xabi
Established
Woo, yeah, sychan, your example is really clear. Nokton is clearly better (both the sharpness and the bokeh) than the rokkor, and the bokeh improves significantly once the lens is stopped down to f2.
thx.
thx.
Thank you, Sychan, for the visual comparison! You've chosen your picture well, too, as it should stress the bokeh of any lens! I have to admit that in these comparison shots I slightly prefer the OOF look of the Nokton to the Rokkor at equivalent f/stops, especially with regard to the upper right area branches. I am surprised, and perhaps better informed!
taffer
void
Hi Marko,
not sure if you noticed, but there's a very nice R3a with the 40/1.4 for sale here right now for $700. Check the 35mm classifieds...
Oscar
not sure if you noticed, but there's a very nice R3a with the 40/1.4 for sale here right now for $700. Check the 35mm classifieds...
Oscar
Alec
Amateur
Thank you Steve!
Thanks to you, the "Nokton Classic harsh bokeh" urban legend is debunked.
The bad news is that it renews gear envy in me...
Thanks to you, the "Nokton Classic harsh bokeh" urban legend is debunked.
The bad news is that it renews gear envy in me...
Marko
Established
Thanks at all.
Special thanks on sychan. Your pictures has given me the clearness that i have searched!
I think, that i order the R3a with the Nokton 40mm and hope, that i can see the 40mm frame with my glasses !
No risk, no fun
Special thanks on sychan. Your pictures has given me the clearness that i have searched!
I think, that i order the R3a with the Nokton 40mm and hope, that i can see the 40mm frame with my glasses !
No risk, no fun
Last edited:
Huck Finn
Well-known
Marko said:
No chance of seeing the 40 framelines on the R3A with glasses, Marko. If you want viewable framelines for the Nokton, the Rollei 35 RF offers 0.7x magnification, makes these framelines much easier to see. Of course, if you want AE, the R3A is the only choice, so you learn to work around the framelines - or buy contact lenses.
ClaremontPhoto
Jon Claremont
I wear glasses and after getting the R3A got a spare pair of 'reading glasses', the little half frame ones, and that works fine for me.
I can see the camera and yet the glasses don't intrude on the viewfinder.
Off the shelf from a Chinese store cost me about EUR 3, there's no optician there, it's pick and choose just like when you buy jeans.
I can see the camera and yet the glasses don't intrude on the viewfinder.
Off the shelf from a Chinese store cost me about EUR 3, there's no optician there, it's pick and choose just like when you buy jeans.
sockeyed
Well-known
Hi all,
There are definitely some good points being made here about the Nokton 40. I've had mine for close to a year now and have probably taken at least 1000 images with mine. I am always impressed with how sharp it is, how well it renders colours and tones and what good depth my images have. I've got a collection of good Canon FD glass, but it's sat on the shelf since I picked up a Voigtlander system - it just doesn't compare (except in the longer lenses). The bokeh does bother me sometimes and I definitely have to take care using it wide open. In fact, I seldom shoot less than 2.8, although it's nice to have the option when I do. I have just purchased an M-Rokkor 40/2 and I'm looking forward to comparing the 2 when it arrives.
Here are my Nokton samples on flickr:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sockeyed/tags/nokton/
Here are some bokeh shots:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sockeyed/63822106/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sockeyed/24516137/
And my classic example of harsh Nokton bokeh:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sockeyed/15736202/
There are definitely some good points being made here about the Nokton 40. I've had mine for close to a year now and have probably taken at least 1000 images with mine. I am always impressed with how sharp it is, how well it renders colours and tones and what good depth my images have. I've got a collection of good Canon FD glass, but it's sat on the shelf since I picked up a Voigtlander system - it just doesn't compare (except in the longer lenses). The bokeh does bother me sometimes and I definitely have to take care using it wide open. In fact, I seldom shoot less than 2.8, although it's nice to have the option when I do. I have just purchased an M-Rokkor 40/2 and I'm looking forward to comparing the 2 when it arrives.
Here are my Nokton samples on flickr:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sockeyed/tags/nokton/
Here are some bokeh shots:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sockeyed/63822106/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sockeyed/24516137/
And my classic example of harsh Nokton bokeh:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sockeyed/15736202/
wintoid
Back to film
Alec said:
Perhaps this sounds overly sensitive, but I just want to say that in my case I posted my personal first-hand experiences, not based on any legend, and I don't think it's bunk. Simply, it didn't meet my standards. Others may consider it to be fine. I think the bokeh in my shot looks worse than in sychan's shots.
I live in a small flat which is crammed with stuff so all my backgrounds are busy if I shoot indoors. The busier the background, the worse it will look when out of focus. For this reason, the Nokton wasn't acceptable to me.
fgianni
Trainee Amateur
Alec said:
Urban legend?
I still don't like the bokeh of the pictures I posted, I'll make a comparison with the 35 cron as soon as it arrives, but to me OOF highlights need to be luminous in the centre and darker near the edge, my Nokton classic, fully open, behaves the opposite way.
