Ultra Fast Lenses

[richfx]

Tom:
I'm looking for guidance / recommendations on whether it makes practical sense to try Voigtlander's Nokton 50mm 1.1 for its appr. 1 stop advantage over my 50mm Summilux ASPH (new version). Is there a noticeable low light advantage over the Lux on the M9 and, if so, is the Nokton a one trick pony in this respect or can it be used to good effect as more of an everyday lens, taking into account its size and weight?
Thanks,
RIch

 

[Vickko]

f1.1 is nice.

The Nokton lens has a different look to it than the Summilux ASPH 50, and it is far more economical.

You have to accept the size of f1.1. Nothing you can do to get away from that.

Vick

 

[former member]

I just picked the 50/1.1 Nokton up this week. I matched the Cam with my M8 by building up the cam of the lens by 0.05mm using copper tape. Reading the popflash.com notes on the C-Sonnar optimization differences between Film and Digital cameras, sounds like the same issue.

I would have no trouble using the Nokton for my regular lens. It is lighter than my Nikkor 55/1.2's, and 1/2 the weight of the Canon 50/0.95.

Most Notable: focus shift from F1.1 to F4: about the same as a Sonnar. The focus will shift back by almost 1" at minimum focus going from F1.1 to F4.

 

[StuartR]

Modern film and digital cameras are pretty robust. Why not try underexposing one stop and see how much of a difference it makes? Obviously there will eventually be a point where one stop will make a difference, but I think there are few situations where you can't get by with ISO 800 or 1600 in an M9 at f/1.4 and 1/15th or 1/30th. That is really very dim light! This is not to say that the CV is not a good lens. I have not used it, but you already have a very good lens, and I think you might be suffering from a thought that you might be missing out on something -- I don't think you are. I used to have the Konica 50mm f/1.2 Hexanon Limited, as well as the 50/1.4 ASPH and 50/1.4 Pre-Asph. They were all pretty much equally good in low light where slow handheld speeds often rob the nuanced differences in absolute sharpness. The 1.2 versus 1.4 is a barely discernable difference, certainly not significant with negative film, and barely with digital.

 

[richfx]

Thanks everyone. I think I'm going to stay with my 35m Summilux ASPH II. I may rent the Nokton 1.1 just to compare both, but I suspect that the difference wide open will be less discernible than the overall IQ and performance of the lenses.
Rich

 

[Rob-F]

Thanks everyone. I think I'm going to stay with my 35m Summilux ASPH II. I may rent the Nokton 1.1 just to compare both, but I suspect that the difference wide open will be less discernible than the overall IQ and performance of the lenses.
Rich

That sounds very wise. When I had a Noctilux, I had two problems shooting with it: first, the DOF was so shallow that even when shooting from across a 40 foot wide street, from one sidewalk to the other, I couldn't get two people in focus if they were 5 feet apart. Secondly, I didn't seem to need f/1 in the first place, even when shooting at night. F/1.4 is all I need.

I think a super-speed lens would make more sense at a 35mm focal length.

 

[anitasanger]

I compared my 35 1.2 with my 50 1.4 summilux pre-asph and it seems to have similar rendering. I considered the Nokton 50 1.1, but really believe that the summilux outperforms. Also, your DOF difference will mean that you can keep a persons nose in focus when focusing on their eyes with the lux.

From what I've read, the Nokton can be used as your regular 50, but you've already got the Lux.

Does this mean that the summilux has a more shallow DOF than the Nokton?

 

[Rob-F]

Does this mean that the summilux has a more shallow DOF than the Nokton?

No. It means the Nokton's DOF is even shallower.

 

[Keith]

For this reason alone I will likely never own the 50/1.1 Nokton. The 50/1.5 Nokton seems much more behaved, I have not seen any focus shift with either it or the 35/1.2.

I will go OT and offer some personal insights on other fast 50's I have personally used.

The Canon LTM 50/1.2 is an interesting counter-point to the 50/1.5 Nokton, the former provides a very vintage appearance wide open while the latter is clearly a contemporary lens.

The Hex 60/1.2 also offers a modern look but visibly different from the 50/1.5 Nokton. The Hex is pretty well behaved wide open, sharp enough and very limited DoF.

Then there is the Canon 50/0.95, it isn't just big it is huge. Having it on a Leica M might be what it was like to handle an Ermanox, the lens completely overwhelms the camera. It can be sharp wide open if the focus is absolutely nailed, at ~4 feet the DoF is essentially a single plane. It doesn't exhibit vignetting as severe as a Noctilux f-1.0. Actually, compared to memories of my own (now gone) Noctilux, these are two quite different lenses. The Noctilux is contrastier but sharpness (wide open) falls off sooner going away from the image center. It's hard for me to call a f-1.0 Noctilux as actually a modern lens, but I would say it appears more modern than the Canon 50/0.95.

My basic "go to" fast 50 is the Nokton 50/1.5, it is just plain good, that is it is plain (very predictable, no surprises) and good (actually very good.)

Actually I find that even the 50mm 1.2 Canon overwhelms my M3 ... it really detracts from the handling of the camera IMO. Not so on my Ikon though where it seems much more at home.

 

[richfx]

Well, I couldn't resist and bought a 50mm Nokton 1.1 ten days ago. I haven't shot a lot with it, but I have compared it directly to my 50mm Summilux ASPH indoors / at night (this winter thing is really getting to me), and while they are different, the Nokton is pretty darned impressive so far in terms of its speed, IQ and bokeh. I need to put it through more paces, but so far, so good. It seems to be spot on wide open at minimum focus distance. There is some focus shift apparent as it is stopped down, but I really bought it to use wide open. Anyway, more to come and thanks for all of your thoughts and insights.
Rich