Nokton 50mm f/1.1 Backfocus

[dNorm]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello folks. I just bought a used Nokton 50/1.1. The original owner had it only for about a month (bought it for his dad), but as it turned out it his father couldn't use it. Well, it has backfocus, I tested it at f/1.1 - f/4 on a tripod with an E-P1 pointed through the viewfinder and at 10x magnified live view just to ensure that my eyes were not the culprit of mis-focusing. Has anyone else experienced backfocusing with their 50/1.1 Nokton? I don't believe it to be a focus issue on my new M8.2 (about 3 months old). My M8.2 focuses perfectly with all my Summicrons and focuses fine with my 40/1.4 Nokton. So, at this point, I'm excluding the possibility of it being a body issue, unless someone with experience can convince me otherwise. I do realize that f/1.1 puts a strain on the focusing system of any camera but I am relatively confident that my M8.2 is fine - there is such an obvious difference between my Nokton 40/1.4 and 50/1.1, the latter showing obvious backfocus, the former looking sharp. Comments and/or experiences appreciated. -Norm

Edited December 27, 2009 by dNorm

[lct]

See http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/988393-post7.html

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[dNorm]

Thanks. This does not look reassuring. A $1100 lens that backfocuses and requires guess work compensation, more or less a crap shoot to get a focused image. What bothers me most is this person's comment about not being able to get this lens adjusted. I had considered sending it in to DAG for calibration, but could this be true that this lens is not adjustable because of a rear floating element . -Norm

 

 

See http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/988393-post7.html

[jaapv]

Well, as for an 1100 $ lens, the competitor costs more than ten times that sum...

[dNorm]

Well, I'm guessing it doesn't blatantly backfocus. Anyway one looks at it, regardless of price, a product should work as advertised. Does Voigtlander say it's normal for this lens to backfocus ...

 

Well, as for an 1100 $ lens, the competitor costs more than ten times that sum...

[biglouis]

You are expecting too much from this lens. I owned one and it was a competent lens but too close to my Nokton 1.5 which I preferred. The depth of focus at 1.1 for portrait shots, of say between 0.3-.06 metres is very small, only approximately 6mm according to my dof calculator. I found it very difficult to obtain sharp photographs, although I could create pleasingly soft one. Jaap's comment is correct - you get what you pay for - although I remain suspicious that you would fare much better if you coupled the new 0.95 to any M camera - the tolerances are too tiny at close range.

 

This fascination with very wide apertures for portrait photography is all well and good but I discovered some time ago I created very pleasing shots just using my Elmar 50 at f2.8 - with no sharpness or backfocus problems.

[Bo_Lorentzen]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Norm,

 

Not entirely sure when you are experiencing the back-focus, but my 50 1.1 seems to be rather right on, I seem to be the big problem, this is the kind of lens which will make you bang your head on a brick wall, when you nail it, it rewards you like crazy, but I don't nail it way too often.

 

.

[dNorm]

Hi BigLouis. Thank you for the feedback and I've tried to take in your comments with an open mind. But is my thinking flawed that I should expect the focus be within the DoF even at f/1.1 after testing it on a tripod to mitigate any sort of unsteadiness on my part? And even when stopped down to f/4, the focus is off. I've also noticed that the further away the subject is, the more it back focuses. I had sent DAG an email and I am told that he can not adjust it because of it's design. I've not yet heard back from Stephan Gandy. But at any rate, thanks for taking the time to respond. -Norm

 

You are expecting too much from this lens. I owned one and it was a competent lens but too close to my Nokton 1.5 which I preferred. The depth of focus at 1.1 for portrait shots, of say between 0.3-.06 metres is very small, only approximately 6mm according to my dof calculator. I found it very difficult to obtain sharp photographs, although I could create pleasingly soft one. Jaap's comment is correct - you get what you pay for - although I remain suspicious that you would fare much better if you coupled the new 0.95 to any M camera - the tolerances are too tiny at close range.

 

This fascination with very wide apertures for portrait photography is all well and good but I discovered some time ago I created very pleasing shots just using my Elmar 50 at f2.8 - with no sharpness or backfocus problems.

