Krosya
Konicaze
Now that we have all these Noktons - 35/1.2 and 35/1.4 (SC and MC), 40/1.4 MC and SC, 50/1.5 and 50/1.1, - I was wondering, which one is the sharpest wide open?
kxl
Social Documentary
Center sharpness wide open? Easily the 50/1.5.
bwcolor
Veteran
I would think that you would need all of these lenses and adequate means/methods to test the lenses in a controlled fashion.
Good luck.
Good luck.
Krosya
Konicaze
True, but I'm sure we have some people here that tried all or most of these lenses at one point or another and could share their opinions.
zenlibra
Crazy Leica Fox
I have the 35mm f/1.2, the 40mm and the 50mm f/1.5. I would have to say that the 50mm f/1.5 is the sharpest.
umcelinho
Marcelo
I have the 35/1.4SC and the 50/1.5. the latter is much sharper.
bwcolor
Veteran
I withdraw my protest. I see how this is done. It is a course in logic. If A is better than B and C is better than A, then C is better than B.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I had a 50mm f1.5 and it was pretty damned sharp wide open.
A lot of us who had this lens will look back ruefully and wonder why we sold it I supect!
A lot of us who had this lens will look back ruefully and wonder why we sold it I supect!
SimonSawSunlight
Simon Fabel
Having the 35mm 1.2 and the 50mm 1.5, the 50mm is definitely sharper wide open, at f2.0 I wouldn't be so sure there's still a noticeable difference though.
OurManInTangier
An Undesirable
Simon just beat me to it. I have the 35 1.2 and it's pretty sharp wide open but not as sharp as the 50mm 1.5...having said that my experience with the 50mm is based on a loan of one I had a few years back.
Still love my Nokton 35mm 1.2 for it's look alone though!
Still love my Nokton 35mm 1.2 for it's look alone though!
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Which also illustrates the problem with the OP's question. Who on earth would buy a f1.2 wideangle for its sharpness wide open??
SimonSawSunlight
Simon Fabel
aye, I wouldn't sell either, but I prefer the 1.2/35.
pvdhaar
Peter
Not necessarily true.. there is no reason that quality has to be a transitive property.
Heck, there's even a set of dice thinkable that are non-transitive. Suppose you've four dice, with sides marked as follows:
A. 4,4,4,4,0,0
B. 3,3,3,3,3,3
C. 2,2,2,2,6,6
D. 5,5,5,1,1,1
Highest score wins.. It's easy to see that on average A wins from B, B from C, C from D, and -this is the amazing part- D wins from A again..
There.. you've seen it here first.. Lens A can be better than B, B can be better than C, and C can be better than A at the same time...
jamiewakeham
Long time lurker
To be fair, you can imagine your first priority being speed, and then wanting the most sharpness given the speed. In fact, that makes a lot of sense to me.
And wow - non-transitive dice! I am so torturing my sixth form with that idea!
Cheers
J
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Once you decided you want a fast lens, wouldn't the first criterion be the focal length? There's quite a big difference between a wideangle and a normal lens.
Saying "I want thin DOF in a sharp lens that has Nokton written on it, I don't care if it's a wideangle or not" would seem odd to me.
SimonSawSunlight
Simon Fabel
I was thinking the same.
especially since the 1.5/50 and 1.2/35 work so well together in terms of rendition, the priority is of course the focal length.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
I would, if I wanted a very fast and sharp wideangle lens. I imagine most anyone would. I guess the best question is, "who on earth would not buy a fast, sharp wideangle lens if they needed one."
ferider
Veteran
I've had three 1.5 Noktons and only one was spot on. One performed differently when compared to new, after starting to wobble.
If they are all well collimated and adjusted to the test conditions (say, optimized for f1.[45]), I would think all lenses you mention have equal center "sharpness", i.e. outperform your test conditions, assuming you use a DRFs or film and consumer scanner.
If they are all well collimated and adjusted to the test conditions (say, optimized for f1.[45]), I would think all lenses you mention have equal center "sharpness", i.e. outperform your test conditions, assuming you use a DRFs or film and consumer scanner.
Last edited:
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
If you prefer it unsharp or fuzzy, chances are that you're a bit peculiar compared to some of us crazy photographers...
A 1.2 lens is bought to make use of that speed, and if to such a beautiful OOF rendering wide open, you add a selective focus that's indeed very sharp, the effect is the most enjoyable one visually.
And some shooters consider a 35 -even if called like that- is not a real wideangle, being so very close to the 43mm "normal" view...
Cheers,
Juan
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Exactly. If you already know you want a wideangle, comparing the sharpness of wideangle A with non-wideangle B is unlikely to influence decision between A and B much. After all, it's a wideangle that you want, so B just won't cut it.
Likewise, you got an expensive f/1.2 lens A optimized for bokeh and creamy rendering, and a cheaper f/1.4 lens B optimized for compactness and size. If I were to make the choice, the two are already so different there'd be really a lot of criteria for decision before it came sharpness... But hey, everybody as they like it.
Then again, rather than choosing lenses of course you can also simply talk about them, which is an entirely different arena altogether