ferider
Veteran
An interesting "business trip" you had, ferider
It's rough, Pherdi, but somebody's got to do it ...
Erik van Straten
Veteran
I like the lens above all as a portrait lens.
Leica M3, Nokton 50mm f/1.1, Tmax400.
Erik.
Leica M3, Nokton 50mm f/1.1, Tmax400.
Erik.
Thardy
Veteran
This and the recent Noctilux 0.95 thread has piqued my interest in these fast 50s. I'd really like to see a comparison of the Nockton vs the Noctilux shooting the same subjects.
uhoh7
Veteran
Basically, the Nokton is roughly on par with the Planar at f2. Plus it has all the extra speed when needed
Roland.
Roland I agree, Roger's tests are great, but missing one important element:
F/5.6
The Planar's WO performance is a bit better on the edge, but they are close, for sure. However I'd wager the Planar is well ahead at 5.6.
It's true the Nokton has the "extra speed", but the planar has the two factors which are are more "generally" useful: smallish size and weight, and outstanding performance at daylight apertures.
Charts for the Planar:
Zeiss Planar by unoh7, on Flickr
But I can't really back that up, except from anecdotal reports on the Planar. And we have no charts for the Nokton stopped down.
One more from the 50/1.1
DSC00836-3 by unoh7, near WO
Above a close look will reveal the edges do drop alot.
Here a full at f/8 which I showed earlier with pretty good edges:
https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/645/20767213744_e23e0d1e9e_o.jpg
I should shoot some landscapes with the M9 at f/8. Above is A7 with kolari mod. Maybe I will take it up on the mountain with 50 cron as "control" just to really see the stopped down performance.
As to the bokeh, i was looking through my shots for it's horrible nature. While it's no 75 lux, I don't have any terrible examples. I'm sure it the right situation, it will produce some distraction. Like nearly every fast 35 out there, but you don't hear such picky remarks about them
raid
Dad Photographer
This thread caused me to buy such a lens tonight.
Someone needs to send me some payment!
Someone needs to send me some payment!
ferider
Veteran
Congrats Raid !
Uhoh7, can't argue against size, and cant measure MTF. But the Nokton performance in middle and corner fields visibly improves in my tests also beyond f2, at least until f4, where it feels to have similar resolution as my highest resolving lenses (Summicron and 50/2.4 Hexanon). Haven't tested above, but it's sharp enough for me. All I'm saying is that - if you are ok schlepping a 1.1 Nokton around for speed, say, when traveling, it will be more than good enough for daylight and even tripod landscapes, too.
Would be nice to have Voigtlander publish MTF charts ...
Roland.
Uhoh7, can't argue against size, and cant measure MTF. But the Nokton performance in middle and corner fields visibly improves in my tests also beyond f2, at least until f4, where it feels to have similar resolution as my highest resolving lenses (Summicron and 50/2.4 Hexanon). Haven't tested above, but it's sharp enough for me. All I'm saying is that - if you are ok schlepping a 1.1 Nokton around for speed, say, when traveling, it will be more than good enough for daylight and even tripod landscapes, too.
Would be nice to have Voigtlander publish MTF charts ...
Roland.
uhoh7
Veteran
Lss
Well-known
One issue I haven't seen discussed is field curvature, which I found rather significant in a few test landscapes I shot at varying apertures a few years back. This was using several cameras (NEX, R-D1, M8, and I think also b&w film).
My conclusion based on the test shots was that I will continue using only my Summicron as a general purpose lens. Smaller size, sharper across frame. The Nokton I have used for low light and for some special applications (like portraits). This thread now has me reconsider the view. What are everyone else's findings regarding field curvature? I may need to test again.
My conclusion based on the test shots was that I will continue using only my Summicron as a general purpose lens. Smaller size, sharper across frame. The Nokton I have used for low light and for some special applications (like portraits). This thread now has me reconsider the view. What are everyone else's findings regarding field curvature? I may need to test again.
mani
Well-known
Five years ago I did a spontaneous and wholly unscientific comparison of some fast lenses on an M8 here:
http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/123717-is-the-cv-nokton-11-really-that-bad/?p=1359037
Just a single shot, but the out-of-focus differences between the Nokton and f1 Noctilux were interesting I thought.
http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/123717-is-the-cv-nokton-11-really-that-bad/?p=1359037
Just a single shot, but the out-of-focus differences between the Nokton and f1 Noctilux were interesting I thought.
mdarnton
Well-known
ferider
Veteran
If you look at the 3rd picture in the OP, you'll see that at close distances (1m), the lens/240 combo has a pretty flat field. My lens front focuses in the center by about an inch. For a 1/3rd composition, the math (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=148485) predicts a backwards shift of about 2% = 2cm with a flat focus field (FOV = 47 deg, alpha = FOV / 6 = 0.137 rad, d = alpha^2 = 1.87%), which is roughly what you see in my test photo. I feel a little front focus in the center is a good thing for the Nokton.
But, for Lss, the lens shifts noticeably backwards when closing down (see the second picture in the OP). Maybe this is what you were seeing ?
Roland.
uhoh7
Veteran
MCTuomey
Veteran
Wonderful photo, Peter.
I mentioned that comparison in the OP, uhoh7. What I find more interesting is the comparison with the Planar at f2.0:
(MTF50 results in line pairs/image height, Astig: difference between sagittal and tangential MTF)
Basically, the Nokton is roughly on par with the Planar at f2. Plus it has all the extra speed when needed
Roland.
Resonates with me. One lens to rule my need for a 50.
Off-topic, but among other interesting points the chart makes me think the "old" asph Lux 50 f/1.4 still does real well against the latest 50s.
ChrisLivsey
Veteran
It may do, but not in that test, the actual lens was Leica 50mm f/1.4 Summilux M ASPH if you check the link.
raid
Dad Photographer
Someone needs to start a collection for me here!
My lens budget is now empty after having bought a 35/2 ZM and a CV 50/1.1 . I am "going modern"! Eeeeeeeek.
MCTuomey
Veteran
Sorry for not being clear. I did mean the asph version. It's quite a bit older than several of the other fifties listed. [original post revised' thanks]
ChrisLivsey
Veteran
I was rather hoping you did mean the older version, which is the one I have, que sera sera.
On the original @Lens Rentals I did find it very interesting how the astigmatism of the f1.5 Sonnar went from a soggy bottom 240 wide open ( not that wide in this company) to a better than all the rest 24, including the Otus, at f2, that's some change, but OT
MCTuomey
Veteran
I was rather hoping you did mean the older version, which is the one I have, que sera sera.
On the original @Lens Rentals I did find it very interesting how the astigmatism of the f1.5 Sonnar went from a soggy bottom 240 wide open ( not that wide in this company) to a better than all the rest 24, including the Otus, at f2, that's some change, but OT
sent you a pm (didn't want to lead things too far astray)
ChrisLivsey
Veteran
Appreciated.
Lss
Well-known
Yes, there is a significant focus shift on the Nokton. But I am referring to the curvature of the in-focus plane, which can in some cases be disturbing at middle and far distances in general photography.
A good way to test for this is a landscape with fine detail (such as a meadow) that you can shoot from a slightly elevated viewpoint. You should get a clear view from close to infinity focus. The resulting images are probably not very interesting, and this is why I have binned the test shots I made myself. Now I regret that, as I can't go back to them and better conclude again on my findings. I would anyway be interested in someone testing this on a fullframe digital M, as I still don't own one. There was anyway a significant difference even on the M8.