Nokton 35mm f1.4

[pje]

Just a heads up. I was just notified that the new Nokton 35/1.4 lenses have arrived at CameraQuest. The

lens hoods are due to arrive next week.

[r22eng]

Great. Let us know how the lens performs.

[michaelging]

I thought it was a 35mm 1.2 not 1.4.

[john_gleason1]

"I thought it was a 35mm 1.2 not 1.4"

 

Nope, it appears to be f/1.4.

[michaelging]

I looks like New Nokton 35mm 1.2 lenes that are chipped for M8 will be available on March 17th. I also see the 35mm 1.4 you are talking about.

 

http://www.cameraquest.com/voigt3512.htm

[mohir_ali]

A 35/1.4 for 50% more than the 40/1.4, why? To cater to the Leica fetishist?

[vic_.]

<i>A 35/1.4 for 50% more than the 40/1.4, why? To cater to the Leica fetishist?</i>

<p>Another way of looking at it is to compare it to the price of the 35mm Summilux Asph. But you are right about the price vs. the 40mm 1.4. What's also interesting is that the buyer community chooses to ignore the 40mm f1.4, so mesmerized they are by a lens that sounds like the 35mm Summilux Asph.

<p>A lot of people think they're going to get steak for the price of hamburger.

<p>I can't wait to see Erwin Puts' review of this new lens. I'll wait until then to see if it's a buy.

<p>The fetishists defy any logic. That's why they're so amusing to observe.

[Alex_Es]

I got one yesterday. Hope to get the hood next week. The lens is designated a "classic."

The design is obviously inspired by the old Summilux 35/1.4. In the day I've shot it I can

tentatively say that wide open it is sharper than the Summilux. It does tend to flare.

Highlights are well controlled. Tones tend to be even and neutral, but there is no Leica

"glow." Ergonomically, the focusing ring is a bit stiff but I think it will loosen over time.

I'm now using a generic hood which really protrudes into the finder. I shot the following

at f1.4 in Sannomiya, Kobe last night with my M8. Will have to wait to see how well the

lens handles analogue.

<p></p><a href=" title="L1002831

by Alex Es, on Flickr"><img

src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2182/2281374399_859baa4a3e_b.jpg" width="683"

height="1024" alt="L1002831" /></a>

[mohir_ali]

First on the block eh, Alex? The shot doesn't look very sharp to me.

[Alex_Es]

Possibly me, not the lens. This is handheld and I was just getting used to the ergonomics of

the lens. Also the M8 is a bit of problem to focus in low light. On top of that, the roundness

of the statue was a little problematic. Also, this is straight out of the camera--no Photoshop.

 

That said, I did not expect the lens to be tack-sharp at f1.4. This not the Summilux 34/1.4

Asph. It is most like the old Summilux with some optical improvements.

[Alex_Es]

Here is another shot with 35/1.4, also with the M8:

 

<p></p>

<a href=" title="L1002838 by Alex Es,

on Flickr"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2098/2282165234_cd792eb90f_b.jpg"

width="1024" height="683" alt="L1002838" /></a>

[Alex_Es]

That was also shot at f1.4 and has not been Photoshopped.

[orvillerobertson]

Ah, sometimes so jealous of you digital guys and your quick results. Thanks for the report,

Alex, can't wait to hear more details.

[Alex_Es]

And me--I'd love to have a traditional darkroom. I'll keep everyone posted. I'll shoot black and white on the M8 with it. Might try some real black and white film too.

[pc_b]

Ali, do you really want to come across as aggressive and clueless?

[mohir_ali]

Does either shot look sharp to you PBB?

[Alex_Es]

If you click on the second image and go to "Original" you'll be surprised, as I was, how

sharp the image (the Bentz) really is. I did the same with the first image and realized that

the statue looked deceptively softer than it really is because of the round surfaces.

Likewise, the seated figure's jacket looks deceptively sharp because of the seams. In both

cases the limited depth of field need to be taken into account. With the statue, I focused

on the low mid portion of the statue and that area is the sharpest. That both shots were

hand-head in low light needs to be taken into account.

 

I must repeat that this lens is not competing with the current Summilux 35/1.4 Asph. The

f1.4 images I suspect will be on the soft side even with a tripod. The lens's true edge

quality can only be determined by using it on an analogue Leica M.

[mohir_ali]

Does it even compare to the 40/1.4 plus 50% cost I know you have?

[Alex_Es]

I don't have the 40/1.4. I did use a borrowed one which happened to shoot a picture that I

displayed here. I'm in position to compare the two. I'm sure someone is and will do so. But

that aside, a 40 isn't a 35, just as the proverbial apples aren't oranges.

[john_gleason1]

Alex: What can we learn about the bokeh of the 35 f/1.4? As I recall, that's a point where some folks complained about the 40 Nokton.

[funkaoshi]

A fellow over at Flickr has <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/sotome/tags/classic35f14/">a lot of photos from the lens online</a>. It looks like a pretty nice lens to me.

[jja]

Alex, I see that your photos are linked from flickr. I've noticed a decrease in sharpness in my

photos when I upload them to flickr.

[Alex_Es]

Interesting question, John. Bokeh. Take a look at the background of the top photo and you

can get an idea of the lens's bokeh signature. My general impression so far is that this is an

even, neutral lens. So bokeh should probably on the bland, utilitarian side.

 

I've just shot some dull comparative photos with my old Summilux 35/1.4 and the

Voigtlander 35/1.4 at f1.4. The Leica lens has the glow but the Voigtlander has the

resolution. Quite remarkable for a lens this relatively cheap.

[Alex_Es]

Juan, you might be right about that. To get good resolution you need to go to "Original."

What you see here is "Large," which cuts the original image's size by one-third.

[lutz]

Yuck... this lens' bokeh looks like the worst I've seen in ages.<p>

<a href=" 1</a> (from above flickr link)<p>

<a href=" 2</a><p>

<a href=" 3</a><p>