Fast 35mm lenses

[Lumitipia]

I have been thinking about geting a fast 35mm lens. I know that the

best one I could get is the latest Summilux version, but it is

outrageously expensive. I have been considering the CV Nokton. I read

Erwin Puts' review about it, very technical. My question is, any

member has had a hands on experience with it in real world

situations? What's your opinion about it? Is it worth getting one?

Thanks,

R.G.P.

[frederick_muller]

If you search the archives, you will find a number of reviews and sample photographs taken with the 35mm VC Nokton. In general, the reviews are complimentary, though the question is one of whether the f1.2 is a material improvement on the lux aspherical's f1.4. Puts and others generally conclude that it isn't, though the quality is quite good. I would tend to agree that in terms of speed, f1.2 is not materially different from f1.4 in most practical situations.

 

Nevertheless, the Nokton is cheaper than the lux aspherical, and if you can be satisfied that you like its performance, it may be worth considering as it is cheaper than the lux aspherical.

 

Before you plunk down your cash or whip out the plastic, I do suggest you try one on your camera in the store and fondle it for a bit. It is a remarkably large lens. Not particularly heavy, but large, like an SLR lens. Well finished, indeed, but I was surprised at how bulky it was when I picked it up.

 

I think you should also consider the older, 35mm Pre-Aspherical Summilux. It's a sixties design, very compact, very elegant. Not much bigger than a 35mm Summicron .... in fact it looks a lot like the Type 4. It's a bit of a controversial lens as it is not as sharp a performer as the lux aspherical. However, I have found it is plenty sharp enough and has a wonderful glow and character. Again, you should try it out for yourself. Others have blasted it as being "unusable wide open", but I and an equal number of others don't agree. It is soft, but "usable" is a relative term depending on what you want to use it for! You have to make your own decision.

[frederick_muller]

As an afterthought, you might also consider the 40mm VC Nokton. It is not as large as the 35mm VC Nokton and I have seen many complimentary reviews of this lens. Apparently, it is not hard to modify to bring up the 35mm framelines on a Leica. On an M6, most users find it is a pretty good match for the 35 frames.

[Bill Blackwell Images]

I have only handled and tested a 35mm Nocton 1.2 in a camera store, but my test shots seem to bear out Erwin's review. It is very soft wide-open. Relatively speaking it is very inexpensive; in this case you are getting what you paid for.

 

However, having said that, if I were offered a choice between the Nocton 1.2 and the pre-asph Summilux, I would take the Nocton. Characteristics are similar wide-open and the Nocton is about half the price.

 

As to size and weight, it is about the same size as the first 1.2 Noctilux. IMO, Erwin's comments on size and weight should only be measured relative to Leica's 35mm alternatives. But otherwise these comments are a 'bit overstated.

 

Another alternative might be a 40mm Nocton 1.4. By comparison it is very small (about the size of the pre-asph Summilux) and it is very sharp. IMO, this is a viable alternative as an entry into the fast 35mm lens category.

[EricBoehm]

Although very slightly slower, what about the C/V 35/1.7 Ultron? Much smaller, much lighter, and MUCH cheaper than the Nokton. I love mine, I find it is quite acceptably sharp wide open, contrasty, and very comfortable on my M6ttl.

[terry_rory]

Bill/Frederick, I am getting a CV 40mm f/1.4 Nokton (SC or MC) this week. Will keep the forum posted when I get it (and get pics from it of course).

[terry_rory]

Sorry to be slightly OT to your post Raul. (It was Bill and Fred mentioning the 40mm f/1.4 that prompted me)

[simon larbalestier]

Raul

i'd second Frederick's reply re the pre ASPH 35 lux. I use one and really like it and find it

plenty sharp at 1.4 in the centre - i'm not fussed with sharp edges with 35mm film. (if i want

fine resolution i'll shoot with a 6 x9cm) That said the recent lux ASPH is a great lens for

colour work and edge sharpness. I've also seen some cracking work posted here on Pnet wih

the 35/1.2 Nokton. Having handled one in the end i opted for the smaller 35 lux.

[Bill Blackwell Images]

BTW, earlier this year I tested my 50mm Asph Summilux, 35mm Asph Summicron, and my 40mm (MC) Nocton. And as I look at the slides through a Lupe, I must say the Nocton compares very favorably. In fact, it's downright scary how well the Nocton performed in my test!

[johnmarkpainter]

Raul,

 

Only get it if you are REALLY going to use it wide open. I have generally been sorry when I

went out of my way to get an extra-fast lens due to weight and bulk and expense. On top

of that, sometimes they don't look as good at f2 as their slower counterparts

 

F2 is generally OK with me but everyone has to decide that for themselves.

[frederick_muller]

I'll look forward to hearing your review and seeing your shots Trevor. It'll be interesting to see what kind of results you get with single or multi-coating, too.

[Lumitipia]

Thanks everybody for the input. I will be shooting wide open B/W in low light situations, so, Frederick, Bill, Trevor, you gave me another lens to think about which I didn't consider, it seems to be a very good alternative at a very atractive price and good reviews.

[richam]

Raul, I'll offer a practical observation. I have both a 50 lux (f1.4) and a 35 (f2) cron. Where

I do available light, normally I use Neopan 1600 ISO as rated. The grain is acceptable and

not much worse than Tri-X at ISO 400. My observation is that f2 is more than adequate

for the vast majority of available light situations, yielding a 1/60 or 1/125 shutter speed

-- perhaps 1/30 at the worst. I've found that when the light is so poor that f 1.4 is

necessary, (1) it's very difficult to focus properly due to low light in the viewfinder, and (2)

the DOF is so narrow at f 1.4 that very precise focus is very necessary -- somewhat of a

dlemma.

Therefore, I set either lens at f2 and adjust the shutter speed for conditions. I don't use

the f 1.4 setting at all. So, unless you really want the extreme narrow DOF or really want

to use a slower film, the Summicron at f2 is fully adequate. And you save some lens bulk

and money in the process.

[blakley]

The Nokton 35/1.2 is A LOT bigger than the Noctilux 50/1.2 - it's almost as heavy, and (without hood) it's almost 1/2" longer.

 

It's a very good lens, and I wouldn't characterize it as "very soft" wide open. It's certainly soft at the edges, and the bokeh isn't as good as the Noctilux 1.2 (though I like it better than the Noctilux 1.0), but it's sharp enough at the center, and when you stop it down it gets very sharp and contrasty indeed.

[x-ray]

I owned and used the 35 1.4 summilux pre asph for many years and generally liked it. I now have the 4th generation summicron and the 35 1.2 Nokton. I shot many thousands of frames with the old summilux under terrible low light conditions. While the lens was a great design and made many shots possible in the sixties and seventies, when film was not as good, it doesn't even come close to the Nokton 35. The old summilux flared terribley when light sources were either in the frame or on the fringe outside the frame. I did a shoot with President Nixon in 1970 and one part was in a stadium with bright lighting in the frame at night. 90% of the frames shot with the summilux were totally unusable due to flare. Fortunately I used a variety of lenses and got my shots. I also found internal reflections to be a major problem. While shooting an assignment at a KKK rally in 1969 the light from the burning cross reflected internally and caused a secondary image of the cross that was inverted. It rendered thsse shots unusable also. My other lenses did not suffer from this problem. I sold that lens and purchased a 4th generation 35 summicron that I've had for many years. In january I started researching the faster 35's since I still shoot under very dark conditions. I concluded the 35 Nokton was the lens for me and purchased it. I have been extremely pleased in every respect with this lens. I've shot wide open under very contrasty conditions where there was a good eight stops difference in my primary exposure and the brightest values in the scene and had absolutely no flare problems. The lens is very good wide open and exceptional at f2. I would go so far as to say it will hold it's own agains my 4th generatin summicron at equal f stops. Under real worls shooting the lens is in a class all its own even including the new asph summilux 35. I might add that I previously owned the 50 1.2 noctilux and find the 35 Nokton to far exceed the Leitz Noctilux in resolution and flare control. Optical performance of the Nokton is exceptional and construction is very fine. Although some complain about size and weight i don't find it to be a problem. It's larger than any of the Leitz 35's but it's faster than any too. I highly recommend this lens.

 

http://www.photo.net/photos/X-Ray

[travis1]

outstanding portfolio Don!

[karl_keung]

Don, I bookmark all your posts, it is always nice to read from a real photographer and writes without bias.

[feli]

As you mentioned already, the current 1.4/35 Lux ASPH is in a class of its own, but is

rather expensive. I picked up a demo unit for $1850 from Rich Pinto at Photovillage.com

 

I've shot hundreds of rolls with mine and it is hands down the best lens I've ever used.

Leica performed a minor miracle by producing a ASPH lens that doesn't render clinical

results. The negatives are razor sharp at any stop, and it is highly flare resistant; yet it

glows.

 

I briefly experimented with a friends pre-ASPH 1.4/35 Lux and it flared like a SOB. Under

certain circumstances this can produce very beautiful results, but it's not a look I would

want for all of my shots. Wide open it is soft, but after f2.8 it sharpens up. Overall I felt

that the performance was below my 4th generation 2/35 Summicron-M.

