Official announcement of Nokton 35mm F1.2 II

Double Negative said:
Focus shift is more often caused by lack of floating elements. The use of spherical elements vs. aspherical can result in undercorrected spherical aberration - which is good for bokeh, at least. So going aspherical might change the character to a more clinical appearance. Oddly, the 1,1/50 Nokton's bokeh isn't all *that* great wide open - unlike the 1,2/35 Nokton (which is dreamy and smooth). So, who knows.

I can't say I've ever noticed any focus shift with my 1,1/50 Nokton though, and I even shot the 2011 Mermaid Parade with it just this past weekend (among many, many other sessions). From wide open to stopped down.
Click to expand...

I think this photo possibly shows the focus shift:

L1001516.jpg


The hair on the back of the girls' heads appears sharper than their eyes. Assuming you focused on the eyes, as is usual in portraiture, stopping down to f4 (the webpage says you shot it at f4) shifted the focus back a few inches. I'm judging it by the little online version, since I can't see the fullsize file, so i may be wrong about the eyes being slightly soft, but thats how it looks to me in the web file.
 
Cosina can do whatever it wants. So can we.

Some people will pay very high prices for anything that says "Leica" on it. Which can have a coattails effect on third-party stuff that fits on a Leica. But I'm not sure how far that effect goes. What is the dollar amount where people will say, "Screw it, this is a Cosina lens, not a Leica lens, I'm not paying that."? If the posts on this thread are any indication, the announced price for the new 35/1.2 may have crossed that line. We'll see.

That said, my gut feeling is close to what Chris has expressed. I had an M2 and DR Summicron in my late teens/early 20s. I paid $250.00 for them (used) in 1970. Sold them after college when I needed money. Then the Japanese collecting craze started, and all used prices doubled and tripled. Because of that, I couldn't afford another M-Leica for 25 years.

That really p*ssed me off. I don't shoot Leica because of the luxury cachet. I shoot it because it's the best camera for my eyes and the way I work. But I couldn't compete with the deep pockets of the luxury/collector crowd.

So it does bother me that the new lens' introductory price seems to be geared toward that luxury crowd, which prices many photographers out of the market. That's not what Cosina has been about. They've been about providing high-quality RF optics at a reasonable price. So now who do they think they are, Leica? :angel:

I have the v.1 lens, and will continue to use it. At the stated price, the new lens would have a *very* hard time convincing me that it's worth it.

--Peter
 
Last edited:
Peter Klein said:
...That said, my gut feeling is close to what Chris has expressed. I had an M2 and DR Summicron in my late teens/early 20s. I paid $250.00 for them (used) in 1970. Sold them after college when I needed money. Then the Japanese collecting craze started, and all used prices doubled and tripled. Because of that, I couldn't afford another M-Leica for 25 years.

That really p*ssed me off. I don't shoot Leica because of the luxury cachet. I shoot it because it's the best camera for my eyes and the way I work. But I couldn't compete with the deep pockets of the luxury/collector crowd...

--Peter
Click to expand...

To this day, I still regret not picking up that SP2005 at B&H when it was available at sane prices. Regular folks just cannot afford to shoot with what they want to anymore. Luckily we have CV on our side... ;)
 
F1.2 lenses have always commanded a premium. The 35mm F1.4 is half a stop less, smaller, and cheaper. There are alternatives from Cosina.

The pictures will speak for themselves on this one. If they are better than the V1, expect some V1 lenses for sale in the classified as people want to upgrade.
 
Thanks for that link Brian. Great reading. Chris - yes, unless the photographer specifically focused on the rear of their heads, possibly for some softness on the eyes, that could be an example of focus shift.

The Nex would have nailed the focus on the eyes. No amount of "zero tolerance" setup on an RF can dial out focus shift across all apertures.

As the article Brian linked to, it's SLR's with stop down capability that can see it, or as not mentioned by the article, the Sony NEX. Otherwise you need to focus bracket, and few people are willing to blow a whole roll of film on a single image, let alone even blow a roll to test focus shift.
 
Fun thread. People get upset over nothing, etc...
Here is what I think: If this new lens turns out to be as good as V1 or better - it SHOULD be priced at $1700. I think if V1 had a somewhat better built - it should have been that price too. We all know that it's worth it. But we got spoiled by Cosina.
I dont always agree with the pricing of CV lenses, but I think many of them should be priced higher than they are .....and some lower. Lenses like Ultron 35/1.7 or Nokton 50/1.5 only now are aproaching prices they deserve. We were lucky to get them cheaper before. Now Cosina is beginning to price things as they should - in some cases. Will it be the case with the CV 35/1.2 V2? - time will tell. I'm pretty happy with my 1st version and dont see any need to "upgrade" unless it breaks.
But seriously, some comments about prices - get real. Cosina has one responsibility - to it's stockholders and I'm sure they want more money. If someone doesnt like this idea - dont buy their products. Simple. But why whine about it? There are some things I cant afford, yet I wish I could - I dont cry that they are overpriced. I just dont buy them and find other options. As far is - is it worth the price or not - seems to me its a personal thing. Whats worth the price to me, may not be to someone else.
All I want to see is how changes in the new version affect image quality - did Cosina improve the lens or screwed it up?
 