You're right of course... what Sychan's shots showed was not that the Nokton got a bad rap for bad-bokeh, but that the Rokkor/Summicron was at least as bad too... and that surprised us partly because with that latter lens we can't crank it open to f/1.4 for a more intense treatment.wintoid said:
celluloidprop
Well-known
IMO, there's nothing wrong with the bokeh here, it's just a busy background. An unavoidable collision of colors and forms that's going to overwhelm the subject full-frame.
wintoid
Back to film
Doug said:
I totally agree. For the record, the M-Hexanon I replaced the Nokton with is not going to get any criticism from me at all. I'm gradually falling in love with it
fgianni
Trainee Amateur
celluloidprop said:
I agree only partially, there are no strong highlights in the OOF part of the picture, so bad bokeh is less noticeable, however the mesh thing in the upper right corner looks really harsh, I am sure a summilx, or the Nokton 1.5, are able to do better.
furcafe
Veteran
I'm not so sure, @ least w/respect to the Cosina Voigtlander 50/1.5 Nokton. For example here's a shot w/some point light sources in the background (1/30th sec. @ f/1.5):
http://static.flickr.com/35/70782468_935c05ab7a_o.jpg
IMHO, the boke in the previous shot isn't appreciably different from that in another shot, taken w/the original (German) Voigtlander 50/1.5 Nokton w/a similar background (1/15th sec. @ f/1.5):
http://static.flickr.com/4/7175104_ed03b24eca_o.jpg
Personally, I don't think I've ever seen a lens that renders out of focus highlights as "luminous in the centre and darker near the edge" & would be interested in seeing shots from such an optic.
http://static.flickr.com/35/70782468_935c05ab7a_o.jpg
IMHO, the boke in the previous shot isn't appreciably different from that in another shot, taken w/the original (German) Voigtlander 50/1.5 Nokton w/a similar background (1/15th sec. @ f/1.5):
http://static.flickr.com/4/7175104_ed03b24eca_o.jpg
Personally, I don't think I've ever seen a lens that renders out of focus highlights as "luminous in the centre and darker near the edge" & would be interested in seeing shots from such an optic.
fgianni said:
sheepdog
Available darkness.
furcafe said:
The Minolta 135mm STF [T4.5] is created specifically for this purpose. It has a special graduated lens element which sets it aside from all other lenses I am familiar with in this respect. Granted, it is an mf lens for the Minolta Maxxum system, but it represents one extreme of bokeh performance. There is also supposed to be a Minolta 85mm 1.4 G Limited Edition which has this filter and optical optimization, but as far as I know the production was so limited you would be hard pressed to find one outside Japan.
This is a comparison between the regular 85mm 1.4 G (which is no slouch in this regard) and the 135mm STF. See how the wide open sample from the STF stands out?
http://www3.xitek.com/testreport/xitek/m135stf/example4.htm
More samples:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1035&message=15275300
furcafe
Veteran
But most of the time I shoot, it's in "bad" light conditions! And settings w/"bad" light & "busy" backgrounds are often the very type of real world settings that cause people to complain about "bad" boke. My 2 examples were simply intended to show that under similar light conditions, the out-of-focus point light sources, as rendered by both lenses (made almost 50 years apart) wide-open, are not brighter in the center than @ the edges--I think the shots do that, even @ their relatively small size.
However, I definitely agree with you that it's extremely rare (@ least in my style of photography) that boke is the main issue, or even a significant issue, w/a picture.
And settings w/"bad" light & "busy" backgrounds are often the very type of real world settings that cause people to complain about "bad" boke. My 2 examples were simply intended to show that under similar light conditions, the out-of-focus point light sources, as rendered by both lenses (made almost 50 years apart) wide-open, are not brighter in the center than @ the edges--I think the shots do that, even @ their relatively small size.However, I definitely agree with you that it's extremely rare (@ least in my style of photography) that boke is the main issue, or even a significant issue, w/a picture.
Beniliam said:
furcafe
Veteran
Thanks, that's interesting. I understand that certain cinema lenses, etc. are optimized (or preferred) for their out-of-focus performance, but have always wondered about 35mm equipment. Didn't/doesn't Nikon or Canon also make some kind of special "selective focus" portrait lens?
Yes, I can certainly see the difference between the lenses in the link, but as someone who's not a boke afficionado, I doubt it would make enough of a difference for my photography. I guess I'd be interested in seeing examples from any 50mm & shorter lenses that display these characteristics.
Yes, I can certainly see the difference between the lenses in the link, but as someone who's not a boke afficionado, I doubt it would make enough of a difference for my photography. I guess I'd be interested in seeing examples from any 50mm & shorter lenses that display these characteristics.
sheepdog said:
Dan Chang
Established
Nikon 135/2 DC
Canon also has samilar one.
Canon also has samilar one.
sheepdog
Available darkness.
As far as I understand, the DC-Nikkors don't do the same thing as the STF and are quite a bit more troublesome to use effectively according to user reviews, but I am open to new information!
The Canon does at the very least not exist in their current lens catalog, if you are not talking about their Soft Focus lens, which is not the same effect..
I too would hope to see more and shorter STF-lenses (from Minolta atleast), something around 60mm 1.8 or even faster would be great for their dSLRs. I don't know where to look for this kind of innovation for rangefinders, but a lot of the samples shown here seem to indicate that many of the faster lenses do quite nicely without.
Kind regards
Kjetil
The Canon does at the very least not exist in their current lens catalog, if you are not talking about their Soft Focus lens, which is not the same effect..
I too would hope to see more and shorter STF-lenses (from Minolta atleast), something around 60mm 1.8 or even faster would be great for their dSLRs. I don't know where to look for this kind of innovation for rangefinders, but a lot of the samples shown here seem to indicate that many of the faster lenses do quite nicely without.
Kind regards
Kjetil