Which one for M-E, Planar 50 2 or Nokton 50 1.5?

[Ko.Fe.]

Currently I have Rigid Cron and original J-3. One on M3, another on FED-2.
Both are doing well on bw film and darkroom prints. I quickly tested them on M-E for indoor and don't like it comparing to what Summarit-M 35 2.5 and Elmarit-M 28 2.8 III gives digitally.

I would like to switch from Rigid Cron to newer lens and use it at M-E for family pictures and on M3 for reportage, street and landscape.
Since I have Summarit-M already in 35mm, I would like to have 50mm with different rendering. I don't have money for Canadian Cron, but after selling of Rigid I might be able to afford 50 2 Planar or Nokton 50 1.5 VM.

I'm more after Zeiss because it has saturated colors, focus bump (I need it to be not disoriented) and it was reported to be good on bw film/prints.
But maybe Nokton VM 50 1.5 is real remedy at f1.5 and ISO1600 on M-E for indoors family pictures? For now I'm getting sharp, good colors indoor pictures with bounced flash on ISO200-800 and at f5.6-8.

 

[rfaspen]

Kost. I would opt for the Planar. I don't have much experience with the Nokton, but I've used the Planar a bit, and its great on the digital sensor. Of course, if you're interested in low contrast with pastel colors, its not the lens for you. If you want really sharp at all apertures, high contrast, no distortion, high flare resistance and great saturated colors, the Planar is a good choice.
About the only thing "bad" about the Planar is the contrast. Sometimes people think its too much contrast. Also, the focus bump is different than the Leica tab, but I seem to manage with it OK.

 

[Erik van Straten]

I have the Nokton-M 50mm f/1.5 (chrome); it is a great lens, both mechanically and optically. Closeups at full aperture are wonderful.

Leica MP, Nokton-M 50mm f/1.5, Tmax400.

Erik.

 

[froyd]

I think it's a real pity to give up the Rigid Summicron, especially since it appears you often work in BW.

I never used the Nokton, though I really would like to, but I've use the Planar and thought is was pretty good lens. I sold it because I did not like the ergonomics and I preferred the rendering of a Planar for a different mount.

Here are a couple of things to consider about the ZM Planar: it has 1/3 f-stop detents. That works well for cameras with AE, like your M-E, but less so with meterless cameras like the M3 and the Fed, it's a pain. The "nub" is good for getting your bearing, as you say, but it's less pleasant in use than a classic tab. The Nokton looks better on that front. For 50s, the tab for me is less useful because I'm less comfortable zone focusing without looking at the lens (like I can on a 35), but it doesn't seem to be aproblem for you, so the ZM might be better ergonomically than the "guess where I'm focused" design of the Nokton.

 

[f16sunshine]

I like both of your choices very much optically.
The planar would be my choice however. It's just a great all around lens.
Maybe the "best" f2/50mm ever made for any mount.

 

[jsrockit]

You cannot go wrong with either lens... two of my favorites (along with the 50mm 2.5 summarit) when I last used the M9. I'd say the Planar is more modern.

 

[BLKRCAT]

I owned the rigid, have the voigtlander 50/1.5 and tried the Planar F2.

The rigid is a sexy lens. It renders nicely and is crispy sharp from 2.8 onward. At F2 I found results hit and miss. Also it has that classic rendering from most older leica lenses.

The Planar is RAZOR sharp at all apertures. It matches the rigid probably at F4 onward (on film). Rendering in contrast is obviously different and I found that the flatter softer contrast of the rigid gives an edge in scanning and printing with better detail. The Planar however has very high contrast and has an extremely modern look. I actually didn't like the look of the planar as much as I thought I would. It's sharp but seems almost too contrasty. Also the build quality of the planar leaves much to be desired. Coming from the Rigid you will notice the planar feels almost half of the weight.

The sexiest lens of all choices is the Voigtlander. Solid build quality, smooth focus, positive clicks on the aperture and much easier to manipulate on the go compared to either the rigid or planar. Sharp all the way wide open. Shows classic characteristics optically but with modern coatings refreshes the look to the 21st century.

On digital the Voigtlander looks better than the Zeiss with crispy rendering at F1.5. I've seen it first hand on a Sony and it looked very good.

Only faults for the voigtlander is no tab means that you'll have to learn how to focus with the knurling. I didn't like it at first but now I'm a fan.

Leica M4, Nokton-M 50mm f/1.5, Fuji Velvia 50

 

[nobbylon]

I have the planar and a v3 summicron and prefer the planar on my m9p (same sensor).

 

[filmtwit]

You won't go wrong with the planar.

 

[ferider]

But maybe Nokton VM 50 1.5 is real remedy at f1.5 and ISO1600 on M-E for indoors family pictures? For now I'm getting sharp, good colors indoor pictures with bounced flash on ISO200-800 and at f5.6-8.

I really love my rigid Summicron on the 240, surprised you don't like it on the M-E. You do know that it was designed by Mandler who - before becoming Canadian - was visiting ELCAN on and off since 1952, right ?

In any case, if you really want to trade the rigid, I recommend the 50/1.1 Nokton for your purposes. Even better than the 50/1.5 - technically as good as the 50/2 Planar, but faster, see also http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=153336.

Whatever you get, make sure you can return it, the difference between Planar, 1.5 Nokton, and 1.1 Nokton is so small that sample variation might well be bigger, meaning try to get a good one.

