The "50-58mm f/1.4" club

I have no experience with the Voigtänder 35/1.2 and have no idea what its imaging signature looks like. 🙂

G
 
We are a port town and the port, the West Mooring Basin part, is at the bottom of the hill I live on. So here is a crabber getting ready to go out and fish for those tasty Dungeness crabs. Crabs are good eating. This is the Thypoch Simera 50mm f/1.4 @ f/2.8 on an M9. I really like how this lens does color, both on the M9 and the M240.

 
Okay. Looks fine to me, but I don't see anything that's gonna make me want to sell my Summilux 35mm... Not to mention that it looks like it's about 3x the size and weight!

summilux-size.jpg
The Summilux 35mm f/1.4 type II from 1972 weighs only 187g sans hood and/or filter. It's only about half a stop slower than the Nokton 35mm f/1.2. 🙂

G
 
Okay. Looks fine to me, but I don't see anything that's gonna make me want to sell my Summilux 35mm... Not to mention that it looks like it's about 3x the size and weight!

View attachment 4872732
The Summilux 35mm f/1.4 type II from 1972 weighs only 187g sans hood and/or filter. It's only about half a stop slower than the Nokton 35mm f/1.2. 🙂

G
There was a time when I mainly used the f1.2 on my M9 because of the rendering, and the way it sucked in light. Matt Alofs said in his online review that he suspected the light transmission was more akin to f1. Disappointingly, the accompanying images have gone, but the text remains. His sentence, 'faces float up from the shadows' perfectly describes this lens, and remember that when Matt wrote that review, it was in 2007, and he shot film with it.


I've also used the Voigtlander 35/1.4 MC extensively, and liked them both for different reasons. The size and weight of the f1.2 was acceptable after a while, and I have taken many atmospheric images with it.
 

Thread viewers

Back
Top Bottom