http://kenrockwell.com/voigtlander/50mm-f1.htm
Tell him what you think. I bet he´s sitting in front of his 20+ whatever inch Mac and waiting for echoes.
Tell him what you think. I bet he´s sitting in front of his 20+ whatever inch Mac and waiting for echoes.
srtiwari
Daktari
So...Is it true ? Those pictures do look kinda fuzzy. Perhaps someone else can explain this.
I don't own anything nearly that fast !
I don't own anything nearly that fast !
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
I like this quote from the review:
"...The more you know about photography, the more you know that lens sharpness doesn't matter.
That's good, because this Voigtländer lens is soft and blurry at the large apertures for which you'd buy it in the first place."
"...The more you know about photography, the more you know that lens sharpness doesn't matter.
That's good, because this Voigtländer lens is soft and blurry at the large apertures for which you'd buy it in the first place."
So, (and I realize that someone had to ask...) if lens sharpness doesn't matter, then ....
~Joe
~Joe
Last edited:
antiquark
Derek Ross
Here's a different review in which the lens doesn't look too bad:
http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2009/11/24/leica-noctilux-classic-f1-vs-voigtlander-nokton-1-1/
Wonder if it could be due to sample variation? I.e., Rockwell got a poor sample? It's been known to happen.
http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2009/11/24/leica-noctilux-classic-f1-vs-voigtlander-nokton-1-1/
Wonder if it could be due to sample variation? I.e., Rockwell got a poor sample? It's been known to happen.
richardhkirkando
Well-known
His review sounds like a lot of other reviews of this lens, but with every point exaggerated 1000%. You know, like pretty much every other Ken Rockwell review.
FWIW, I'd still love to have one of these.
FWIW, I'd still love to have one of these.
Paul_C
Established
If he hates it it must be good.
pvdhaar
Peter
Rockwell has a sweet tooth for pictures where the saturation is cranked all the way up beyond the 'nuclear' setting.. That is something to take into account when reading his reviews. What Steve Huff writes seems a lot more balanced, and ís backed up with realistic images.
John Lawrence
Well-known
I take most of the stuff on Ken's site with a (very large) pinch of salt.
I even think he wrote something to that effect in his preamble.
John
I even think he wrote something to that effect in his preamble.
John
dow
Member
I'm a happy owner of this lens - so I obviously disagree with Ken. I envy the self confidence he brings to his opinions - though it's always left me suspicious. Such certainty is hard to come by in my experience, but it's his site and strong opinions make for better reading than qualified ones. (The current state of journalism pops to mind as a possible example.)
At any rate, I remember reading a thread here once about "bad bokeh" - and there were some clear examples of vertigo inducing, vaguely nauseating out of focus backgrounds. It was clear to see - especially in the shots with a lot of trees in the back.
But in cases where this isn't so clear, where the background doesn't look like you're spinning down a well, my feeling is arguments over "bokeh" are basically "taste of beer" arguments - some like it, some don't, and there you have it.
Maybe someday there will be a "bokeh-matic" measuring tool that can tell us exactly how "good" one lens' bokeh is over another based on some objective and agreed upon criteria (good luck with that). Even then I think I'd find myself in the same place as the practice of taking pictures of newsprint to test sharpness (no offense to anyone who does this - it's just not how I personally judge lens quality).
My point is that regardless of any objective "truth" you could come to about the out of focus areas of any particular lens (that isn't obviously crippled in that regard) you'd wind up banging your head against the subjectiveness of perception. So again, we're back to arguing the taste of beer.
(On a side note it's interesting too that other passionate enthusiast groups do this - I used to make electronic music with a new but old-fashioned modular synthesizer - talk about passionate opinions over small details. Modular synthesists are obsessive to say the least. Our "bokeh" is their "oscillator drift".)
Anyway, the funny thing is that the one picture I really liked that I took over the holidays was with the 1.1 - and you know what my photog friends said? "Nice bokeh."
So there you go... who knows?