Roland.

 

[taemo]

My 2c but I compared both side by side and the difference between the 2 is very negligible.
Kept the Nokton 1.5 and never looked into the Planar again
Have a summicron collapsible now, if I were to get another digital leica body, it would be another Nokton 1.5 for sure.

I'll see if I still have the sample shots online

 

[BLKRCAT]

Whatever you get, make sure you can return it, the difference between Planar, 1.5 Nokton, and 1.1 Nokton is so small that sample variation might well be bigger.

Roland.

I have the 50 F1.1 as well. I disagree. Its far too heavy for everyday use.

I believe that the 1.5 is sharper as well.

I haven't done a side by side comparison between the two because I wouldn't bother with the F1.1 as an EDC lens since its too big and heavy. ESPECIALLY on a traditional M body. On the M5 it's more manageable but still too big.

Also ergonomically the F1.1 lacks compared to any other lens. The aperture adjustment is very easy to bump and change aperture. Focussing knob is big and slippery and viewfinder blockage is extreme. Also not mentioning the known focussing issues with the F1.1, these will be enhanced on digital.

I use it specifically for low light and nothing else.

 

[taemo]

1.1 and 2.2 are from the Planar, 1.2 and 2.1 are Nokton.
These were taken at f/2 on both lenses.


Planar vs Nokton (1.1) by earl.dieta, on Flickr

Planar vs Nokton (1.2) by earl.dieta, on Flickr



Planar vs Nokton (2.1) by earl.dieta, on Flickr

Planar vs Nokton (2.2 by earl.dieta, on Flickr

 

[ferider]

I have the 50 F1.1 as well. I disagree. Its far too heavy for everyday use.

I believe that the 1.5 is sharper as well.

I haven't done a side by side comparison between the two because I wouldn't bother with the F1.1 as an EDC lens since its too big and heavy. ESPECIALLY on a traditional M body. On the M5 it's more manageable but still too big.

Also ergonomically the F1.1 lacks compared to any other lens. The aperture adjustment is very easy to bump and change aperture. Focussing knob is big and slippery and viewfinder blockage is extreme. Also not mentioning the known focussing issues with the F1.1, these will be enhanced on digital.

I use it specifically for low light and nothing else.

The 1.1 is (a) sharper and (b) more rectilinear than the 1.5 - the latter being important for wet printing. Also, at min. focus (0.7 vs 1m), the 1.5 is harder to focus on digital. I've had two 1.5 copies and sent one back due to back focus. My first 1.1 sample was a keeper.

Yes, the 1.1 feels about twice as big, and is 100g heavier than my chrome 1.5. And it does intrude more into the frame.

Note that the OP did ask for available light usage. A full additional stop matters, two stops if he decides to keep his Summicron 😉

Roland.

 

[BLKRCAT]

The 1.1 is (a) sharper and (b) more rectilinear than the 1.5 - the latter being important for wet printing.

Looking out there for side by side comparisons on sharpness. I've got example shots from the F1.1 but it's not fair to compare it without using same film, same process, same scanner. The 1.1 never wowed me like the 1.5 did. I'll stick to that.

As for rectilinear, if this is important then OP should go for Zeiss.

 

[Erik van Straten]

The nice thing about the Voigtländer lenses is that they are affordable, so you simply buy them all and use whenever you like it. At this moment I am in love with my Nikon S2 and the S Skopar 50mm f/2.5 on it. I bought this lens for about $50 in a near mint condition.

Erik.

 

[Richard G]

Very informative thread which just converted me to the Nokton 1.5. In another life. I'm coping fine with my C Sonnar. I agree it would be sad to let the Rigid Summicron go. I like shooting in my garden and my DR Summicron seems to be the best lens by far for getting the colour of my red roses right.

Meanwhile indoors with the ME the best exposure strategy appears to be to use ISO 640 and choose the shutter speed you have to have and then increase exposure in Lightroom later. I've tried 1600 and above indoors and it's ugly with a few exceptions. You need to be a lot cleverer than me in post to rescue the shots, unless there is lots of light, in which case you didn't need 1600. I've had very clean shots in direct sun at ISO 1600. I now never use the M9 with ISO above 640.

 

[helen.HH]

I can't speak in Terms of how they will draw with Color on the M-E
but for Film I have used them Both



The Nokton ltm to my eye has more Atmosphere , almost a touch of lux wide open , rounded and full but that Aspheric glass gives it a more Modern Edge
Funny One always thinks of Zeiss as 'Pop' but to me the nokton pops more than the Planar



an Indecisive Step by Helen Hill, on Flickr




Is this Destiny or Fate...choose your Card,choose your Saint by Helen Hill, on Flickr

 

[helen.HH]

The Planar is Beautiful too, but a tad more restrained, less rounded, thinner plane, Edge to Edge even sharpness




A Bitter Sweet day... by Helen Hill, on Flickr





Playin with her Doll-y... by Helen Hill, on Flickr

 

[cz23]

A Nokton shot with the M9, both of which are long gone.

I got the Planar for my MM and sort of wish I hadn't. It's too modern for my taste. Though I would not go back to the Nokton, with no tab. I really like the Zeiss tab design and am considering the Sonnar. I suspect I'd prefer the Rigid to the Planar.

John