ZI plus Nokton 35mm F1.2, anyone?

P

pizzahut88

Well-known
Local time
7:37 AM
Joined
Oct 29, 2006
Messages
369
View My Gallery
Does anyone have that combination?
Nokton 35mm F1.2 plus Zeiss Ikon?

Care to post some pictures of the setup?

I can't decide . . . to get the Zeiss 35/2 or Voigtlander Nokton 35/1.2
They costs about the same . . . .

Who has the Nokton 35/1.2?
How useable is it wide open?

Manfred
My gallery:
http://viking-manfred.blogspot.com/
 
The Nokton is big & bulky. It strikes me as more of a specialty lens - one that you pull out for the occasional time when you need it, but not an every day, walk around lens. The Zeiss is a superb optic & is perfect as your standard lens on the ZI.
 
I went through a similar decision process over the week-end, looking for a general purpose 35, possibly fast, and also included the classic 35 Summilux (and ignored the price difference) ... After a long study of flickr images, I came out with the 40/1.4 Nokton SC, among others because I do not see much difference in OOF behavior between 40 and 35 Nokton (contrary to what is commonly said) and the 40 is much more compact.

YMMV. Best,

Roland.
 
Last edited:
Looking for a monster . . .

Looking for a monster . . .

Huck Finn said:
The Nokton is big & bulky. It strikes me as more of a specialty lens - one that you pull out for the occasional time when you need it, but not an every day, walk around lens. The Zeiss is a superb optic & is perfect as your standard lens on the ZI.
Click to expand...

I suppose the Nokton isn't a walk around lens.
But if it's good wide open, I won't mind.

On the other hand, I know the Zeiss 35/2 must be good.

Right now, the standard on my ZI is the 40/1.4
 
Point well made.

Point well made.

ferider said:
I went through a similar decision process over the week-end, looking for a general purpose 35, possibly fast, and also included the classic 35 Summilux (and ignored the price difference) ... After a long study of flickr images, I came out with the 40/1.4 Nokton SC, among others because I do not see much difference in OOF behavior between 40 and 35 Nokton (contrary to what is commonly said) and the 40 is much more compact.

YMMV. Best,

Roland.
Click to expand...

Ah, you do have a point there . . .
and I already have the 40/1,4

I think it's more like for the sake of having it then practical considerations?
A difference for 5mm isn't much.
Neither is the difference between F1.2 and F1.4
 
Hi Manfred,

I cannt wait to use the combo of 40/1.4 SC and 28/1.9. Enough distance
between focal lengths, they seam to have similar rendition (color and OOF),
and with the 28 you gain an additional stop in hand-holding, so the speed
is almost equivalent ....

If you don't have it already, maybe the 28/1.9 is the way to go ?

Cheers,

Roland.
 
Huck Finn said:
The Nokton is big & bulky. It strikes me as more of a specialty lens - one that you pull out for the occasional time when you need it, but not an every day, walk around lens. The Zeiss is a superb optic & is perfect as your standard lens on the ZI.
Click to expand...

I have both the Nokton 35 and the Biogon 35. The Nokton by SLR standards is not large but by RF standards is somewhat larger than the other 35. It's an exceptional lens even at 1.2 but I will agree with Huck Finn that I only pull it out when I know I'm going to be shooting in extremely low light. Performance is excellent at 1.2 and really starts to improve by f2 to 2.8. It's built extremely well and in my opinion built better than the mid 70's up Leica lenses. It's a natural for the ZI with it's HP style VF and accurate RF. The lens enters into the frame some but not near the degree as it does on a Leica M.

The Biogon is just superb in every respect. If you don't really need the 1.2 - 2 speed I suggest the Biogon. The Biogon in my opinion is the finest 35 on the market. I also own the asph Summicron 35 and have not made a real side by side comparison but at this point I feel the Biogon has a slight edge on the asph Summicron.

Both the Biogon and the Nokton are very flare resistant. From examples that I've seen both are much mpre flare resistant even than the asph 35 summilux. I don't have any samples of the Biogon scanned and have discarded the Nokton examples but both are exceptional in performance, ergonomics and build.

My vote, the Biogon for the ultimate in image quality.
 
x-ray said:
I also own the asph Summicron 35 and have not made a real side by side comparison but at this point I feel the Biogon has a slight edge on the asph Summicron.
.
Click to expand...

How would you compare the Biogon to the asph 35 summilux (besides flare resistance)? This is mostly an academic question because my Biogon arrived yesterday in the mail. 🙂

Bullwinkle
 
I can't give a real hands on evaluation of the asph summilux vs the Biogon but after owning the asph Summicron now for a few weeks I'm finding the Biogon to be much more flare resistant. In a shoot today I had three sets of images rendered unusable by flare from a light source outside the frame. Later in the week I will try to post a coupole of images. One was a crescent streak that was near the middle of the frame in every frame shot in the same position from a tripod. I've never seen anything like it but the next shots with my old non asph 21 elmarith had none and the next images in the same liocation where a bare light bulb hung from the ceiling but was out of the frame caused two flare spots in the upper 1/3 of the frame. Camera was tripod ounted and every frame in that position showed the same flare. Next I shot a enviromental portrait with the 35 asph with light coming over the top of a house but the top of the house wasn't in the frame. A haze of flare covered the shot suffucuent to change my exposure by about 2/3 stop under. I've noticed my 90 AA having the same characteristics but the shots with my 50 asph summilux have no flare issues under the same conditions. The biogon is almost impossible to make flare even with direct light hitting the lens but out of the frame. My 35 asph is the hammertone retro that I won in a drawing so I have nothing to whine about. It has the old style retro summilux hood that doesn't do much. I just ordered the regular version of the asph hood that should be much more effective. (I HOPE)!!!
 
x-ray said:
asph Summicron In a shoot today I had three sets of images rendered unusable by flare from a light source outside the frame. Later in the week I will try to post a coupole of images. One was a crescent streak that was near the middle of the frame in every frame shot in the same position from a tripod. I've never seen anything like it but the next shots with my old non asph 21 elmarith had none . Next I shot a enviromental portrait with the 35 asph with light coming over the top of a house but the top of the house wasn't in the frame. A haze of flare covered the shot suffucuent to change my exposure by about 2/3 stop under. (I HOPE)!!!
Click to expand...

Just got a few roll of film back that actually showed exactly the same flare.
HAze and strong crescent streak in the center of the image.
Strange.
At least nothing wrong with my lens......🙄
I love the 35/2 Asph otherwise....

Ciao

Joerg
 
Joerg said:
Just got a few roll of film back that actually showed exactly the same flare.
HAze and strong crescent streak in the center of the image.
Strange.
At least nothing wrong with my lens......🙄
I love the 35/2 Asph otherwise....

Ciao

Joerg
Click to expand...

It's certainly a sharp lens but the flare problem is a PROBLEM. This type of issue is something test bench reports like Puts won't show. Only field testing can show the effects of light sources outside the frame. This is very disappointing for a lens of this price to flare like this. From what I've read the 1.4 35 asph flares even more. I appears leica is going for the test bench numbers that so many live by and sacrificing the real world performance. Life does not revolve arounf MTF curves, atleast no mine.

Which hood do you use? My LHSA retro lens has the circular hood like the old v1 summilux. I placed an order with Adorama for a new standard rectangular hood last night with the hopes this will help. I guess if it doesn't I just carry the Biogon and swap it between kits.
 
Joerg said:
Just got a few roll of film back that actually showed exactly the same flare.
HAze and strong crescent streak in the center of the image.
Strange.
At least nothing wrong with my lens......🙄
I love the 35/2 Asph otherwise....

Ciao

Joerg
Click to expand...


Don & Joerg,

this is some very interesting info!
Please keep us updated.


Andreas
 
x-ray said:
Which hood do you use? My LHSA retro lens has the circular hood like the old v1 summilux. I placed an order with Adorama for a new standard rectangular hood last night with the hopes this will help. I guess if it doesn't I just carry the Biogon and swap it between kits.
Click to expand...


In my experience with the 35/2 asph. the rectangular hood does a good job of preventing flare...though not always. The flare in this one was coming off a glass building:

305043133_476d3fbe75_o.jpg


It's still a great lens.

Todd
 
I have to admit, after shooting I don`t know how many rolls with biogons and planars (with and without hood) from around 400 images none I mean none! has a flare
 
Nachkebia said:
I have to admit, after shooting I don`t know how many rolls with biogons and planars (with and without hood) from around 400 images none I mean none! has a flare
Click to expand...

That has been my experience with the two Planars (ZM and ZF) as well. The T* coating seems to make the lenses impervious to flare.

About the Summilux 35 Asph: I don't think it is a flare prone lens. I have been using it day-in, day-out for almost a year, with UV filter and without hood, in daylight as well as adverse night conditions, and it behaves admirably - save for once, when I was out on a mission to make it flare - but then so did my Canon EF 35mm f1.4 L. I have seen however twice or thrice some ghosting when using the lens with a filter. Without the filter I haven't witnessed any ghosting.

Comparing an f2 lens with an f1.4 or f1.2 is to compare different propositions for compromise. One of them will not flare at all, the other will be faster while the other one will be yet even faster but also bigger. YMMV.
 
Last edited:
Don,

i use the rectangular hood, in fact it is on all the time.

yesterday I was very perplexed to see these flares (OK my light source was the sun outside the frame...) and was "relieved" to read similar problems seen by others. I am using mine since a few month and have not seen this, but then again the sun is not much of a factor in the city during winter time when compared to sunny alpine setting.

I will try to post some pics toooooo

Ciao

joerg
 
Joerg:

Thanks for the info. I suspect switching hoods and removing the filter will improve the problem. The light source was a light bulb hanging from the ceiling and was the only source of light in the room. The bulb was out of the frame by a good margin and was interesting to note that I switched to my 21mm elmarit non asph and shot the same image from the same spot but just wider. No flare with the 21 but then switched back to the 35 asph and did a variation and had the circular spots of flare.

Thanks!

Don
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom