Bill Blackwell
Leica M Shooter
has anyone done any "road tests" comparing these two lenses?
Seems to me like an obvious curiosity, but Google reveals nothing.
Seems to me like an obvious curiosity, but Google reveals nothing.
Voigtlander Nokton 40mm f/1.2 vs f/1.4 MC
- Thread starter Bill Blackwell
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 9
- Views 4K
colker
Well-known
I would go w/ the 1.4. Slower lenses are usually sharper, have less distortion not to mention lighter weight and smaller size.
The f/1.4 Nokton is a considerably older design, very compact, likely intended for film. Mine was new in Mar 2005 and probably from the second production run. The f/1.2 lens is very recent, so may benefit from optical improvements, and surely made expecting use with digital camera...
Ah, I see I made some notes about the f/1.4 Nokton:
While this lens is just fine on film cameras, it's unacceptable on the digital Leica M typ240, smearing corner resolution, and strong corner illumination fall-off and cyan color-shift... the wider the aperture the stronger it gets and the closer it moves toward center. The latter issues might be helped by coding the lens. The "plane" of focus at wider apertures is decidedly bowl-shaped, concave. The 40 Rokkor is far superior!
I have no experience with the f/1.2 Nokton.
Ah, I see I made some notes about the f/1.4 Nokton:
While this lens is just fine on film cameras, it's unacceptable on the digital Leica M typ240, smearing corner resolution, and strong corner illumination fall-off and cyan color-shift... the wider the aperture the stronger it gets and the closer it moves toward center. The latter issues might be helped by coding the lens. The "plane" of focus at wider apertures is decidedly bowl-shaped, concave. The 40 Rokkor is far superior!
I have no experience with the f/1.2 Nokton.
The Nokton 40mm f1.2 should be far superior on digital cameras as it was designed with performance on digital cameras (four aspherical surfaces on two elements) in mind.
http://www.cosina.co.jp/seihin/voigtlander/english/e-e-mount/e-40mm.html
http://www.cosina.co.jp/seihin/voigtlander/english/e-vm-mount/vm40mm1_2.html
http://www.cosina.co.jp/seihin/voigtlander/english/e-e-mount/e-40mm.html
http://www.cosina.co.jp/seihin/voigtlander/english/e-vm-mount/vm40mm1_2.html
Big fan of the 1.2 rendering. 1.4, not so much...
Archlich
Well-known
This only applies when both lenses have similar optical design. Not the case here.
Bike Tourist
Well-known
I only have the 1.2 version 2. I'm completely satisfied with it (maybe I'm easily pleased). The only fault is the way it obscures the lower right hand corner of the VF. Performance-wise it's sharp and contrasty, nice color and a really usable range of f-stops, from 1.2 to 22. It's rare that a photographer will perform at the level of the lens, so why the concern with minute differences?
Bill Blackwell
Leica M Shooter
By now, I'm hoping someone has done some actual side-by-side tests between these two 40mm lenses.
It's more a curiosity than anything else. Regardless of what "should be" - based on individual reviews on these lenses - other than the half-stop increase and close-focus advantage of the 1.2 version (and the size advantage in the 1.4 version), I actually wouldn't expect there to be any substantial practical differences between them.
Neither report particularly great OOF renderings.
It's more a curiosity than anything else. Regardless of what "should be" - based on individual reviews on these lenses - other than the half-stop increase and close-focus advantage of the 1.2 version (and the size advantage in the 1.4 version), I actually wouldn't expect there to be any substantial practical differences between them.
Neither report particularly great OOF renderings.
bayernfan
Well-known
There are threads dedicated to both lenses on this and other forums.
My impression from sample images:
The 40/1.2 has a highly corrected modern look. Very smooth (non-distracting) background rendition. Sharp at f/1.2. Sharp closed down.
The 40/1.4 has a more classic signature, but at the same time it's a bit "plain" without much character. Exhibits "softness" wide open.
My impression from sample images:
The 40/1.2 has a highly corrected modern look. Very smooth (non-distracting) background rendition. Sharp at f/1.2. Sharp closed down.
The 40/1.4 has a more classic signature, but at the same time it's a bit "plain" without much character. Exhibits "softness" wide open.
pyeh
Member of good standing
I have both these lenses, and while I can't provide any side-by-side comparisons, it's clear to me that between the two, the 1.2 is:
1) sharper/higher resolving.
2) has pronounced pincushion distortion, which is noticeable when taking pictures with lots of straight lines, which I tend to do.
The 1.2 aperture though is certainly light-grabbing. Great at night with film. I find its physical size bearable, and it works on the CL and CLE as long as you don't use the hood. The hood gets in the way of the RF window.
1) sharper/higher resolving.
2) has pronounced pincushion distortion, which is noticeable when taking pictures with lots of straight lines, which I tend to do.
The 1.2 aperture though is certainly light-grabbing. Great at night with film. I find its physical size bearable, and it works on the CL and CLE as long as you don't use the hood. The hood gets in the way of the RF window.
Similar threads
- Sticky