 

Everyone I have spoken to who has shot the 1.2/35 Nokton, says it is one heck of a value

for the money and will outperform the old pre-ASPH Lux with ease. But beware that by

Leica standards this is a very big lens- bigger than a Noctilux. Some people don't mind

this, but then again size was one of the main reasons why I sold my Noctilux.

For the record, the Nokton isn't as big as the Canon 1.4/35L for the EOS system.

[marc_lieberman1]

That's it. I'm selling all my gear and getting whatever Don has. I just discovered this guy. I'm truly inspired, but am convinced now more than ever than I shouldn't quit my day job. Anybody want to part with an M2 or M4-P?

[steve_chan5]

In case you need any more convincing about the Nokton 35, I have one and have tested it reasonably carefully against other lenses, old and new. It is not soft wide open, it is in fact sharp - at least on my R-D1, which has a cropped frame, it seems to be comparably sharp to the Nokton 50, which *nobody* says is soft wide open. Sean Reid's review basically says that it is a great lens, but not as great as the ASPH Lux ( http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/fastlensreview.shtml )

 

On an RF camera, it is a big lens, but I think it is actually slightly smaller or comparable to the Nikon 35/1.4

[Bill Blackwell Images]

I stand corrected on the size of the 35mm Nocton 1.2. I didn't recall it being all that big and heavy. In any case, the larger-sized apertures (through about 2.8) are soft by any measure. You couldn't possibly have very high standards to call this a sharp lens at these stops.

 

In any case, given this apparently "sharp" disagreement, if so inclined, you'll just have to try one and judge for yourself.

[mattalofs]

I'm a little late to this party, but I'll chime in. If the weight of the Nokton 35 is ok with you and price is a concern, it's worth a shot. I owned one for three or four months and reviewed it on my website: <a href="http://www.1point4photography.com/cv35nokton.php">CV 35 F1.2 Nokton review</a><br><br>

In my experience it's very sharp lens from f4 to f11. Wider than f4 things fall off a bit, but it isn't bad at all. I've made 11*14 prints from shots taken at 1.2 that were beautiful to my eyes. At f1.2 dof is next to nothing, so there is a lot of potential for focus errors to contribute to a perceived lack of sharpness. If you do get it focussed properly, I think the limited dof contributes to the feeling of sharpness even if the absolute resolution isn't great. It helps that contrast is still good wide open. Like any lens, there might be some sample variation, so YMMV. <br><br>

Even though I sold mine, I'd highly recomend it.

[steve_chan5]

<p>Some folks seem to be insisting that the 35/1.2 Nokton is soft wide open. I'll back up my assertion that it, at least for my sample, it is quite sharp in comparison to other lenses. Here are 2 images, the first from a recently CLA'd DR cron, shot at F2.8 and the second from a Nokton 35/1.2 shot at F2. They were both shot from a tripod, on the same camera, RAW processed using the same parameters. The inset region on the right is a 100% crop from the center.

<br><img src=http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/4455442-lg.jpg><br>The DR Cron at F2.8

<br><img src=http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/4455441-lg.jpg><br>The ASPH Nokton 35 at F2.0

[x-ray]

I've yet to see a lens that didn't improve with stopping down a couple of stops. This is certainly true of the Nocton and the asph Summilux. When I selected the Nokton over the Summilux asph money was not a factor. I make my living with my equipment and the selection was purely based on performance and max aperture. With regard to max aperture there is no competition. As to performance there is so little difference that the max aperture was the deceiding factor. When I use the max aperture of this lens it due to poor lighting and generally I'm shooting with super fast film with low shutter speeds hand held. These are the conditions that these lenses were designed for not to mount on an optical bench in a testing lab. These lab conditions just do not exist in the real world of low light photography.

 

I don't believe the differences in these lenses can be seen unless you're making very large prints like 20x30 or larger. If you're scanning and you don't have a first rate scanner your scanner will be the limiting factor. I'm talking first quality drum, Creo supreme or fuji finescan lanovia.

 

For me the differences were purely acadimic.

 

 

http://www.photo.net/photos/X-Ray

[lmz]

Let me chime in to say that the VC 35f1.2 Nokton is a great lens, even wide open. Won't give up mine until the day I get out of the rangefinder game altogether. Compared to it the venerable 50'cron is, to me anyways, decidedly boring and unremarkable (I also prefer the 45/2 for the contax G over 50'cron anyday). 35/2 ASPH is very nice. It's compact and has a convenient focus tab, but I just love the blurr of the Nokton.