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

With that said - are there any opinions on flare control between the two?
Click to expand...

There was a Japanese review did a detailed comparison of 4 40mm lenses the MC and SC Nokton and the Summicron and the CLE Rokkor.

The flare shots showed that the MC version was noticably more fare resistant. The good thing was that due to the more modern lens design the SC version flared the same as the Multi-coated Rokkor.
 
Last edited:
Just out of curiosity, would boken be any different between SC and MC? I'm guessing that's more a factor of the lens design so probably not, but thought I'd ask anyway....

So James, what did you end up buying?
 
goo0h said:
Just out of curiosity, would boken be any different between SC and MC? I'm guessing that's more a factor of the lens design so probably not, but thought I'd ask anyway....

So James, what did you end up buying?
Click to expand...

I don't think the Bokeh would be that different - I believe bokeh is more an expression of the lens' elements and aperture blades than it is the coating - someone (or anyone for that matter) can correct me if I'm wrong :)

I hate these threads...because I owned a MC version of the lens and this sort of thing always makes me thing "hmm.. I should get another" :D :D

Dave
 
James,

I found myself asking the very same question earlier this week, and after seeing examples from "Sockeyed" as well as speaking with Tom Abrahamson of RapidWinder fame I bought the SC version from Stephen Gandy. I'll be happy to post examples as soon as I get the lens.

Good Luck

Scott
 
First post, here... but want to say that I'm so very glad that I found this post tonight, as I was about to get the MC version. It now makes much better sense, to me, to go for an SC... even though I'll be shooting color slide only. The three samples shown above of the pier, monkey, etc. are just mind blowing!

Owen
 
I got the SC because I thought it suited the character of the camera better; even though I use only color film.

After a year I have no regrets.

All the full frame photos on my site (link in the signature) are with this lens.
 
get the sc and slap on a mc filter if you need. I've got the sc and for BW it's lower contrast pays off when it comes time to print. you can alway add contrast but you cant ad detail lost in exposure. I find that colors with the SC are beautiful too.
 
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 just shot my first roll with the SC and here's an example of why it's my new favorite already (Neopan 400@320 HC-110 (b)):
 

Attachments

  • IMG1915.jpg
    IMG1915.jpg
    133.4 KB · Views: 0
andersju said:
I just shot my first roll with the SC and here's an example of why it's my new favorite already (Neopan 400@320 HC-110 (b)):
Click to expand...

Very nice andersju! I really like the creamy background and the 3-dimensionality of your model. Can you share details about shutter speed & aperture?

-Randy
 
Just got a roll of Neopan 400CN (at 250) back from processing and scanning; this was the SC lens at either f/2 or f/1.7, focused on the near train gear so there's a gradual transition to the OOF background...
 

Attachments

  • 060914-35big.jpg
    060914-35big.jpg
    148.9 KB · Views: 0
How much is the contrast increased for the MC? When I ask this, I mean to ask for a comparison with a lens I might know.

How does the MC contrast compare with: The Leica 35 summicron pre-asph, the Leica 35 summicron asph; Similarly how does the SC contrast compare with the above?

I'm asking for a friend who does not want a lens contrastier than mine (the 35/2 pre-asph), but not much lower than mine in contrast. If the MC doesn't make it to the level of the 35/2 pre-asph, then she'll get the MC. If it does make it to that level, or the SC is at that level, then she'll get the SC.

Note that I'm wondering about contrast at comparable apertures, so 1.4 vs 2.0 doesn't really make sense. 5.6 vs 5.6 is good enough :) Can anyone help me out with this?
 
Reviving an old-ish thread ... James, what did you get? I found this thread researching the very same question. If I were to purchase a 40 Nokton, it would be the SC.

Sockeyed: Yowza. What film for those shots? I am thinking Kodachrome would be dynamite with the SC.
 
...now Im back in dithering mode. I was all set to get the MC version and 75% of you are saying SC version.
Id still love to see an actual shot to shot comparison of the two varieties somewhere online!
 
Sockeyed: Yowza. What film for those shots? I am thinking Kodachrome would be dynamite with the SC.
Click to expand...

yeah please tell, those pictures make me actually want to go buy some color film. although no nokton to use with it, yet..
 
irq506 said:
...now Im back in dithering mode. I was all set to get the MC version and 75% of you are saying SC version.
Id still love to see an actual shot to shot comparison of the two varieties somewhere online!
Click to expand...
After dithering myself for a while, I finally decided 'what the hey' and put in my order for the SC. It'll be interesting to see how it turns out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom