Voigtlander 35/1.4 Nokton -- underrated?

Actually both 1.0 Noctilux and 50 pre asph Summilux distort more than the Nokton. The Nokton's distortion is less obvious when you actually use it.
 
ferider said:
Actually both 1.0 Noctilux and 50 pre asph Summilux distort more than the Nokton. The Nokton's distortion is less obvious when you actually use it.
Click to expand...

Ken Rockwell recommends +2.0 for both, 50/1.0 Noctilux & CV 35/1.4, to correct for distortion in Photoshop for 3m distance and 2.2 for the Noctilux at 10m (to compensate for the different fov for both focal length).
 
maddoc said:
Ken Rockwell recommends +2.0 for both, 50/1.0 Noctilux & CV 35/1.4, to correct for distortion in Photoshop for 3m distance and 2.2 for the Noctilux at 10m (to compensate for the different fov for both focal length).
Click to expand...

Ken Rockwell... anybody still trust that guy?
 
maddoc said:
Why would he have to cheat about his recommendations for correction values for lens distortion ? :confused:
Click to expand...

Just read what he writes about Voigtländer 35mm f/1.4 NOKTON Classic - "This Voigtländer lens is significantly softer at large apertures than LEICA's first SUMMILUX 35mm f/1.4 (1960-1995), which is LEICA's softest modern 35mm lens".

I had both lenses and wide open Lux was much softer. And all tests and reviews I have read also confirms this (and KR just states the opposite to the obvious).

Just one example:
http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2009/12/02/the-voigtlander-nokton-35-1-4-mc-lens-review/

In fact, I traded my old Summilux for some other gear and kept the Nokton.
 
I did use it for a time and it was a good performer. Nevertheless, I shoot a lot wide open and anytimes a subject was not in the center, it resulted too soft to my taste. This was my main bug with it. Also, I prefer the smoother bokeh and stronger contrast of the Summilux Asph but this is personal taste.

I easily deal with focus shift on my Lux, so it can be done on the CV too.
 
In love with my S.C. Favourite lens for walking.

000016.jpg

Find it sharp where I want it to be. @1.4

000032.jpg



000018.jpg

The colors... mmmm
 
This is a recent shot with the MC 35/1.4, perspective/distortion uncorrected, focus on the door:

70-TMY-Scan-120228-0014.jpg


This is an older one that I shot for testing distortion and that convinced me that the lens is a keeper:

719680970_2kSUW-O.jpg


Yes, one can see slight distortion in some situations, but there are so many lenses where distortion is similar or worse, and nobody cares .... Including, for instance, the 35/1.2, or the new 28 Perar, the Leica lenses mentioned above, etc. BTW, even the 35/1.4 Asph has distortion of similar magnitude (I've only tried v1).

Did you ever compare to your Nikon F mount lenses, including 35/2 and 35/1.4 ? Now there are some heavily distorting lenses .... (I have the 35/2).

For some reason the 35/1.4 Nokton is the only one where slight distortion seems to matter on the intertubes ... "Internet Rufmord" if you ask me :) And don't get me started on "Focus Shift" or "softness". Whoever complains about this should first get an RF collimation on his/her Leica, then we can talk. Yes, the 35/1.4 is soft in the corners wide open, but so is my pre-asph Summicron, stop for stop, they are so comparable, that you cann't distinguish them even when pixel peeping.

And nothing against the pre-asph 35 Summilux in your hands, it seems to work for you. For me, however, it would be unusable in most situations at f1.4 due to "glow", I much rather have a slightly distorting lens that I can correct for in photoshop, but that focuses down to 0.7m without prominent veiling flare.

And just for fun, another recent 1.4 Nokton beach shot (I've shown this before)

69-TMY-Scan-120228-0008-XL.jpg


And an older Bokeh shot (with worst case background):

620173406_Ks8JS-O.jpg


Try that with the pre-asph Summilux, and there will be coma "butterflies" all over the place.

The 1.4 Nokton is very, very good for my purposes. And it's not really a matter of price for me.

People call the Nokton "affordable", but IMO, a US 500 lens is not cheap for most any photographer out there, except for the very few people who are used to the insane current Leica lens prices.

The 35/1.4 Nokton for me is the perfect partner to "Big Bertha", in particular wrt bokeh and distortion. Sometimes, when I use M3 only, I pair Bertha with the 40/1.4. Where I consider the 35/1.4 good, the 40/1.4 is outstanding, very sharp and rectilinear.

Roland.
 
I bought one a few months ago, and it's the only 35 I need now. It tends to take the role of internet whipping-boy when people discuss M-mount 35s, especially when the topic is mirrorless digital bodies. The cult of sharpness looks down on it, but it's a gorgeous, character-ful lens.

I shot this series with it (SC version): http://trevorwilsonphoto.com/work/2012/02/18/erica-saturday-february/

 
I too, have often considered getting this lens to replace my Ultron, but I seem to notice "jittery" out-of-focus background in a lot of shots from this lens (exactly as the samples in this thread shows).

I don't like those. So my Ultron stays.
 
i had one and sold it a while back. at the time, i thought it was a pretty good lens. since then, i've come to appreciate all the comments about busy bokeh. i might buy a 40/1.4 but i don't think i'd re-buy the 35.
 
I wanted to like this lens, but the one I had exhibited extreme barrel distortion. To the extent I felt that the lens (at least my copy) was defective.
 
It's basically the only lens I use since I got it. Haven't tried any other 35s but it's certainly good enough for me. :)
 
Nice pics there Ferider, Joosep and RegularChickens.

@Ferider. You do have a point that $500 isn't cheap at all. But so many of us have been partially de-sensitized at the insane Leica prices that $500 seems cheap!

Keep the photos coming folks!
 
It front focuses at 1.4 at times. Probably a user fault than anything else. It's my most used focal length on my RD1s.

Some say the Boke isn't good enough, but I wasn't complaining. ;-)

What I like about it? - Size and it's a f1.4! Reasonably priced.

Close up ...


On film ...
 
At times I wonder if people are talking about the same lens. The minor distortion I see wide open is nothing (if you come from most other systems than leica). If you pair it with the compact size (by any standard - and especially for a 1.4) and it's reasonable price, it is actutally a bargain in its own right - even if it is not cheap.
Underrated? I don't know and don't really care. I like the one I have and it is not for sale. When CV discontinues this lens, we will probably see a change to a more positive view of this model - as appears to be the case for all of their discontinued lenses.
 
Lflex said:
The minor distortion I see wide open is nothing (if you come from most other systems than leica).
Click to expand...
The distortion is not there only wide open. I see it pretty clearly in many of my photos, but it bothers me in only a few (and frankly, if those were otherwise better photos, I would not mind the distortion). It is my most used lens.

Anyway, when you look at lenses for a certain system (Leica M in this case), you mostly compare against lenses for the same system. For the Leica M system, the 35/1.4 is considerably cheaper than pretty much anything else. Which is pretty suspicious when it is actually a tiny, 1.4 lens that appear well-built. There must be something wrong with the lens - what exactly, why is it cheaper? I think it is mostly in this context that we talk about its weaknesses. And sure, it is not perfect. Pay more and you get no distortion and no focus shift with the Zeiss 35/2 (as well as getting a significantly bulkier lens and losing a stop), and so on.

The problem is that in Internet chatter the weaknesses get blown out of proportion.
 
This is my one and only 35mm lens, and I admit that I rarely use it due to its focal range. Its a joy to use, due to its speed and fantastic size.

I doubt I'll sell it off, for its good enough for a 'serious hobbyist' like myself.

p558030296-3.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom