The Nokton 50/1.1 Revisited

[raid]

I will look for a used one here or somewhere else.

 

[Erik van Straten]

Leica M5, Nokton 50mm f/1.1, Tmax400.

Erik.

 

[ferider]

Leica M5, Nokton 50mm f/1.1, Tmax400. Erik.

Amazing Erik with the subtle lights in the faces.

 

[BLKRCAT]

The low light is actually very good. Shot in Tri-X at 400. VERY dark alley, 1/15th F1.1

 

[uhoh7]

It would be nice to have a noctilux, but these work pretty good for M9 in dim places:


Zuck by unoh7, on Flickr

 

[MCTuomey]

this thread is delightful!

I didn't much care for mine, just because of the ergonomics and the slippery focus ring Voigtlander puts on too many of their lenses, but this fixed everything for me, and I like it a lot better now: http://www.lenstab.com/

Which size did you buy for the f/1.1?

 

[Erik van Straten]

Amazing Erik with the subtle lights in the faces.

There was some publicity shooting going on. I took advantage of their light shield.

Leica M5, Nokton 50mm f/1.1, Tmax400.

Erik.

 

[RichardPhoto]

Did anyone switch to the 1.1 Nokton from the 1.5 Nokton? Or have both?

I've have the ltm mount 1.5 Nokton for a long time and it's a lovely lens. Just wondering what real world differences are between the two.

 

[Pherdinand]

An interesting "business trip" you had, ferider🙂

 

[mdarnton]

this thread is delightful!
Which size did you buy for the f/1.1?

The largest size taab is a tight fit, but it works nicely, once you get it on. I had to put double-stick tape under it to keep it in place. It changes the whole lens much for the better.

I wish Voigtlander would put some teeth on their slippery focus rings, though. The 1.1, the 28/1.9, original 35/1.7, original 50/1.5----all bad. The nasty focus ring is the reason I got rid of the otherwise-excellent 35/1.7.

 

[Erik van Straten]

Did anyone switch to the 1.1 Nokton from the 1.5 Nokton? Or have both?

I've have the ltm mount 1.5 Nokton for a long time and it's a lovely lens. Just wondering what real world differences are between the two.

I have them both (the M-version of the f/1.5, but I've used the LTM too) and they are totally different. The f/1.5 is more refined, has smoother backgrounds and has a tiny bit of barrel-distortion. The f/1.1 is less smooth in the background - the "lightballs" are sharper - but has practically no distortion and seems to have more contrast.

Erik.

 

[Erik van Straten]

The nasty focus ring is the reason I got rid of the otherwise-excellent 35/1.7.

The focusing ring of the f/1.1 is dimpled and has knurling in the "tops", the "valleys" are smooth. This shoud be reversed I think.

The latest version of the Ultron 35mm f/1.7 LTM has an excellent focusing ring in my opinion, more curved than the earlier version.

Erik.

 

[mdarnton]

The focusing ring of the f/1.1 is dimpled and has knurling in the "tops", the "valleys" are smooth. This shoud be reversed I think.

The latest version of the Ultron 35mm f/1.7 LTM has an excellent focusing ring in my opinion, more curved than the earlier version.

Erik.

I would have been happy if they'd just done it like Leica: the same thing, deeper. As it is, it's sort of a poor imitation by someone who wasn't paying attention to details.

 

[MCTuomey]

The largest size taab is a tight fit, but it works nicely, once you get it on. I had to put double-stick tape under it to keep it in place. It changes the whole lens much for the better.

I wish Voigtlander would put some teeth on their slippery focus rings, though. The 1.1, the 28/1.9, original 35/1.7, original 50/1.5----all bad. The nasty focus ring is the reason I got rid of the otherwise-excellent 35/1.7.

Thanks much

 

[Out to Lunch]

I don't have much to complain about the Nokton 1.1

 

[uhoh7]

Compared to the Leica .95 at widest aperture (CV first, Leica second) The number after the slash is astigmatism, center, mid and edge.

Center: 768/0, 840/0
Mid:672/96, 696/48
edge: 600/216, 504/120

stop down to f/2 and you get:
center: 1272/0, 1248/24
Mid: 1032/240, 912/48
edge, 624/120, 528/144

So, at F2 the CV is beating the .95 across the frame. At f/1.1 it gives a better edge than the leica can at f/.95. But to put these numbers in context, Mandlers v4 cron from the 80s at f/2 does 1200/0 1200/144 1200/240, center, mid and edge.

The large numbers are "the highest reading from either the Tangential or Sagittal lines, and the difference between the two lines is astigmatism"

Obviously there are other factors besides how lenses resolve, but it's always interesting to see, and these are from lensrentals:
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/06/comparing-rangefinder-and-slr-50mm-lenses-version-0-7

 

[ferider]

Wonderful photo, Peter.

Obviously there are other factors besides how lenses resolve, but it's always interesting to see, and these are from lensrentals:
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/06/comparing-rangefinder-and-slr-50mm-lenses-version-0-7

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 🙂 Which makes it a wonderful general purpose lens. Plus I trust the lensrentals guys to be unbiased when it comes to brand.

Roland.

 

[hepcat]

This is a wonderful thread. I've thought the f/1.1 Nokton is an unbeatable lens for a long time.

Did anyone switch to the 1.1 Nokton from the 1.5 Nokton? Or have both?

I've have the ltm mount 1.5 Nokton for a long time and it's a lovely lens. Just wondering what real world differences are between the two.

I have them both (the M-version of the f/1.5, but I've used the LTM too) and they are totally different. The f/1.5 is more refined, has smoother backgrounds and has a tiny bit of barrel-distortion. The f/1.1 is less smooth in the background - the "lightballs" are sharper - but has practically no distortion and seems to have more contrast.

Erik.

Richard, I have had both as well. Erik's assessment is spot-on. I ended up selling the Nokton f/1.5 as there just wasn't enough difference to warrant keeping both. As a disclaimer, I do also have a Collapsible Heliar f/2 for those occasional times when I want a little less bulk.

I wish Voigtlander would put some teeth on their slippery focus rings, though. The 1.1, the 28/1.9, original 35/1.7, original 50/1.5----all bad. The nasty focus ring is the reason I got rid of the otherwise-excellent 35/1.7.

Your comment is exactly the opposite of how I feel... I can't stand those damn focusing tabs on lenses, and the original Summicrons' focus rings upon which the Noktons' are apparently patterned is perfect and actually what brought me to buy the Nokton f/1.5 to begin with. I have both the Nokton 35mm f/1.2 v1 and the 50mm f/1.1 and I'm VERY pleased with the tactile function of the focusing rings. Diff'rent strokes and all that...

 

[gdi]

I considered one for a while, but that bokeh was a real turnoff. I see some nice shots here which makes it seem the lens may be best suited to B&W film vs. color/digital; Helen's shots really stand out. I have the old LTM 1.5 and it is really good, but I prefer the Noctilux F1.0 over this 1.1 (ignoring price, of course!)

 

[ferider]

I considered one for a while, but that bokeh was a real turnoff. I see some nice shots here which makes it seem the lens may be best suited to B&W film vs. color/digital; Helen's shots really stand out. I have the old LTM 1.5 and it is really good, but I prefer the Noctilux F1.0 over this 1.1 (ignoring price, of course!)

I agree about Helen's shots, of course. Then again, you can give her any lens, and she will return keepers.

This is what I want to come across with this thread:

There are two reasons IMO, to buy an ultra-fast lens:
1 - for the special image characteristics that an ultra-fast lens can give, like nice OOF highlights, etc. You might possible carry two 50mm lenses if you are in this camp.
2 - to be able to shoot in the dark and get the job done. And use the same lens for any other purpose.

Because we are coming from different perspectives, the 1.1 Nokton gets so mixed reviews. I think the lens was obviously designed for 2) and I have been very happy to carry only one 50mm when traveling. And - as the MTF numbers above show you - it does just fine on digital.

Roland.