Just got the Nokton 50/1.1

[ron_breeze2]

<p>Victor when I put in the address for joseph yao that you supplied I get a dating service. Not that I can't use one but I'd like to see his price on the lens, do you have a direct link? Thanks.</p>

[Alex_Es]

<p>Hey, congrads, Derek!! So they have finally arrived at Cameraquest. Great! I guarantee you will love this lens! I just shot mine at mid to small f-stops. Surprisingly sharp.</p>

[drew_simons]

<p>As always Alex your composition is great, subjects perfect, timing excellent. So there is nothing wrong with your photos, but to me those shots confirm what I have seen elsewhere - that this new Nokton is way over-hyped. The bokeh that is on display here is terrible and borders on artificial. The background behind that man has absolutely zero character. It just seems so flat. I have noticed that a lot of people have been swept away or succumbed to the fevered marketing pitch that accompanied this lens, like on sites such as camera quest. People like Steve Gandy have a lot to gain with increased sales, however at the end of the day the proof is in the pictures and these out of focus areas are a shocking disappointment to say the least.</p>

<p>Personally, I love searching for bokeh shots on the internet and these photos compared to shots with the pre-Asph summilux, Sonnar 1.5 Zeiss, the summarit 1.5, the summar (F2) and of course the Noctilux, are not even in the same league. This is not about a Leica vs other brand loyalty. It is just about the finished product that is on display here. The lovely romantic swirls with the painterly rendition that those lens produce really makes me feel cold when viewing these photos. I think that one is merely paying for speed/hype/marketing and given the chance and money I would prefer one of the other lens that I mentioned. Probably viewing prices the 1.5 summarit would be the best bang for the buck, also taking into account a service by DAG or Sherry.</p>

<p>It is interesting to note that Tom A gave this lens a good review on rangefinderforum, but I also saw his photos and I was left feeling stone cold. It is interesting to note that he has close ties to the maker of this lens and it is doubtful that he would give it a negative review. What was annoying was that Steve Gandy used his review on cameraquest and many people take that site as gospel. People buy fast lens for the speed, so bokeh is an integral part of that final result. When you take away the handling, weight, value for money, and hype, all that is left is the bokeh and from what I can see that certainly isn't a reason to buy this lens. Go figure.</p>

[Alex_Es]

<p>First off, I cannot think of a single product that is not "hyped" in some way. What has impressed me about this lens is the central sharpness wide open and the almost scary sharpness when it is stopped down. I am left stone cold by debates about "bokeh". It is a very new preoccupation. "Bokeh" is a mater of taste, and that is all. "Bokeh" is as much--or more--determined by the background as it is by the lens. I've had similar complaints about my Nikkor S 2000 50/1.4, which has taken loads of good pictures that people like. I have no answer to the "bokeh" objections to this lens. I anticipated this sort of rendition when I bought it, based on what I read. I had expected more overall softness and was surprised by what I did get. And I like the starkness of my background. I tells you that this is shot in a public place, not from inside a wad of cotton candy.</p>

[Alex_Es]

<p>And thanks so much about the good words about my compositions, Drew. Much appreciated!!</p>

[cschweda]

<p>Some test shots in Rodial with Tri-X: http://www.flickr.com/photos/metaincognita/sets/72157620785090949/</p>

[drew_simons]

<p>Alex, thanks for the feedback. That was an excellent point that you raised about the "hype" that is ingrained with new products. I guess it goes with the territory. I will no doubt be an outcast for writing this, but from reading a lot of the above comments and other threads on photo.net and rangefinderforum, it has become glaringly obvious that the hype that surrounded cameraquest's marketing of this lens wasn't warranted. I have nothing against Steve Gandy and it is obvious that he carries a lot of knowledge of cameras and lenses. Actually, I have resisted on weighing in on this topic for a while.</p>

<p>However, truth be told, I have noticed that especially on rangefinderforum (less so here) that there is almost a jejune groupie element that follow Steve's recommendations&products.I remember that Steve Gandy pasted Tom A's positive review onto his website. It is common knowledge that a lot of members with interest in rangefinders dance frequently between here, rangefinderforum and cameraquest. Of course the cameraquest played on this and it built up a lot of publicity for this lens, with the narrative that it is excellent value compared to the Noctilux. But, the question remains, does it deliver?</p>

<p>So, back to the subject of the lens in question. If we follow your line of thinking that bokeh is a matter of taste, then that same argument could be applied to the apparent sharpness that the lens exhibits wide open. Is that sharpness necessary for an attractive image wide open? I think not. The reason that this lens has disappointed me from the research that I have done on the internet, is infact this clinical trait of sharpness accompanied by a lack of attractive bokeh. The images look almost artificial or digitally cloned. Good bokeh, bad bokeh, yes we all have an opinion. But either is preferable to bokeh without character...</p>

<p>It is a shame that the company that produced this lens jumped onto this digital bandwagon philosophy of 'sharper is better'. Unfortunately, the test shots above and elsewhere display a distinct lack of character in the out of focus areas. Some people who have purchased this lens justify this lack of bokeh character with the argument that it is compensated for by its ergonomics, relatively good value compared to its German rival and its light weight. However, I just don't buy this argument.</p>

 

[frederick_muller]

<p>Rendition of out of focus areas is a matter of taste. That's a very subjective quality. I've heard many complaints about the bokeh of the 50mm Lux Asph. Well, it is clearly very different from that of other 50's. I happen to like it in certain cases. I don't think there is another 50 with bokeh like it.</p>

<p>Sharpness, on the other hand, is more objective. If a lens is soft wide open, that's it, and you can't add detail that the lens didn't resolve in the first place. I don't think one can critically and definitively assess sharpness in small scans on web postings, but if the Nokton really is sharp wide open and users are happy with it, then happy days! </p>

<p>One of the benefits of this forum is precisely that it gives users an opportunity to present their work, their impressions, and their views. As such it adds to the collection of information available to anyone who might want to purchase the product. It can help people to better assess the product regardless of hype.</p>

[derek_stanton2]

<p>It's kinda funny that there's so much 'controversy' over this lens already.</p>

<p>• Drew, if Tom's 1.1 images leave you "stone cold," i'm wondering if it's really the fault of the lens. Do you conversely have a positive reaction to his other images? I saw his sample shots before i bought the Nokton. They didn't do anything for me, either. But, looking at his entire flickr offerings, i felt the same way. He just doesn't share 'my aesthetic,' and it's the same across the board, no matter what lens he uses. <br>

• The lens has only been available for about a week. I doubt very many Noctilux masterpieces were created in the same initial span of time.<br>

• What "Cameraquest hype?" Stephen is a contributor to a forum or two, just like anyone else. He also has a site with a wealth of information within it, and only a small percentage of it is geared toward selling. He's a merchant. Why is that a bad thing? He may promote the products he sells, and along with the informative nature of his site, there's bound to be a bit of editorializing. Is that "hype?" Whatever it is, we're not so stupid. We can handle it. <br>

• Complaints about the lens being "too sharp" are kinda odd. What would you expect CV to do? Purposely engineer a soft lens? Build in some sort aberrations or whatever so that you automatically get swirly bokeh? They built the best-performing lens they could both build AND SELL. Just like Leica did with the Noctilux and the Summarit et al. I doubt Leica intended to design a lens that came with the effects found in images made with the old Noctilux. Those effects came as engineering compromises and they subsequently found adoration. Much like the LOMO.... <br>

• No one complains about a "lack of character" when discussing a Summicron, for example. So, perhaps CV decided to make a superfast 50mm that was NOT a specialist lens. You'd condemn them for that? And, they did it for $1200. If this lens came out in a Leica box for $2000, the masses would be on their knees in praise. <br>

• If you really need a swirly lens, there are already very many available. I'm not sure the market is really demanding that. Maybe you feel you were mislead? Just because the lens gets close to f1, you thought you could get a budget-priced Noctilux? It's unfortunate that your disappointment is directed at CV, as i don't recall them making any claims to that effect. <br>

• "Gandy Groupies?" Sure. Sounds like paranoia. Name names, why don't you? And, even if that were true, how many of these groupies who buy solely on the advice of Gandy and Tom are there really? I think you underestimate the intelligence of the readership. <br>

• Bokeh IS an subjective matter. And, while i don't see anything attractive about the bokeh in the digital images posted above, the bits that i don't like can be attributed to a few factors. For one thing, digital's grainlessness often makes good lenses look bad in that regard. I've also seen digital images that are just processed a certain way, and when processed differently the bokeh takes on different characteristics. I've also seen a whole lot of Noctilux shots with nauseating bokeh. Not even the 'best bokeh lenses' do good bokeh on a consistent basis. <br>

• The bottom line is that the lens may just not be to your tastes. And, that's probably true of most lenses, if you're discerning in any way. But that doesn't warrant a campaign against the product (that is not defective), nor against people who merely write blogs and contribute to various forums. I'm not sure why so many people are so sensitive about Tom and Stephen. No one's being hoodwinked by them. There are a lot of people who write about gear. And, most of them have some sort of agenda, or have strong personal biases. But, somehow you think you're the only one who has the intellect great enough to see that.... Even if Tom were a 'shill,' i personally find that kind of narcissism more offensive than any possible 'collusion' between those two fellows. </p>

[Alex_Es]

<p>If you are going to discuss the Nokton, don't discuss Stephen Gandy or Tom Abrahamsson. Compare it to the other super wide 50s: the Noctiluxes, the Nikon and Zunow 50/1.1s and the Canon 0.95. I've seen comparative shots with these lenses and in the realm of sharpness and bokeh the Nokton does very well compared to the others--I mean it is sharp wide open and has about same as the the other lenses' bokeh. That is why I bought it. My surprises came when I actually used it. Not only is the central image sharp but stopped down the sharpness is scary. It is Summicron level.</p>

<p>Building a lens of this type is not easy. Even the new ten grand Noctilux 50/0.09 isan't perfect.</p>

<p>That aside, I think that bokehphiia is largely hooey. It does involve subjective judgement. A lot depends on background. If my shots' had flowers as background the bokeh would naturally appear better because flowers out of focus look better than oout focus tables, chairs and people.</p>

<p>The Nokton belongs to small group of highly specialized fast 50mm lenses. It is amazing what people have forgiven those other lenses in return for 3/4 to 1 stop more light. Read the literature. My enthusiasm is based on that and performance and nothing else.</p>

[Alex_Es]

<p>I would like to respectfully underscore that if you want to discusses lenses don't get into personalities. Who is following whom and what is sleep with whichever are irrelevant matters.</p>

[matt_sutton]

<p>I have really enjoyed reading this article. Thanks to all for your views. I am in the same position of deciding to go Nokton or Noctilux. <strong>If money was no problem which lens would you get ? </strong> I borrowed a Nocti f1 and took a few film images. They are of the salesmen in the foto shop. Just for fun. regards, Matt<br>

<img src="http://mattsutton.com.au/images/data/media/26/matt.jpg" alt="" /><br>

<img src="http://mattsutton.com.au/images/data/media/26/andrew.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[geoff_r1]

Foto Riesel?

[Alex_Es]

<p>If money were no object I'd buy all the classic super fast 50s, new Nocilux 50/0.09 and my Nokton 50/1.1.</p>

<p>Nice Nocilux shots by the way. The bokeh is better in the second than the first because the background is more pleasing.</p>

[dstate1]

<p>As a recovering Noctilux owner and someone who has succumed to GAS on nearly every high speed lens out there I just want to make note that there are very few truly "GOOD" photo's to be found taken with the Noctilux. Indeed some of the images I've seen posted on Rangefinderforum look like they could be taken with a Lomo except they are so grainy. It was never designed as a portrait lens, but as a special purpose lens from the days of grainy, medium speed color film. (All that field curvature is why Noctilux portraits are mostly dead center head shots) <br>

The fact the the new Nokton is really much better in any objective technical comparison underscores what 35 years of progress in optics has wrought. We should all remember also that Noctilux's were never in tremendous demand UNTIL Leica starting playing games with the prices and production quantities. In 2004 Photovillage was selling them for $1899.99 and had no trouble keeping up with demand. <br>

If CV had produced a lens identical in performance to the F1 Noctilux it would have been panned as fuzzy with too much focus shift. There is a lot of blind loyalty to the Leica brand that doesn't follow CV or even Zeiss. </p>

[Alex_Es]

<p>Nicely put dan states. </p>

<p>Might as well say it. The Nokton knocks the socks off the Nocilux. Note there is not much difference in "bokeh." </p>

[john_liberty]

<p>Wow, that's some harsh bokeh. I use a 50 2.0 Summicron and it blows the Nokton away w/ smooth out of focus backgrounds. Yes, it's slower (if you can call a 2.0 lens slow), but it's a very useable 2.0. This lens just confirms my impression of CV products. They offer some amazing lenses, but nearly always (w/ a very few exceptions and this isn't one of them) deliver much less than a Leica or Zeiss lens.</p>

[mikedc]

<p>I recently picked up a Voightlander Nokton 50mm 1.1 and and the 35 1.2, and I must say I am very impressed. I have compared the Nokton 50 to the Leica 50 1.4 ASPH, and found I have a hard time telling the pictures apart. I found the Nokton as sharp as the Leica if not sharper at f8. At 1.4 the images were more different, but the Nokton held its own in sharpness; need more testing here. Contrast was a bit less with the Nokton, however I found this a positive, at least for many subjects. Pictures taken at f2.0 were super sharp, at 1.1 less so but still sharper then I remember my Noctolux (which I sold some time back). The Voightlander Nokton 35 1.2 is a bit smaller in width and touch longer, I would guess about 1/3 of an inch longer with supplied shades. The out of focus areas on the 35 at 1.2 appear smoother then the 50 at 1.1, perhaps do to more shutter blades in the 35, or perhaps just the focal length? Focusing the Nokton (both 35 and 50) is smooth and easy, much easier then the Noctolux 1.0, and to my taste easier then the Summilux because the focusing ring is so much bigger. The Summilux is a bit smoother to the feel, but the Nokton is plenty smooth. The 50 does appear sharper wide open then the 35. My only real criticism is that the lens cap on the 50 is hard to click into place, the cap on the 35 is ideal, just slides over the shade.</p><div></div>