Krosya said:
Fun thread. People get upset over nothing, etc...
Here is what I think: If this new lens turns out to be as good as V1 or better - it SHOULD be priced at $1700. I think if V1 had a somewhat better built - it should have been that price too. We all know that it's worth it. But we got spoiled by Cosina.
I dont always agree with the pricing of CV lenses, but I think many of them should be priced higher than they are .....and some lower. Lenses like Ultron 35/1.7 or Nokton 50/1.5 only now are aproaching prices they deserve. We were lucky to get them cheaper before. Now Cosina is beginning to price things as they should - in some cases. Will it be the case with the CV 35/1.2 V2? - time will tell. I'm pretty happy with my 1st version and dont see any need to "upgrade" unless it breaks.
But seriously, some comments about prices - get real. Cosina has one responsibility - to it's stockholders and I'm sure they want more money. If someone doesnt like this idea - dont buy their products. Simple. But why whine about it? There are some things I cant afford, yet I wish I could - I dont cry that they are overpriced. I just dont buy them and find other options. As far is - is it worth the price or not - seems to me its a personal thing. Whats worth the price to me, may not be to someone else.
All I want to see is how changes in the new version affect image quality - did Cosina improve the lens or screwed it up?
Click to expand...

Cosina does NOT have 'one responsibility'. They are, by law, responsible to shareholders (if there are any. Isn't Cosina owned by Mr. K and his family alone?), to employees, to customers, and to society as a whole. Let me explain. it is the law in the USA and in Japan as well.

Shareholders or owners: That's easy. They need to make a profit. We all understand that.

Employees: The law requires them to provide a safe working environment, to follow wage and hour laws (eg. minimum wages, overtime laws, etc.). They have to do this even if it reduces profits. Oh Hell, the shareholders aren't the only responsibility!

Customers: The law requires them to sell products that are safe, both for the customer (ok that's easy, can a lens hurt someone if badly made?) and for the customer's equipment that the product is made to work with (in other words if they say its an M-Mount lens, it cannot damage your Leica when you use it on the Leica). They're also required to honor the product warranty. As with the responsibilities to workers, these responsibilities to the customers can reduce profits. Too bad! Damn, another responsibility that is NOT the shareholders!

Society: They have to obey other laws that affect society as a whole, like laws that protect the environment from pollution. They cannot hire illegal immigrants, can't import products/materials/parts without paying tariffs, have to pay taxes, etc. All these things reduce profits. They have to do them anyway. Well look at that, We've completely blown away the notion that businesses have no other responsibility than to make money for their owners.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
jonmanjiro said:
The USD is going down the gurgler (i.e. drain hole), Chris. What do you think is going to happen to the price of imported products when priced in USD? May as well start calling the good 'ole greenback the "kip" or something...
Click to expand...

That's not what I'm complaining about. As I said in another post, I understand prices increasing because of currency values, inflation, costs of materials increasing.

My problem is the guys here BEGGING for the price to be raised. Why would anyone do that?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
comparing prices just by converting currencies, ignoring import taxes and store margins, sounds a bit superficial to me. doesn't these two apply?
 
umcelinho said:
comparing prices just by converting currencies, ignoring import taxes and store margins, sounds a bit superficial to me. doesn't these two apply?
Click to expand...

When one of the prices compared is a MSRP, the whole comparison is pointless enough by itself that all these secondary considerations can be confidently ignored.
 
umcelinho said:
comparing prices just by converting currencies, ignoring import taxes and store margins, sounds a bit superficial to me. doesn't these two apply?
Click to expand...

The original Japanese prices don't include import taxes since they're made in Japan, and there are no import duties on photo gear in the USA. For RFF members outside the USA and Japan, then yes that is a factor.

Store markups probably don't vary a whole lot. Look at here in the USA, where you can buy CV lenses from several stores: CameraQuest (our host here at RFF), PhotoVillage, Adorama, and B&H. They all charge the same prices for CV lenses.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
Christ. Are people still demanding to pay more money for things? Seriously?

By the way, Cosina does NOT have 'one responsibility'. They are, by law, responsible to shareholders (if there are any. Isn't Cosina owned by Mr. K and his family alone?), to employees, to customers, and to society as a whole. Let me explain. Conservatives often have difficulty with this, but it is the law in the USA and in Japan as well.