One last thing - about the viewfinder obstruction, which is real, I have an R3a so I can shoot with both eyes open. With both eyes open the "obstruction" of the lens ghosts out and I can see the area the lens blocks. It's the same principle as those old Voigtlander 50mm viewfinders that combine a bright line image from one "obstructed" eye with the open eye. (Steve Gandy does a better job explaining this than me) I've got one of those old finders on a Vitessa L and it's really cool - very "Mr. Science".
Thanks for tolerating my ramble... I just had to put in my two cents.
Best,
Dow
At any rate, I remember reading a thread here once about "bad bokeh" - and there were some clear examples of vertigo inducing, vaguely nauseating out of focus backgrounds. It was clear to see - especially in the shots with a lot of trees in the back.
But in cases where this isn't so clear, where the background doesn't look like you're spinning down a well, my feeling is arguments over "bokeh" are basically "taste of beer" arguments - some like it, some don't, and there you have it.
Maybe someday there will be a "bokeh-matic" measuring tool that can tell us exactly how "good" one lens' bokeh is over another based on some objective and agreed upon criteria (good luck with that). Even then I think I'd find myself in the same place as the practice of taking pictures of newsprint to test sharpness (no offense to anyone who does this - it's just not how I personally judge lens quality).
My point is that regardless of any objective "truth" you could come to about the out of focus areas of any particular lens (that isn't obviously crippled in that regard) you'd wind up banging your head against the subjectiveness of perception. So again, we're back to arguing the taste of beer.
(On a side note it's interesting too that other passionate enthusiast groups do this - I used to make electronic music with a new but old-fashioned modular synthesizer - talk about passionate opinions over small details. Modular synthesists are obsessive to say the least. Our "bokeh" is their "oscillator drift".)
Anyway, the funny thing is that the one picture I really liked that I took over the holidays was with the 1.1 - and you know what my photog friends said? "Nice bokeh."
So there you go... who knows?
One last thing - about the viewfinder obstruction, which is real, I have an R3a so I can shoot with both eyes open. With both eyes open the "obstruction" of the lens ghosts out and I can see the area the lens blocks. It's the same principle as those old Voigtlander 50mm viewfinders that combine a bright line image from one "obstructed" eye with the open eye. (Steve Gandy does a better job explaining this than me) I've got one of those old finders on a Vitessa L and it's really cool - very "Mr. Science".
Thanks for tolerating my ramble... I just had to put in my two cents.
Best,
Dow
Last edited:
50/1.1 Nokton, wide-open on theM8.
100% crop of above.
My opinion, the lens is somewhat softer at Minimum focus distancethan it is a few feet farther out. Maybe why Cosina set the Min Focus Distance to 3ft and not closer.
100% crop of above.
My opinion, the lens is somewhat softer at Minimum focus distancethan it is a few feet farther out. Maybe why Cosina set the Min Focus Distance to 3ft and not closer.
Last edited:
Oh. He used an M9 to test it. The Nokton is set up for film cameras. I used two layers of copper tape on the RF cam to increase the thickness by 0.05mm. Made all the difference in the world, stopped the back-focus. I did the same with me 35/1.2 Nokton, required the same change. There is a difference between optimizing a lens for film and digital, as assumptions must be made for film not being perfectly flat.
Mine is spot-on used wide-open.
Focus is where I put the RF. I suspect Ken's is off.
Mine is spot-on used wide-open.
Focus is where I put the RF. I suspect Ken's is off.
Last edited:
Roberto V.
Le surrèalisme, c'est moi
Thanks for those pics Brian. I've always wanted this lens, and I'm 90% sure that I'll buy it in the near future, together with a 35mm f/1.2 Nokton.
uhoh7
Veteran
I sent ken the following email a few days ago (he had emailed me with some questions about nex adapters a month ago):
"Hi Ken,
Your site is a great reference for lots of glass.
With respect, it may be time to revise your nokton 50mm 1.1 review,
which has sort of become a joke among the glass savy RF crowd, and
does your credibility no good.
There are now so many beautiful, sharp (for 1.1) images from this lens
that it's clear you were having technical difficulties in testing.
