much agonizing over framelines and SC v. MC. Finally (after reading here and looking at flickr) decided on MC for its color performance. The 35 1.4 was not on the market then.
Have shot it mostly with the RD1 w. 35 framelines -- it requires a bit of adjustment of eye, but not much. It crops a bit more of the bottom of the frame than the framelines suggest -- problem goes away when I frame a bit more loosely.
Discovered that at f2 and above (as Ferider notes) it was a spectacular lens for my uses, mostly people and indoors, some landscapes. Some people consider this an f2 lens, with f1.4 in reserve.
At about the same time, I bought an M2 for real 35 and some leica and Canon 35's. I have shot a bit with all of them, but have shot mostly w. the 40 -- not because I don't like the others but because I really like the 40, and one lens makes it easy traveling.
So much so that I am beginning to wonder whether I really need an M2, as opposed to shooting the 40 full VF on my M3.
Finally, as many people have noted on RFF, RD1 an later leica 35mm framelines fit the forty better than the 35, as they are tight.
Have shot it mostly with the RD1 w. 35 framelines -- it requires a bit of adjustment of eye, but not much. It crops a bit more of the bottom of the frame than the framelines suggest -- problem goes away when I frame a bit more loosely.
Discovered that at f2 and above (as Ferider notes) it was a spectacular lens for my uses, mostly people and indoors, some landscapes. Some people consider this an f2 lens, with f1.4 in reserve.
At about the same time, I bought an M2 for real 35 and some leica and Canon 35's. I have shot a bit with all of them, but have shot mostly w. the 40 -- not because I don't like the others but because I really like the 40, and one lens makes it easy traveling.
So much so that I am beginning to wonder whether I really need an M2, as opposed to shooting the 40 full VF on my M3.
Finally, as many people have noted on RFF, RD1 an later leica 35mm framelines fit the forty better than the 35, as they are tight.
MichaelHarris
Well-known
I have the 40 but I don't use it much since I got the 50 1.5. If you want to see something cool put that 50 1.5 on the EP-1, that's a wonderful combo with fantastic out of focus area.
Incitatus
Member
I voted for the 40mm MC - I have a R3a and its got 40mm framelines - MC for the flexibilty
ampguy
Veteran
I'd look through the flickr pool for this lens and see if the occasional distortion will really bother you. I agree with Roland that the HAF can be as bad or worse distortion wise than this lens, and have also seen bad distortion with images from the 35 asph lux, which is surprising to me for such an expensive lens.
I haven't seen distortion with the Noct 50/1.0, or 35 pre asph lux but their min focus is further than the CVs. The 35/2 summicrons focus to 0.7m and are relatively distortion free, including the asph, if you can live with f2.
The CV 35 distortion isn't always at min distance though, here's where some lines that I think should be straight are pretty curved, and seem further out than min distance:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/33482157@N07/4279419033/in/pool-nokton35f14/
Also, even when not planning to shoot "architectural photos" you can be out on the street and have some known straight lines end up curved (as with the HAF) so I think that the statements that the lens is fine if you're not shooting architectural stuff doesn't hold up. I know that our P&S's (Canon, Fuji, and Lumixes) with zooms have this CV kind of distortion on the widest settings, but I am able to zoom in a bit from widest on all, and get less distortion than the CV 35 in these cases.
I haven't seen distortion with the Noct 50/1.0, or 35 pre asph lux but their min focus is further than the CVs. The 35/2 summicrons focus to 0.7m and are relatively distortion free, including the asph, if you can live with f2.
The CV 35 distortion isn't always at min distance though, here's where some lines that I think should be straight are pretty curved, and seem further out than min distance:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/33482157@N07/4279419033/in/pool-nokton35f14/
Also, even when not planning to shoot "architectural photos" you can be out on the street and have some known straight lines end up curved (as with the HAF) so I think that the statements that the lens is fine if you're not shooting architectural stuff doesn't hold up. I know that our P&S's (Canon, Fuji, and Lumixes) with zooms have this CV kind of distortion on the widest settings, but I am able to zoom in a bit from widest on all, and get less distortion than the CV 35 in these cases.
I got both the 40SC and then the 35SC used from other RFF members. The 40SC is used on my CLEs and the 35SC on bodies with 35mm framelines including M8 for which it's 6-bit coded, home job with a Dremel.
Optically, the 40 is a Planar formula with an extra (thin/weak) element inserted just behind the aperture. The 35 Nokton has a similar formula with thin/weak elements on each side of the aperture blades. I don't know this for sure, but it's said this 35 Nokton construction is very similar to the v.1 8-element 35mm Summicron.
I don't appreciate linear distortion particularly, preferring things rectilinear. But some think barrel distortion helps with photos lacking straight lines near/parallel to the frame edges, as this reduces that "football" distortion of round objects near the corners that one sees in wide lenses.
Optically, the 40 is a Planar formula with an extra (thin/weak) element inserted just behind the aperture. The 35 Nokton has a similar formula with thin/weak elements on each side of the aperture blades. I don't know this for sure, but it's said this 35 Nokton construction is very similar to the v.1 8-element 35mm Summicron.
I don't appreciate linear distortion particularly, preferring things rectilinear. But some think barrel distortion helps with photos lacking straight lines near/parallel to the frame edges, as this reduces that "football" distortion of round objects near the corners that one sees in wide lenses.
Attachments
Last edited:
mdspace
Established
Somebody has a black and white picture comparison using the MC and SC for this?
I know that everybody says that the SC is great for black and white photography, but what happen when you try the MC for this purpose?