Shareholders or owners: That's easy. They need to make a profit. We all understand that.

Employees: The law requires them to provide a safe working environment, to follow wage and hour laws (eg. minimum wages, overtime laws, etc.). They have to do this even if it reduces profits. Oh Hell, the shareholders aren't the only responsibility!

Customers: The law requires them to sell products that are safe, both for the customer (ok that's easy, can a lens hurt someone if badly made?) and for the customer's equipment that the product is made to work with (in other words if they say its an M-Mount lens, it cannot damage your Leica when you use it on the Leica). They're also required to honor the product warranty. As with the responsibilities to workers, these responsibilities to the customers can reduce profits. Too bad! Damn, another responsibility that is NOT the shareholders!

Society: They have to obey other laws that affect society as a whole, like laws that protect the environment from pollution. They cannot hire illegal immigrants, can't import products/materials/parts without paying tariffs, have to pay taxes, etc. All these things reduce profits. They have to do them anyway. Well look at that, We've completely blown away the notion that businesses have no other responsibility than to make money for their owners.
Click to expand...

You crack me up, really. lol.
I never "demanded" to pay higher prices. What I do say - sometimes , for some things I'm willing to do so, if those things are worth it to me. It's like - why buy an Omega mechanical watch for $3K when you can get $15 Casio which will be more accurate? If my budget allows me to do so - why not - to me it's worth the price. Other things may not be the case.
So, in the case with this lens - If it proves to be as good as Version 1, - I wouldn't mind paying that much for it if I wanted to buy one.
There is a reason why we have other stores besides a Wal-Mart. In many cases - the more its costs - the better it is. Not always the rule, but often it is. Some people are willing to pay extra for a better product - whats wrong with it? Some things just cant be cheap because you want them to be.
For instance, when you sell your photos - do you sell them for one dollar? No? Why not? Yet you expect Cosina to do it?
I'm glad you listed all those other resposibilities for the company. So, to be able to do all that - they need to sell thier products to cover costs involved. Right? Or I suppose they could hire kids from China and India to work for 10 cents a day so you could buy your lens cheaper? :rolleyes:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Krosya said:
You crack me up, really. lol.
I never "demanded" to pay higher prices. What I do say - sometimes , for some things I'm willing to do so, if those things are worth it to me. It's like - why buy an Omega mechanical watch for $3K when you can get $15 Casio which will be more accurate? If my budget allows me to do so - why not - to me it's worth the price. Other things may not be the case.
So, in the case with this lens - If it proves to be as good as Version 1, - I wouldn't mind paying that much for it if I wanted to buy one.
There is a reason why we have other stores besides a Wal-Mart. In many cases - the more its costs - the better it is. Not always the rule, but often it is. Some people are willing to pay extra for a better product - whats wrong with it? Some things just cant be cheap because you want them to be.
For instance, when you sell your photos - do you sell them for one dollar? No? Why not? Yet you expect Cosina to do it?
I'm glad you listed all those other resposibilities for the company. So, to be able to do all that - they need to sell thier products to cover costs involved. Right? Or I suppose they could hire kids from China and India to work for 10 cents a day so you could buy your lens cheaper? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

So why aren't you proclaiming that you'd pay $3000 for that Casio? I wear a seiko that cost $500. I like it, its a good looking, well made, accurate watch that does lots of cool stuff. Its got a stopwatch and alarm as well as regular hands to tell time. Its a chronograph. Omega, Rolex, and others make similar style watches that sell for thousands. Some people have a lot of money and they can buy such watches, just as some here buy new Leica gear. I'm not on the internet and tell Seiko that my Seiko Chronograph should be sold for $7000 because its so good its worth that. I wouldnt pay $7000 for a watch even if I made a million dollars a year ,when Seiko makes a watch just as good for $500. I'm sorry you don't get that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So, why dont you sell your photos for a dollar? Is it because you want to buy $500 Seiko? Cause Seiko makes good watches for a lot cheaper as well as some for $7K or more. And actually Casio makes watches that cost $1-3K. Would I buy one - No, but not because it's not worth it, but rather cause I prefer different watches and for those I would pay that much in some cases. Just as I said - you get what you pay for. You say you want things cheaper, yet you have some expensive things, . So that means that you made a choice to buy what you did - $500 for a watch is not cheap. Yet you didnt buy a $200 Seiko.
Let me ask you this - do you like to support local business, such as local camera stores? Cause it usually means that you have to pay more than from places such as B&H.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
So why aren't you proclaiming that you'd pay $3000 for that Casio? I wear a seiko that cost $500. I like it, its a good looking, well made, accurate watch that does lots of cool stuff. Its got a stopwatch and alarm as well as regular hands to tell time.
Click to expand...

