Krosya
Konicaze
I thought you were selling your Hex 50/1.2 (in a kit with a body), or did you change your mind?
Voigtlander 50/1.1 Nokton Images !
- Thread starter bennyng
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 493
- Views 184K
I thought you were selling your Hex 50/1.2 (in a kit with a body), or did you change your mind?
gdi
Veteran
Actually, what I see reminds me a little of the Hex 50 1.2, a modern look and sharper than the Noctilux and Canons. Neither have any "character" producing flaws that are obvious to me.
I still like the look of the Hex a bit better - but that, of course, is so subjective as to be all but worthless without spending time with both lenses. Of course the fabulous build and handling of the Hex would be hard to beat, but I think the Cosina lens is clearly a winner.
Regarding the desirability of "character", I do agree that the character flaws in lenses like the Noctilux and Canons can make for special shots - I wouldn't give a good copy of one of those up for the Cosina. Better to get both😀, but that is just me and my taste.
gdi
Veteran
Given your retro specialty, I don't think the Cosina will make it into you bag. I can't see it improving on your amazing shots with the old lenses!
fleetwoodjazz
Established
I shoot all from medium format, DSLR to large format and I think the the 35mm 1.2 is not that big actually.
The argument only started I think because between the 35mm 1.4 and the 35mm 1.2, the size difference is way too huge compare to the difference in speed.
I think the images are beautiful. The optical engineers did an amazing job and Cosina did an even more amazing job in producing the lens in this price range.
Saturated colors, sharp details. Slight astigmatism and slight over-correction of spherical aberration. Not quite as pronounced as a Summarit or Nikkor 5.8cm F1.4 F-Mount lens. On the other hand, someone shoot a picture wide-open at closest focus with some real structure in the background. I'm betting "Summarit Swirlies" pop up bigtime. The lens has higher contrast due to modern glass and multicoating. But it shows the Xenon character, but corrected into the 21st century.
I favor vintage lenses formulated without a computer. That's because I "eat, sleep, dream, and breathe" computers. Sometimes I need to get away from it.
BUT: creating and producing this lens at this price just amazes me.
Saturated colors, sharp details. Slight astigmatism and slight over-correction of spherical aberration. Not quite as pronounced as a Summarit or Nikkor 5.8cm F1.4 F-Mount lens. On the other hand, someone shoot a picture wide-open at closest focus with some real structure in the background. I'm betting "Summarit Swirlies" pop up bigtime. The lens has higher contrast due to modern glass and multicoating. But it shows the Xenon character, but corrected into the 21st century.
I favor vintage lenses formulated without a computer. That's because I "eat, sleep, dream, and breathe" computers. Sometimes I need to get away from it.
BUT: creating and producing this lens at this price just amazes me.
Last edited:
TOO FUNNY! And VERY TRUE!
I made a couple of Rangefinder Coupled single-element lenses for photographers to use on there M8's. Got a kick out of a $5 single element lens on a $5000 camera. Get one of those "plastic free with Subscription" time/life cameras, put it on the mount of an I61L/D. Then take the I61L/D optics module and put it on a Contax mount. I use collapsible mounts from the CZJ 5cm f2 Sonnar. You get two distinctive lenses.
LeicaTom
Watch that step!
Thank You Gary,
I was sort of hoping that it would be rendering much more attractive and artistic styled photos, but just being really fast and very sharp, does`nt cut it in my personal styles of the Photography I do, there`s got to be the look of certain signatures and eras as well.
As I`ve read there`s some who agree with me and some who disagree about the Cosina, beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, and each lens out there has it`s own look and distintive useage, it`s really up to the Photographer to select what he or she feels good with and that what makes their work shine and stand out from all the rest.
It took me over 7 years of trial and error to get my look where I want it, and in all the equipment I have collected in the past 3 years, I can finally say that my pallet is complete and I`m satisfied with what I work with, I can consider myself lucky to have found that out, while now I have more time to invest in my busniess and have less worry about thinking if I have the right lens/camera body etc. for the job - now I do 🙂
Happy Shooting!
Tom
Last edited:
gavinlg
Veteran
Agree, but my 50mm 1.2L was a pretty damn sharp lens - even wide open. A lot of people complain about issues with them especially when photographing test charts etc, but in real life I found it very very sharp. Similar to the sharpness of this nokton wide open but with less purple aberration (though those shots were on m8 so they're a crop of the center of the lens)
Sonnar formula lenses are all about character.
Planar/Xenon formula lenses are all about optical corrections. That's why they "won-out". It's just easier to get rid of aberrations by making the front/rear gorups as symmetric as possible and then applying tweeks. The specific tweeks and compromises define the Bokeh.
Looking at the photo's posted, I think the higher contrast and "picture postcard" saturated colors define this lens as a 21st century continuation of the Japanese lenses from the 60s. If you liked the color of 1950s Kodachrome, this is not the lens for you. And finding someone to do K-11 process is hard these days.
Planar/Xenon formula lenses are all about optical corrections. That's why they "won-out". It's just easier to get rid of aberrations by making the front/rear gorups as symmetric as possible and then applying tweeks. The specific tweeks and compromises define the Bokeh.
Looking at the photo's posted, I think the higher contrast and "picture postcard" saturated colors define this lens as a 21st century continuation of the Japanese lenses from the 60s. If you liked the color of 1950s Kodachrome, this is not the lens for you. And finding someone to do K-11 process is hard these days.
Last edited:
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Nope!
Thats a spare kit I came into possession of a while ago. It's never been shot, thw whole set is brand new.
My own lens I will not sell, kidney goes first😀 It's stuck on the M5 most of the time, killer combo!
Very smart of you to conclude, I only changed my evilbay ID to my RFF ID yesterday!
Last edited:
dogberryjr
[Pithy phrase]
fleetwoodjazz
Established
Do you know how far were you to the focus points?
dogberryjr
[Pithy phrase]
I shot the front can first, just over minimum focus distance, and kept the camera at about the same place for the other two shots.
dogberryjr
[Pithy phrase]
CK Dexter Haven
Well-known
"I hate to use the term "real world shooting" but when you do nothing but shoot batteries, rulers, test charts and brick walls..."
This has become as much of a misdirected cliche as the phrase "the liberals...."
Nobody ONLY shoots test charts. I don't know what's wrong with shooting test images to know what you're working with. And, to know if you got what you paid for. The assumption that all lenses perform equally is wrong. The assumption that to lens manufacturers don't issue duds/lemons is also wrong. I've experienced both sample variation and the 'lemon' problem. The former with a Canon L lens and the latter with a Leica ASPH.
Professionals test their gear quite often. It's one thing to be able to live with a lens' peculiarities and quirks such as focus shift when you shoot only for yourself and have the luxury to Not get the shot. It's another thing to have to shoot to a layout and perform for an art director with a budget, professional expectations, and your career and reputation on the line. Or, even when you're trying to Build a career. In those situations, you need consistent, predictable, and repeatable results.
I tried the Canon 50L. I tried three of them, actually. I'm glad some people have been happy with theirs. My first two didn't focus accurately at 1.2. The third finally did, but still wasn't as sharp as my old 50/1.4 EF. The L had great bokeh, but overall just didn't perform at a level commensurate with its price and size/weight. I eventually found a Sigma 50/1.4 that worked well and gives me both sharpness and bokeh.
I just bought the Nokton 50/1.1. I'm surprised, but not shocked, to see criticisms of it, already, in this forum. I'm wondering if the same comments will be made about the $9000 Noctilux. Probably not, i'm guessing. It's funny - about the Nokton.... If it had come out before or alongside the f1 Noctilux, everyone initially would have called the Leica lens a dog. They would have looked at it from a purely technical perspective. But, without that direct competition, people found a way to use the Noctilux' character/flaws to make pictures that matched that lens' capabilities. With time, the same will be said of the Nokton. It is what it is: an f1.1 Nokton. Does it not have "character?" Is has the same lack of character that a Summilux or Summicron doesn't have.... If you buy a super fast lens to get swirly stuff in the background, buy a swirly lens, but criticizing the next super fast lens for not doing that is kind of silly.
Personally, i'm kind of glad the Nokton doesn't have that kind of 'gimmick' associated with it. I don't want to make pictures that especially have a lens characteristic FIRST associated with the picture. I'd like to make nice photographs. Not nice "Nokton photographs." If the viewer FIRST thinks, "ooh - what kind of lens does THAT?" i don't take it in a complimentary manner.
This has become as much of a misdirected cliche as the phrase "the liberals...."
Nobody ONLY shoots test charts. I don't know what's wrong with shooting test images to know what you're working with. And, to know if you got what you paid for. The assumption that all lenses perform equally is wrong. The assumption that to lens manufacturers don't issue duds/lemons is also wrong. I've experienced both sample variation and the 'lemon' problem. The former with a Canon L lens and the latter with a Leica ASPH.
Professionals test their gear quite often. It's one thing to be able to live with a lens' peculiarities and quirks such as focus shift when you shoot only for yourself and have the luxury to Not get the shot. It's another thing to have to shoot to a layout and perform for an art director with a budget, professional expectations, and your career and reputation on the line. Or, even when you're trying to Build a career. In those situations, you need consistent, predictable, and repeatable results.
I tried the Canon 50L. I tried three of them, actually. I'm glad some people have been happy with theirs. My first two didn't focus accurately at 1.2. The third finally did, but still wasn't as sharp as my old 50/1.4 EF. The L had great bokeh, but overall just didn't perform at a level commensurate with its price and size/weight. I eventually found a Sigma 50/1.4 that worked well and gives me both sharpness and bokeh.
I just bought the Nokton 50/1.1. I'm surprised, but not shocked, to see criticisms of it, already, in this forum. I'm wondering if the same comments will be made about the $9000 Noctilux. Probably not, i'm guessing. It's funny - about the Nokton.... If it had come out before or alongside the f1 Noctilux, everyone initially would have called the Leica lens a dog. They would have looked at it from a purely technical perspective. But, without that direct competition, people found a way to use the Noctilux' character/flaws to make pictures that matched that lens' capabilities. With time, the same will be said of the Nokton. It is what it is: an f1.1 Nokton. Does it not have "character?" Is has the same lack of character that a Summilux or Summicron doesn't have.... If you buy a super fast lens to get swirly stuff in the background, buy a swirly lens, but criticizing the next super fast lens for not doing that is kind of silly.
Personally, i'm kind of glad the Nokton doesn't have that kind of 'gimmick' associated with it. I don't want to make pictures that especially have a lens characteristic FIRST associated with the picture. I'd like to make nice photographs. Not nice "Nokton photographs." If the viewer FIRST thinks, "ooh - what kind of lens does THAT?" i don't take it in a complimentary manner.
Morca007
Matt
What a load of crap. So now it's the lens that that's responsible for a photograph being art? Can you recommend a lens to me so that I can make some art, please?
bennyng
Benny Ng
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Although I'm still not sure this lens is my cup of tea, it sure appears to be yours Benny! That is a great shot.
The Summar.
abumac
Well-known
How many lights-points were there really?
Similar threads
