Voigtlander Nokton 50mm F/1.1 -- Worth it?

[sevres_babylone]

I think it is worth purchasing the lens if you need the speed. Last week I was shooting a band in a dimly lit club with mine, and sometimes I was needing F1.1 1/15 ISO 1600. Results were mixed, not due to the lens, but due to shooting non-stationary performers with my R-D1 body which front focuses.

While I agree with Tom that it can be an all-round 50mm, on my last trip I opted for my Zeiss Sonnar 50mm because of its size -- although I do generally prefer the Nokton at smaller apertures. But that decision depends on what you are comfortable with carrying around -- one of the photographers I was with was carrying 2 D700 bodies and zoom lenses. Were it a trip where night shooting or other lowlight shooting was going to be a significant aspect, I might have made a different choice. But size would be a factor.

My inclination at $959 would be to spend more and get a new one with a warranty.

 

[Pirate]

If I got a different lens right now it would be the 35mm Nokton F/1.2 and I would wait on the 50 Nokton to think it through a little more.

See, what happened was.... I bought an M4 that will be here in a week and a half. I have a 50mm Screwmount lens off my Canon III that will work with the adapter I have coming, so I won't be lensless no matter what happens, I just want to start on my M Mount lenses and this one looked like a really good one to start with as I'm more a 50mm kinda guy.

So one way or another i'm going to buy a lens of some length...
And I appreciate all the responses, this is some great info.

 

[Tom A]

It's an okay lens. A Noctilux it is not, however.

Which is why I kept the Nokton rather than the Noctilux!

 

[Spyro]

I've employed a similar argument, but i don't think it's valid here.

I know sometimes I sound too definitive, thats my fault. But I think its an interesting discussion, although certainly a bit philosophical, I hope you dont mind if I share some more thoughts on that?

1) ...the fact that you can name 10 to 1 on the side of not using an f1 lens sorta indicates the potential for doing more unique work.

Or maybe it indicates that they tried an f1 lens and ditched it? I dont think that they were not aware of fast lenses, or couldnt afford one.

Why buy what's common unless you're hoping to replicate what's already commonly done?

because maybe it leaves me more room to show what I can do. Many, if not all artists want to produce unique work, but I think a superfast lens can become a hurdle in that process more than it is an aid. Basically 90% of your photo becomes a blur, similar to anybody elses who has a fast lens and knows how to focus it, which is pretty much... everybody. That leaves you with 10% to show what you can do and differentiate your work, which is not a lot. Maybe, just maybe, you're making your life difficult for no real benefit.

2) There's nothing more unimaginative than stopping down and getting everything in focus. That's also the mark of a point and shoot digital.

On the contrary, I think it forces you to compose with all of your frame. It is difficult because the smallest thing in your field of view can potentially ruin your photo. It requires skill and imagination which are things good 'togs want to demonstrate, not drown in a blur.

Re point and shoot, Bresson was also laughed at for using a small leica at a time when everybody else was shooting 4X5 and 8X12. He did alright I think, and it would be interesting to see what camera he'd pick if he started today. Personally I love my digital p&s, I find it irreplacable:

3) Only other photographers will comment on the lens.

It is very easy to impress a non-photographer. Just take any photo, add a lot of contrast and vignette, desature a little and it all starts to look "interesting" and "moody", it takes 20" in Lightroom. But, it doesnt say a lot about the photographer. And the value of a portfolio is always ultimately assessed by people who understand how photos are made, which is other photographers, editors, curators and art directors.

At the end of the day people like what they like and thats fine, I'm just philosophising here (is that a word? )

 

[Nikkor AIS]

I really think the Voigtlander 50 1.1 is as sweet lens. In the last year since beginning to shoot with the Lecia M system I have come to appreciate the excellent quality of the Voigtlander lenses. While some may not be interested in ultra-fast normal lens for 35 mm for some there indispensable. I have a pal who is new to photography who is interested in low light available darkness with the Leica M who is on a budged, and the I mentioned the Nokton 501.1 right off, as an excellent choice. I really like how the lens renders wide open and the bokeh is swell.
Life @ 1.0/1.1 isnt for everybody. But for some it expose a world waiting to be discovered.

Gregory

 

[Charlie Lemay]

I have enjoyed on my film Leicas and on my E-P2.

 

[Pirate]

I'm still leaning on Yes for this lens. I love doing available light shooting. Flash I can do, but it's not my thing. I'd rather slow down and take an extra minute to get a nice shot.

I'll be waiting till my next pay check to actually buy this so I've got this coming week to make up my mind.

 

[gliderbee]

One vote more for Yes ! But you can find better deals for one. I think it's a great lens.

I'm just trying it out with my R-D1s (800 Asa, F1.1, shortest distance). I focused just under the fourth purple flower, counting from the left.

 

[jmkelly]

I consider the $900 I paid for my Nokton 1.1 to be well-spent. It is a useful lens for the way I shoot. For handling, image quality and percentage of "keeper" shots it beats the Canon 50/0.95 and 55/1.2 I had and sold.

I like Roland's idea of buying two - if you can swing it - and keeping the one that gives you the best results with your camera(s). I was lucky with my purchase - the lens is works fine on everything from my R-D1 to ZI.