Well, now that you've brought up this beautiful example, did you ever ask yourself why on earth you'd want to spend $500 on a watch?

I wear a Swatch Irony chronograph that cost me like $30 used on eBay, does mostly the same as yours except the alarm which I don't need, and looks good enough that I can wear it at black tie events with the president of the country attending. By your logic, it should be <delete> to spend fifteen times as much when a $30 investment does the job.

And now don't ask me why I won't spend $500 on that Swatch, ask yourself why you actually spent them. Something obviously made it seem worth it; some expectation of quality maybe? That's basically it.

The other thing is that you could just stop telling others they are stupid, bending over etc. just because their sense of the value of things is different from yours.

And I'll remind you of this discussion the next time you pop up in a Soviet camera thread telling people how it's theoretically impossible to take in-focus pictures with them that hold up to your expectations of sharpness, making it necessary to spend five times as much on lenses. Vis-a-vis the people in those threads, you are in the same position that people are now vis-a-vis to you.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
rxmd said:
Well, now that you've brought up this beautiful example, did you ever ask yourself why on earth you'd want to spend $500 on a watch?

I wear a Swatch Irony chronograph that cost me like $30 used on eBay, does mostly the same as yours except the alarm which I don't need, and looks good enough that I can wear it at black tie events with the president of the country attending. By your logic, it should be stupid to spend fifteen times as much when a $30 investment does the job.

And now don't ask me why I won't spend $500 on that Swatch, ask yourself why you actually spent them. Something obviously made it seem worth it; some expectation of quality maybe? That's basically it.

The other thing is that you could just stop telling others they are stupid, bending over etc. just because their sense of the value of things is different from yours.

And I'll remind you of this discussion the next time you pop up in a Soviet camera thread telling people how it's theoretically impossible to take in-focus pictures with them that hold up to your expectations of sharpness, making it necessary to spend five times as much on lenses. Vis-a-vis the people in those threads, you are in the same position that people are now vis-a-vis to you.
Click to expand...

The watch was given to me by my parents as a graduation gift when I graduated from high school 17 years ago. They're the sort of people who spend way too much for stuff they don't need to keep up with the joneses. If it had been up to me, I'd have bought something more modest. If someone gives you something, you don't tell them no. You take it and thank them for their generosity.

I have another expensive watch too, a Bulova Marine Star Chronograph. It probably cost around $500 or so new, like my Seiko. I bought it last year at a pawn shop in Fort Wayne for $20. THAT is my kind of price for a watch. They sold it cheap because it had a dead battery and they couldn't figure out how to change it. I had a local jeweler fix it for $30 (It is a solar powered watch that takes a special rechargeable battery!). So, for $50 I got a fancy watch. I bought it for my son, because he does not have a watch. He didn't want it. "No one wears those anymore, there's a clock on my laptop and in my PSP, etc." Ok, so I kept it for myself. If he changes his mind, its his. I don't need two watches. I still think my son needs one. I'm old and cranky, I guess.

The big differences you are choosing to ignore in what I've said in this thread and the ones on Soviet lenses are:

1) I am not complaining about the cost of lenses themselves, I am complaining about begging manufacturers to increase prices. Everyone keeps choosing to ignore that in their responses to me because they can't argue against that. I'm right.

2) Soviet lenses cannot focus accurately on Leicas. It is not 'theoretical', it is an established, scientifically verifiable, irrefutable fact of their mechanical design, which is based on the Contax standard, not the Leica standard despite using the Leica lens mount. A lot of people here have no clue what accurate focus is and others don;t notice because they shoot everything at f11. Just look in the gallery at all the portraits with sharp ears and soft eyes. If that is your standard of focus accuracy, then fine, Soviet lenses work just peachy. If you want equipment that ACTUALLY WORKS, as I require to make my living, then no, Soviet lenses don't do the job. Brian Sweeny, our resident expert on Soviet lenses, has stated this NUMEROUS TIMES.

I give people accurate advice because I know how FRUSTRATING it is to have gear that you just can't seem to get to work right. It sucks, and it makes photography much less enjoyable. For a beginner, like those who commonly ask these questions about whether cheap russian lenses will work and save them money, the frustration level will be far higher and could make them give up photography because they'll be more likely to blame themselves for their failures due to their lack of knowledge about how the equipment works and how it can undermine you if it does not work. People can argue with me all they want, I will not stop telling people the truth when they ask my advice. To do any less would be to betray the ethical values by which I live. I don't know everything, so I don't answer if I don't know the answer...and if someone writes me directly I tell them that I don't know if that's the case.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom