Voigtlander Nokton 50mm F1, Test Photos, Comparisons, and Discussion.

The native ISO of the M Monochrom is the same as the Weston rating for Tri-X, ISO 320. Faster than the Panatomic-X that I used. For a while I shot nothing but Pan-X with a 55/3.5 Micro-Nikkor. If I were shooting film and using a filter that cost 2 stops, would go with Plus-X. A Yellow filter cost 1 stop, was good trade-off. I used a Polarizer on Kodachrome-25 most of the time "back in the day", about the same factor as the Y2 filter. I even came across a roll of Kodachrome K-11 and shot it at ASA 10, had come across a roll that was out-of-date the year I was born. Did not use a filter on it.
 
I always work on Tmax400. I develop it in Perceptol (Ilford). I make the prints on Ilford Multigrade with a Focomat IIc.

gelatin silver print (summilux 50mm f1.4 v1 black) leica m2

Erik.

51423933922_8c53168441_b.jpg
 
TMAX 400- ISO 400, faster than what I use the M Monochrom at when using these filters. Two stops down with the Orange filter puts me at ISO 80 equivalent. Red filter- ISO 40, I am back in Panatomic-X territory.

Your work is beautiful, you have a system that works. I'm reliving days of my youth with the M Monochrom. Putting all those filters to use.
 
Back to the Voigtlander 50mm F1.0 Nokton.

Cold outside, but Sunny.

F1.0 for the first image.

The 5 image sequence is at F1.0, F1.4, F2, F2.8, and F4. This is a 19th century Cemetery in the neighborhood. It "Spooked" one of the neighbors, who moved out because of it. I like it.






 
If you need a lens better than this one, you need to hire Bernie. Bernie had the barrel of the lenses he designed made of inconel. The thermal expansion of the metal matched that of the glass. The lens cost $40K to fabricate, back in the 1980s.
 
Erik van Straten said:
Thank you for your compliments!

I think I see some focus shift, picture 1 has "Milton" in focus and picture 6 has "William" in focus.

Erik.
Click to expand...

Remember these are all hand-held, in the cold and I am adjusting the aperture- so they are not registered.

Without the camera being on a Tripod, I'm not ready to say anything about focus shift. At some point I'll put it ona tripod and use a measuring tape.
 
Thanks for all the test shots with the new lens, Brian. I will just use the lens and will post some snapshots that I have taken with the lens. It is in no way a test of any sort.
 
These are in no way a controlled test- just informal comparisons.

Feel free to post any here, or on a new thread.

And post some with the Cintar!
 
Bill Blackwell said:
There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of difference between f/1 and f/1.4.
Click to expand...

I noted the same- and double checked the filenames of the sequence and the EXIF data.
If you look at the top of the fence slat you can see it diverges more quickly in the F1.0 shot, and that the far edges look a little darker due to vignetting.
BUT- F1.0 is so sharp with this lens that F1.4 is not much sharper. The point of focus is the same, and is centered in the shots. The contrast is high even at F1.0. This is very different from my older super-speed lenses that have dramatic increases in sharpness and contrast stopping down to F4. This lens is ready to go wide-open.
 
Sonnar Brian said:
I noted the same- and double checked the filenames of the sequence and the EXIF data.
If you look at the top of the fence slat you can see it diverges more quickly in the F1.0 shot, and that the far edges look a little darker due to vignetting.
BUT- F1.0 is so sharp with this lens that F1.4 is not much sharper. The point of focus is the same, and is centered in the shots. The contrast is high even at F1.0. This is very different from my older super-speed lenses that have dramatic increases in sharpness and contrast stopping down to F4. This lens is ready to go wide-open.
Click to expand...

This is then another plus point for this new lens.
 
Sonnar Brian said:
... If you look at the top of the fence slat you can see it diverges more quickly in the F1.0 shot, and that the far edges look a little darker due to vignetting.
BUT- F1.0 is so sharp with this lens that F1.4 is not much sharper. ... This lens is ready to go wide-open.
Click to expand...
Yes, I see this - but it's all very subtle. Probably, as you point out, a product of it being so good at f/1.

On the bokeh: it really looks nice and creamy in tight close-ups - but otherwise it appears heavily processed (at least to me).
 
jbielikowski said:
don't want to sound like an a**hole but can we please have a thread with pics only made with Nokton 50/1.0?
Click to expand...

When I have more than just "Quick Tests" that show the accuracy of the focus across range, whether focus shift is controlled, etc- I will put up a dedicated thread. Even better- threads that compare the 50/1.0, 50/1.1, and 50/1.2 Noktons. My "Pet Peeve" is the 50/1.1 being Dissed the way the Canon 50/0.95 used to be Dissed. Same goes for the Summarit 50/1.5.

At this point- comparisons with other superspeed lenses is legitimate point of discussion. Members are looking at this lens, comparing it with others, and deciding if it is worth getting or not. Looking at the number of 50/1.2 Noktons being sold Used by cameraquest, I can see some are trading it in on this one. The 50/1.2 Nokton is about the same size as a Nikkor 50/1.2 Ais, small enough for an everyday lens with great speed. And at $699 used- not much more than the Nikkor.

The weather has been awful here, and work- busy. The weekends go to working with my Daughter doing classes online.
 
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1741370/5#mt

Fred Miranda's site has an excellent thread dedicated to the Nokton 50/1.0. This would be an excellent place to look for more images and analysis.


Right now: I am learning the difference between:

char const * const test1= "This is a String\n\n";
// and
char const test2[]= "This is another String\n\n";

The answer- no difference "But" gives the Watcom compiler a headache.
char const * const test1= "This is a String\n\n";
char const test2[]= "This is another String\n\n";
cout << "test2= " << &test2 << "\n"; // Works correctly with both compilers.
cout << "test1= " << &test1 << "\n"; // Gives compiler error with Watcom, and compiles and works correctly with GNU.

And this is why a lot of embedded firmware fails. Most code developers use development tools but do not have a good understanding of when the tools make mistakes. Spent two weeks chasing an error introduced by the Xilinx tools.

And this is why I prefer Fortran-77 and Assembly. Fortran has had an intrinsic data type for character strings using descriptors since 1977. C++ waited until 2011, and the GNU compiler for JGRASP has not fully implemented it yet, and Watcom "Kludged it" and The Microsoft compiler - say no more.

SO- this weekend, I look forward to taking the M9 out with the 50/1.0, 50/1.1, and 50/1.2 Noktons! If I take the M Monochrom, I'll process the DNG files using my Fortran-77 code. Written using the Watcom v2 Fortran-77 Compiler. I've disassembled some older Fortran compilers to correct a couple of bugs in them. I'm comfortable in Fortran.

Old Dog learning New Tricks using Old Ways...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom