Voigtlander Nokton 50mm 1.5 or 1.1?

[JP Owens]

The 1.1 DOF is just too narrow. I stick with 1.5 or 1.4 at the most, and use sparingly.

 

[Bille]

I tried to like the 1.1 a couple of times but it lacks the magic of other ultra fast lenses. Bokeh is nice close up, otherwise rather disappointing. So if it has to be Voigtländer, I´d go for the 1.5. Ultimately though, nothing beats a 50mm Summicron in my opinion. And they are priced reasonably used.

 

[uhoh7]

The 1.1 DOF is just too narrow. I stick with 1.5 or 1.4 at the most, and use sparingly.

Fair point. I've used the 1.1 quite a bit on the M9.


Zuck by unoh7, on Flickr

With practice it's doable WO, and for the poor ISO performing M9, 1.4 is often not getting you into the DIM under 800, so I need superspeed. The trick with 1.1 RF is not to be too close.


L1025421 by unoh7, on Flickr

The lowlight money lens on the M9 is the CV 35/1.2. Then you have some DOF WO.

 

[William Temple]

Is that a 35mm f/1.4 or a 50mm f/1.4? That makes a lot of difference. Fast 50mm lenses are (much) more difficult to focus. An 50mm f/1.1 is really demanding. It would be wise to try a 50mm f/1.1 on your R2 before you buy it.

Erik.

It was a Nokton 40mm 1.4, a friends that I borrowed, but yes I can see what you mean. Thanks Erik

 

[William Temple]

I never sold my 1.1, btw 😎

That says something! But do you still use it as much?

 

[William Temple]

CV 50/1.1 on SOny A7.mod:


Wading by unoh7, on Flickr


Be Prepared by unoh7, on Flickr

This is where the 1.1 shines: fast speeds. Stopping down (these are not the best shots overall, but should give a good idea of performance)


DSC00859 by unoh7, on Flickr


DSC00757-2 by unoh7, on Flickr

In short, the 1.1 is adequate stopped down, I suspect the 1.5 may be sharper on the edges at F/8, because the 1.1 def looses it a bit.

Both the 50 cron v4+ and ZM50/2, and of course the lux asph, are much better on the edges than either of these very nice lenses.

Much worse on the edges at all apertures is the Sonnetar, but it goes with me evenings more often than my 1.1. Why? Tiny and delightful 🙂 My main daylight 50 is the cron v4.

Between these two as my only 50 I would take the 1.5, with biggest issue being size and weight.

Thank you for all of these samples, it's really helpful to see what images from the lens stopped down.

 

[raid]

I have never used a CV 50/1.1, but from what I have seen posted online, I am staying with my CV 50/1.5 ltm and I do not think about buying a CV 50/1.1. Instead, I bought a Zeiss Biogon 35/2 to complement my CV 50/1.5. Having a larger max aperture is not always the decisive factor.

Food for thought.

 

[William Temple]

I was very surprised at the size, but moreso at the weight. You can't really compare it with a modern SLR lens--at least I can't, since any Nikon lens I have of similar size has a large percentage of plastic, and MUCH less weight. Ultimately, size just takes up more air; weight is what you feel.

By the way, that's a picture of my wife, who's an artist but not a photographer, so she has no particular bokeh opinions or even recognition that it's something people think about. When she saw that shot, the first thing she commented on was how much she liked the way the background looked. Some people have commented on other threads about how the lens seems to have more depth of field than it should, and I think that's due to aberrations similar to what many old lenses have that tend to spread the focus out in front and especially back, giving a bit of 'glow' in the process. But this lens is needle sharp stopped down, not a disappointment at all in that respect.

I see, I find it so hard to gauge the size of lenses without ever having seen them, I think I've been underestimating the 1.1!

The 'glow' you mention is really appealing to me, especially in your photograph. Here is an image of my wife from when I had the 1.5:

[/url]. by william temple, on Flickr[/IMG]

 

[William Temple]

I have never used a CV 50/1.1, but from what I have seen posted online, I am staying with my CV 50/1.5 ltm and I do not think about buying a CV 50/1.1. Instead, I bought a Zeiss Biogon 35/2 to complement my CV 50/1.5. Having a larger max aperture is not always the decisive factor.

Food for thought.