As you may know the lens requires technical adjustment for proper
focus with leica RFs:
"I adjusted the RF cam by adding 0.05mm to account for the difference
between a film camera and my Digital M8. He should have known to have
the lens optimized for his camera. Something that must be done for
lenses faster than about F2"
This from someone very experienced with RFs and fast lenses.
The samples from the lens on flickr and elsewhere should tell you something was amiss.
On top of that, a revised review with an optimized lens would cause quite a buzz and not hurt your site stats one bit."
his reply:
"Then the NOKTON is defective in design, and properly reviewed.
If it isn't LEICA, it isn't a rangefinder.
THANKS!
Ken"
I fired back:
"WOW,
There's nothing wrong with a nokton 50mm 1.1 review which notes the need for calibration and performance before and after.
One which is oblivious to the issue is just not serious, with respect.
You state "optics are hellaciously soft and blurry at f/1.1"
Perhaps you can explain this:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/zacharylee/4449365374/sizes/o/in/photostream/
or
http://www.flickr.com/photos/31172543@N06/4675474504/sizes/l/in/photostream/
The result is you are not taken seriously by a whole community.
One quote at photo.net:
"Ken Rockwell is full of......Ken Rockwell"
Jealousy?
Here is Steve Huff:
"So after one hour with the lens I knew that it was a capable low light shooter with great sharpness and color. One thing that I noticed though is that I was not getting that “WOW” look like I remembered with my old Noctilux. It did not seem to have that crazy shallow depth of field, or “swirly” look and the color was nice, but different than the Noct."
His test shot at 1.1
http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/jacksmile1.115001.jpg
Your review is worse than silly, it's misleading. Nothing personal. Just a glaring error which calls your judgment into question, for real.
Anyway thanks for the reply,
Best to you and your family,"
He replied twice:
1)"is soft, specifically, low contrast.
Ken"
2)"too low rez to see anything abotu the lens THANKS!
Ken"
What can you say?
Communication is not an option--or maybe I was too blunt?
I would not normally quote an email, but this is so classic and consise I could not resist.
apologies also to local expert who I quoted annonomously to Ken--I meant well.
"Hi Ken,
Your site is a great reference for lots of glass.
With respect, it may be time to revise your nokton 50mm 1.1 review,
which has sort of become a joke among the glass savy RF crowd, and
does your credibility no good.
There are now so many beautiful, sharp (for 1.1) images from this lens
that it's clear you were having technical difficulties in testing.
As you may know the lens requires technical adjustment for proper
focus with leica RFs:
"I adjusted the RF cam by adding 0.05mm to account for the difference
between a film camera and my Digital M8. He should have known to have
the lens optimized for his camera. Something that must be done for
lenses faster than about F2"
This from someone very experienced with RFs and fast lenses.
The samples from the lens on flickr and elsewhere should tell you something was amiss.
On top of that, a revised review with an optimized lens would cause quite a buzz and not hurt your site stats one bit."
his reply:
"Then the NOKTON is defective in design, and properly reviewed.
If it isn't LEICA, it isn't a rangefinder.
THANKS!
Ken"
I fired back:
"WOW,
There's nothing wrong with a nokton 50mm 1.1 review which notes the need for calibration and performance before and after.
One which is oblivious to the issue is just not serious, with respect.
You state "optics are hellaciously soft and blurry at f/1.1"
Perhaps you can explain this:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/zacharylee/4449365374/sizes/o/in/photostream/
or
http://www.flickr.com/photos/31172543@N06/4675474504/sizes/l/in/photostream/
The result is you are not taken seriously by a whole community.
One quote at photo.net:
"Ken Rockwell is full of......Ken Rockwell"
Jealousy?
Here is Steve Huff:
"So after one hour with the lens I knew that it was a capable low light shooter with great sharpness and color. One thing that I noticed though is that I was not getting that “WOW” look like I remembered with my old Noctilux. It did not seem to have that crazy shallow depth of field, or “swirly” look and the color was nice, but different than the Noct."
His test shot at 1.1
http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/jacksmile1.115001.jpg
Your review is worse than silly, it's misleading. Nothing personal. Just a glaring error which calls your judgment into question, for real.