I know that everybody says that the SC is great for black and white photography, but what happen when you try the MC for this purpose?
mdspace, apparently the difference is small. Just a bit of that old-time veiling flare for the SC when bright areas are present in or near the field of view. Not nearly as much as with really old-time uncoated lenses, it's more subtle. And the MC versions just control flare a little better as a modern lens should.
The "retro" SC in some circumstances will show a bit less contrast as the flare fills in the darkest areas. Some photogs like this, succeeding in persuading Cosina to offer SC versions. I think these are particularly desired in the Japan home market.
Here are a couple of shots with the 40SC on a CLE with Fuji Neopan 400CN
The "retro" SC in some circumstances will show a bit less contrast as the flare fills in the darkest areas. Some photogs like this, succeeding in persuading Cosina to offer SC versions. I think these are particularly desired in the Japan home market.
Here are a couple of shots with the 40SC on a CLE with Fuji Neopan 400CN
Last edited:
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
I did an experiment a couple of days ago. I gathered up 13 different 35's by Cosina, Leica,Canon and a lonely Nikkor 35f3.5 LTM. I put them on a Zeiss ZM and shot a really boring shot of a bookshelf filled with stuff. Camera on tripod and somewhat aligned. I shot 3 shots with each lens (distance 1.5 m) at wide-open, 5.6 and fully stopped down. They show that the distorsion is virtually the same for them all!
Go to our Flickr site and put the tag F331 in the search and they should pop up. As with any plans -I did not check my asa indicator so the Tri X is 2 stops over - but that does not affect distorsion ( I only loaded the wide-open shots - got boring after that).
Go to our Flickr site and put the tag F331 in the search and they should pop up. As with any plans -I did not check my asa indicator so the Tri X is 2 stops over - but that does not affect distorsion ( I only loaded the wide-open shots - got boring after that).
palec
Well-known
Just a correction, lens can't have more groups than elements (AFAIK). Nokton 35/1.4 has 8 elements in 6 groups.
I've recently been shooting with my old v.1 Summicron 35mm on the M8, with IR filter. I'm also catching up with some deferred RAW processing on files previously shot with the 35 Nokton SC. So it made for an obvious opportunity for comparison. And between two lenses with the same optical arrangement, if 40 years apart!
The Nokton is a most impressive modern lens, resolving lots of fine detail and texture. Maybe not quite up to the extreme sharpness of the 25 Biogon, but right up there. Focus was right on.
The old Summicron renders with lower contrast overall, and I guess what would be called lower micro-contrast too, in having less separation of the slightly different adjacent tones of an object (such as a bush on a distant hillside). When, in post processing, the contrast is brought up to use the full histogram, this lens too can display very fine detail... it's a sharp lens no doubt, if maybe not quite as crisp as the Nokton.
I have to say that in looking at the camera's jpegs from the Summicron I was disappointed, but the TIFFs out of Capture One are impressive. Even though, since the Summicron was not 6-bit coded, there are obvious cyan outer zones to correct in CornerFix.
The Nokton is a most impressive modern lens, resolving lots of fine detail and texture. Maybe not quite up to the extreme sharpness of the 25 Biogon, but right up there. Focus was right on.
The old Summicron renders with lower contrast overall, and I guess what would be called lower micro-contrast too, in having less separation of the slightly different adjacent tones of an object (such as a bush on a distant hillside). When, in post processing, the contrast is brought up to use the full histogram, this lens too can display very fine detail... it's a sharp lens no doubt, if maybe not quite as crisp as the Nokton.
I have to say that in looking at the camera's jpegs from the Summicron I was disappointed, but the TIFFs out of Capture One are impressive. Even though, since the Summicron was not 6-bit coded, there are obvious cyan outer zones to correct in CornerFix.
ampguy
Veteran
Thanks Tom, very interesting
Thanks Tom, very interesting
The following ones look pretty straight, based mostly on the L/R vertical shelf edges:
VC 35/2.5 II, VC 35/1.7, VC 35/1.2, S-Ron 35/2.8, Cron f2 A.
One thing I found out last week with the Hexar AF shooting stairs and a table are that shooting lines at angles vs straight on can show or hide distortion.
In the example I observed, shooting known straight lines straight on can show a perfect lens. With the Hexar AF, it was easy for Roland to spot on my roll some distortion when shooting a table edge at an angle, yet shooting stairs straight on with diagonal straight lines (railing) all lines appeared straight.
I think this is why many or most 35s, even the 35/1.4 CV, and HAF take great photos most of the time, and the distortion is not noticed so much, unless you are really looking for it. But, like some kinds of bokeh, it can stand out in a random photo at times.
Also, a side note: unless you had severe sidelight, your lux 1.4 lux seems hazy or overly prone to flare at 1.4.
Very interesting test. Thanks.
Thanks Tom, very interesting
The following ones look pretty straight, based mostly on the L/R vertical shelf edges:
VC 35/2.5 II, VC 35/1.7, VC 35/1.2, S-Ron 35/2.8, Cron f2 A.
One thing I found out last week with the Hexar AF shooting stairs and a table are that shooting lines at angles vs straight on can show or hide distortion.
In the example I observed, shooting known straight lines straight on can show a perfect lens. With the Hexar AF, it was easy for Roland to spot on my roll some distortion when shooting a table edge at an angle, yet shooting stairs straight on with diagonal straight lines (railing) all lines appeared straight.
I think this is why many or most 35s, even the 35/1.4 CV, and HAF take great photos most of the time, and the distortion is not noticed so much, unless you are really looking for it. But, like some kinds of bokeh, it can stand out in a random photo at times.
Also, a side note: unless you had severe sidelight, your lux 1.4 lux seems hazy or overly prone to flare at 1.4.
Very interesting test. Thanks.