Voigtländer 40mm f/1.4 Nokton MC vs. SC for b&w

[vrgard]

Good for you, Amos. Do post some shots from this lens when you have them!

-Randy

 

[Turtle]

One of my magazines did a comparison test about 6 months ago.

They did the two same scenes with both lenses. The MC exhibited more contrast ,but no more shadow detail than the SC. The shadow details of the SC were simply lighter than the same shadow detail of the MC version.

You will have trouble matching the SC to any future purchases unless you seek out older lenses. If it is a stand alone lens or a dulpicate, the
sc will be nice for black and white. If you send prints to a consumer color printing source like Walmart, Wolf, or Ritz which print on high contrast /color saturation paper, the SC is better.

There are advantages to either, so you must decide your application. Both are nice.

I agree with this. If you have other MC lenses and change them mid roll with a SC lens, your contrast will vary. You can always reduce contrast of any lens by reducing film speed (incresing exposure) and reducing development! Therefore if you find MC lenses too contrasty and lust after that older look....then reduce film speed by half a stop and reduce development. At least this way you will have consiststency across lenses.

 

[irq506]

Y'Know, I keep thinking about it, and the thoughts running through my mind are this; nearly all of the modern lenses out there are MC for either RF or SLR even LF cameras, and MC is the preferred way to go on so many cameras for so many reasons, I keep finding myself just retreating back to the MC court.
For the 35% of color film that I shoot, and the rest B+W I like my images contrasty, I think Ill probably end up getting the MC version.
It just seems logical for me to go that route.
The fact that there is the choice out there in the first place -is good, choice is always good, dont get me wrong- but it just ends up making the whole thing more of an issue in my mind as I beleive that the SC is more of a specialists lens. I just love shooting street, and that for me will be covered nicely by an MC.

 

[Trius]

Actually, just get one of each, plus another body as a permanent home for the SC. Isn't that consistent with the requisite GAS mode around here?

 

[irq506]

Actually, just get one of each, plus another body as a permanent home for the SC. Isn't that consistent with the requisite GAS mode around here?

HAHA
Wow, well If i earn more than $20,000 again next year well then I might buy the two and two bodies. 🙄

 

[james]

I had my brother pick up the lens from B&H. I chose the SC. He bought the MC. Grr.

That said, I haven't really any complaints. I'd post some shots, but I'm on a friend's computer and I haven't begun to upload my stuff to a photo site.

Thanks for all the great advise, peeps.

 

[Trius]

irq: I'm almost in the same boat. So much GAS, so little cash.

 

[Ororaro]

I thought a contrasty lens was a better lens??

I know I prefer a contrasty lens, by far.

 

[goo0h]

You can always reduce contrast of any lens by reducing film speed (incresing exposure) and reducing development! Therefore if you find MC lenses too contrasty and lust after that older look....then reduce film speed by half a stop and reduce development. At least this way you will have consiststency across lenses.

Well, right now anyway, I'm tending to shoot Neopan, which can be a bit contrasty on its own, and at that I'm tending to shoot at a high ISO like 1250 or 1600. That's why I thought I'd give the SC a try. We'll see how it works out.....

Honestly, I bet if you had the two lenses and shot the same scenes side-by-side, I wonder if you'd really see that much of a difference anyway. My guess is that it would be actually quite subtle. Look at sockeyed's color photos. At least to my eye they're certainly not lacking in brilliance.....

 

[Turtle]

Well, right now anyway, I'm tending to shoot Neopan, which can be a bit contrasty on its own, and at that I'm tending to shoot at a high ISO like 1250 or 1600. That's why I thought I'd give the SC a try. We'll see how it works out.....

Honestly, I bet if you had the two lenses and shot the same scenes side-by-side, I wonder if you'd really see that much of a difference anyway. My guess is that it would be actually quite subtle. Look at sockeyed's color photos. At least to my eye they're certainly not lacking in brilliance.....

That makes sense, as you are basically hoping that the reduced contrast will give you better effective film speed. I shoot neopan 1600 at 800/1000 in DDX and find it does OK at that speed and gives very pleasant average contrast negs. I think the contrast people associate with this film is simply because is does not make 1600 and lots of development pushes the highlights right up without seriously budging the shadow speed. Certainly a 'flarier' lens will help, but by how much who knows?