Anyway thanks for the reply,
Best to you and your family,"
He replied twice:
1)"is soft, specifically, low contrast.
Ken"
2)"too low rez to see anything abotu the lens THANKS!
Ken"
What can you say?
Communication is not an option--or maybe I was too blunt?
I would not normally quote an email, but this is so classic and consise I could not resist.
apologies also to local expert who I quoted annonomously to Ken--I meant well.
Last edited:
codester80
A Touch of Light
Ken Rockwell is the biggest joke on the Internet. Why does anyone listen to a thing he says? All he has going for his site is some amazing SEO because he pops up every time you search a lens or camera.
uhoh7
Veteran
uhoh7
Veteran
OOF rendering
wide open 1/4000
bigger
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5258/5561445856_3374044d24_b.jpg
here the canon FL 55 at 1.2
bigger
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5292/5561556098_c53c7d08ec_b.jpg
and lastly smc pentax 50 1.4 @ 1.4
bigger
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5142/5560981717_460e295fbc_b.jpg
to my eye, you really see the DOF gain, even the canon seems to have slightly more, and the pentax, which is considered a very fast 1.4, has immensly greater DOF.
hence having such a fast lens might be worth it...
for fun, my canon rf 100/2 wide open
bigger
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5094/5538827835_2ded31d30f_b.jpg
wide open 1/4000
bigger
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5258/5561445856_3374044d24_b.jpg
here the canon FL 55 at 1.2
bigger
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5292/5561556098_c53c7d08ec_b.jpg
and lastly smc pentax 50 1.4 @ 1.4
bigger
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5142/5560981717_460e295fbc_b.jpg
to my eye, you really see the DOF gain, even the canon seems to have slightly more, and the pentax, which is considered a very fast 1.4, has immensly greater DOF.
hence having such a fast lens might be worth it...
for fun, my canon rf 100/2 wide open
bigger
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5094/5538827835_2ded31d30f_b.jpg
So now I have an M9, and will be using the Noktons on it.
But right now, I have a pre-war CZJ 5cm F1.5 Sonnar on it. And another one on the M8. They are perfect focus on them. Should be, I made them that way. Both are custom mounted, and shimmed for use on the Leica's. If you want to use a fast lens on a rangefinder camera, you optimize it. If you do not understand rangefinder cameras, you complain that the lens is soft.
But right now, I have a pre-war CZJ 5cm F1.5 Sonnar on it. And another one on the M8. They are perfect focus on them. Should be, I made them that way. Both are custom mounted, and shimmed for use on the Leica's. If you want to use a fast lens on a rangefinder camera, you optimize it. If you do not understand rangefinder cameras, you complain that the lens is soft.
uhoh7
Veteran
OK got out the tripod @1.1 iso 200
bigger
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5305/5566672726_5bde7105c8_b.jpg
100
shot raw, but did not touch color or contrast.
What do we think?
besides, time to clean remote, hehe
bigger
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5305/5566672726_5bde7105c8_b.jpg
100
shot raw, but did not touch color or contrast.
What do we think?
besides, time to clean remote, hehe
dfoo
Well-known
Looks very soft.
Neare
Well-known
Are people trying to disprove someones review? Come on who cares
All those well known blogger reviewers are on somebodies payroll ("be kind to us and we'll send you free stuff" sort of idea).
Lets just quote good ol' Ken again... "If it isn't LEICA, it isn't a rangefinder."
You know, that sort of attitude from him should completely discredit all his reviews.
Nokton's are great lenses, and it's probably not as sharp as some other lenses out there but it is f1.1, so don't fight physics. You might take microscopes to your own photos but no one else does.
All those well known blogger reviewers are on somebodies payroll ("be kind to us and we'll send you free stuff" sort of idea).
Lets just quote good ol' Ken again... "If it isn't LEICA, it isn't a rangefinder."
You know, that sort of attitude from him should completely discredit all his reviews.
Nokton's are great lenses, and it's probably not as sharp as some other lenses out there but it is f1.1, so don't fight physics. You might take microscopes to your own photos but no one else does.