Yes I agree, it's not the larger aperture I'm really bothered about, it's the lens's characteristics and performance. I've got the 1.5 and the 1.1 available to me at the moment at about the same price, but I cannot decide :bang:

 

[mdarnton]

I see, I find it so hard to gauge the size of lenses without ever having seen them, I think I've been underestimating the 1.1!\

This is why you need to complete your personal profile info: for all we know, you live right next to me, and in five minutes you could be trying mine on your camera. Or maybe you live next to someone else with one, but you'll never know! 🙂

 

[William Temple]

This is why you need to complete your personal profile info: for all we know, you live right next to me, and in five minutes you could be trying mine on your camera. Or maybe you live next to someone else with one, but you'll never know! 🙂

I'll get updating now!

 

[Brian Legge]

I love the f1.1 for low light photography. And I only take it out for low light shooting. Its larger, heavier and slower to focus than I prefer for a general purpose lens.

If you occasionally need speed but want an every day user, I'd go with the f1.5

CV 50/1.1:


CV 50/1.5

 

[raid]

Yes I agree, it's not the larger aperture I'm really bothered about, it's the lens's characteristics and performance. I've got the 1.5 and the 1.1 available to me at the moment at about the same price, but I cannot decide :bang:

If the market values for both lenses are roughly equal, go with what your instinct tells you to do. If the 50/1.1 sells for more money, buy it. Use it. If you like it, keep it. If you do not like it, sell it and get the 50/1.5.

B&H new price for the 50/1.1 black: $899 ......................................... CV 50/1.5 black : $799

It is a $100 difference only.

 

[William Temple]

I love the f1.1 for low light photography. And I only take it out for low light shooting. Its larger, heavier and slower to focus than I prefer for a general purpose lens.

If you occasionally need speed but want an every day user, I'd go with the f1.5

CV 50/1.1:


CV 50/1.5

The size is playing on my mind quite a bit... They both look great though, thanks 🙂

 

[William Temple]

If the market values for both lenses are roughly equal, go with what your instinct tells you to do. If the 50/1.1 sells for more money, buy it. Use it. If you like it, keep it. If you do not like it, sell it and get the 50/1.5.

B&H new price for the 50/1.1 black: $899 ......................................... CV 50/1.5 black : $799

It is a $100 difference only.

Yes there is only £50 between the 1.5 and the 1.1. I think I'm headed towards the 1.5 now, just because I know the lens and I don't think I want the size of the 1.1. Thanks for your input! 🙂

 

[raid]

The cv 50/1.5 ltm costs much less than the newer 50/1.5M. Optics are identical. The M lens may have diferent coatings.

 

[uhoh7]

Yes there is only £50 between the 1.5 and the 1.1. I think I'm headed towards the 1.5 now, just because I know the lens and I don't think I want the size of the 1.1. Thanks for your input! 🙂

What are your other 50's ?

That could swing the decision one way or the other 🙂

 

[Huss]

From cameraquest.com:

"Rangefinder Base length of 37mm: This translates to an effective rangefinder base length of 37mm for the 1.0x magnification R3A, and 25.6 mm(37mm x .68 magnification) for the R2A. In other words, the R3A's rangefinder is 74% as long as the standard .72 Leica M finder, while the R2A's rangefinder is 51% as long as the standard .72 Leica M finder with EBL of 49.32."

it would be really difficult to hit focus at 1.1 with an R2a. As the specs above show, the R3a would be the Bessa to use for this. There is a big difference with dof between 40mm lens at 1.4, and a 50mm at 1.1.

Also, the 1.1 will block an awful lot of your VF.

 

[William Temple]

What are your other 50's ?

That could swing the decision one way or the other 🙂

I haven't had a 50 for the past 3 years, I've been using an XP1 with the 35mm 1.4. I'm returning to my old bessas after living abroad with no access to film/chemistry hence the need for a new 50 🙂

 

[William Temple]

From cameraquest.com:

"Rangefinder Base length of 37mm: This translates to an effective rangefinder base length of 37mm for the 1.0x magnification R3A, and 25.6 mm(37mm x .68 magnification) for the R2A. In other words, the R3A's rangefinder is 74% as long as the standard .72 Leica M finder, while the R2A's rangefinder is 51% as long as the standard .72 Leica M finder with EBL of 49.32."

it would be really difficult to hit focus at 1.1 with an R2a. As the specs above show, the R3a would be the Bessa to use for this. There is a big difference with dof between 40mm lens at 1.4, and a 50mm at 1.1.

Also, the 1.1 will block an awful lot of your VF.

I didn't realise there was such a difference between the rangefinders, thanks 🙂