 

[35mmdelux]

I'll drag out my usual "the Nokton 40 SC rocks in colour" shots:

QUOTE]



Outstanding work.

 

[goo0h]

Good for you, Amos. Do post some shots from this lens when you have them!

-Randy

OK, nothing fancy here. I quickly ran off a roll and then developed it right away and then scanned a few. I've uploaded them to here. (I have to admit I like the tags feature on flickr....)

 

[vrgard]

Thanks, Amos, for posting these. I realize that they are not intended to be super high-quality test shots. However, my initial reaction is that they aren't quite doing this lens justice. The vase is so dark by comparison to the sofa in the background that there's little hope for it having the 3-dimensionality of andersju's model shot. And there's a bit of aperture shape to the Christmas tree lights in the vase shots and reflected in the pictures on the mantel shots for each shot taken at f1.4. Don't mean to sound critical, Amos, it's just that I've seen such great shots taken with that lens that I just don't think these shots are doing it justice. I do, however, appreciate your having posted them for us all to view and learn from.

Best,
Randy

 

[goo0h]

Don't mean to sound critical, Amos, it's just that I've seen such great shots taken with that lens that I just don't think these shots are doing it justice. I do, however, appreciate your having posted them for us all to view and learn from.

Yeah, I know the quality is pretty poor and hasty. I blew through the pictures pretty quickly this morning, and didn't have much time to fiddle with them in scanning.

Yeah, I noticed that aperture shape too.

Basically I just wanted a rough feel between wide open and stopped down because some have commented that wide open the lens could get rough. While that can be true, I think it could also be used as an advantage if one were careful.

Anyway, so far I'm quite happy with it. Hopefully I can get some better shots later.

 

[vrgard]

Yes, I'm sure of it Amos. Like I said, I didn't mean to sound critical and I understood that you were just doing a quick test but this was the first time I've seen that aperture shape show up in any CV 40/1.4 pics so I felt compelled to comment on it. I'm sure that everyone else encounters them, too, with this lens I just hadn't seen any before. Otherwise, everything I've seen from that lens tells me its a beaut. Here's to you taking many great shots taken with it!

-Randy

 

[irq506]

OK heres a thought, what happens if i were to go with the SC and I could increase contrast in Photoshop....?
Alternatively, is there any lens filter which i could use to increase contrast at the shooting stage, perhaps something like a polarizing filter...?

I still cannot find any direct comparison review of the two lenses side by side online or elsewhere -anyone know of one?

 

[goo0h]

this was the first time I've seen that aperture shape show up in any CV 40/1.4 pics so I felt compelled to comment on it.

Really? Huh. It was actually more noticeable in the larger image.

I'll probably blow this, but here's an attachment with vase-3 tree lights enlarged.

Oh, ya know, I do have an uncoated uv(0) filter on there. I wasn't sure whether to get coated or uncoated with this lens, so got the uncoated one. Do you think that could be a factor. I had thought that might only be an issue in bright sunlight or something. (I did get the lens hood with it too.)

Oh, I need to get to sleep! 😉

 

[vrgard]

Thanks, Amos, for posting the larger vase 1.4 picture. Definitely makes the aperture shaped oof Christmas tree lights more prominent. And no, I don't think that the uncoated filter is contributing to this effect.

 

[Dougg]

Amos, boosting contrast in Photoshop gives a different look than a bit of veiling flare in the dark zones and a bit around bright lights, etc. An uncoated or single-coated UV filter is much more likely to give the SC look than Photoshop... and the filter's an interesting suggestion I hadn't before considered. 🙂

Honestly, my SC 40mm Nokton for the most part doesn't seem much different in this respect (so far in my use anyway) than my other 40mm lenses (40mm f/2 Ultron, 43mm Pentax-L, 40mm f/2 Rokkor-M).

Here are a couple more shots with it, showing how it handles bright light sources and darker areas...

 

[irq506]

Well I figured that Id just sink the money on an SC, I got it through eBay because its the same price on there as the MC.
Where Im from the shops dont have the SC version for sale so I figured that Id get it and play with it then try out an MC and see which one I prefer and if the MC works out better Im sure the store will swap me their MC one considering the SC is worth a little more, if they dont Ill sell it again either here or in the shop where I work.

I think Ill actually do a head to head test of the two lenses both photographically and technically and put it up on the web, because I STILL cannot find any review of the two lenses.