[dNorm]

Hey there Bo. I pretty much get backfocus at any aperture from f/1.1 to f/4 or so. The further the subject, the more the lens backfocuses. I'm glad that your sample doesn't have this issue. Gives me hope that there are good ones out there. Cheers. -Norm

 

Norm,

 

Not entirely sure when you are experiencing the back-focus, but my 50 1.1 seems to be rather right on, I seem to be the big problem, this is the kind of lens which will make you bang your head on a brick wall, when you nail it, it rewards you like crazy, but I don't nail it way too often.

 

.

[wlaidlaw]

Hey there Bo. I pretty much get backfocus at any aperture from f/1.1 to f/4 or so. The further the subject, the more the lens backfocuses. I'm glad that your sample doesn't have this issue. Gives me hope that there are good ones out there. Cheers. -Norm

 

Norm,

 

I am not surprised. My experience with CV lenses has been awful. I don't think I would buy another unless I could have it on sale or return, subject to a focus test and I suspect it might be difficult to find a dealer who would agree to that.

 

My personal opinion is that the CV people are doing themselves a huge disservice by having such poor QC. Would any fewer people buy the 50/1.1 Nokton if it was $1200 rather than $1100 and there was a virtual certainty of getting a good lens? My guess is that they might well sell more. We know that they can have good QC in the same factory, as poor CZ lenses are very very rare. In the years I have been on this forum, I think I have only seen one complaint about a CZ lens. I think the people to beat them up on this are Stephen Gandy and Tom Abrahamsson.

 

Wilson

[Etruscello]

I eventually did find a Nokton 50mm f1.1 that did not back-focus wide open, but the M8 or M9 rangefinder must be critically calibrated, and focus shift remains a problem; nevertheless, this is a lens worth having. For indoor use, it is always sharp and contrasty wide-open, with beautiful bokeh. Outdoors, if you shoot at f5.6 or greater, focus shift is compensated for by depth-of-field. (F2.8 is the sweet spot, at which I would compare this lens favorably to the Leica Lux 50mm ASPH, but does need focus-braketing at this aperture.) Tom P.

[Jiukuic5609]

I am sorry to hear about your lens. I agree 5x price argument or not, an 1100 dollar lens is still an expensive lens and you shouldn't have to guess or fudge focus. It's just unacceptable. Just one more reason to buy Leica glass...

 

I was looking to get one of these Noktons but you're experience coupled with others that I have read has convinced me to keep saving for a Summilux 50mm...

 

-------------------------------

Leica lens reviews and my photoblog:

Daniel Valente Photography

[Bo_Lorentzen]

Norm,

 

The lens "should" focus correctly wide open. If it does not, and it seem you have gone quite far to determine the focus of the lens, then you should return the lens or ask for a exchange, Stephen is good about that.

 

Im sure Stephen Gandy will get back to you if you bought the lens from him, I have purchased several lenses from him, and he have always treated me very well.

 

.

[dNorm]

Hello Wilson. I think my feelings are very much starting to be inline with yours. Thanks for your comments and sharing your experience. Looks like I'm not alone with this particular issue, unfortunately. Cheers. -Norm

 

Norm,

 

I am not surprised. My experience with CV lenses has been awful. I don't think I would buy another unless I could have it on sale or return, subject to a focus test and I suspect it might be difficult to find a dealer who would agree to that.

 

My personal opinion is that the CV people are doing themselves a huge disservice by having such poor QC. Would any fewer people buy the 50/1.1 Nokton if it was $1200 rather than $1100 and there was a virtual certainty of getting a good lens? My guess is that they might well sell more. We know that they can have good QC in the same factory, as poor CZ lenses are very very rare. In the years I have been on this forum, I think I have only seen one complaint about a CZ lens. I think the people to beat them up on this are Stephen Gandy and Tom Abrahamsson.

 

Wilson

[dNorm]

Bo - I bought the lens used. At this point, I am waiting for Stephan Gandy to respond, so I can better understand what my options are. I bought this lens for it's fast speed and if it could be 'optimized' for f/1.1 that would be super. -Norm

 

Norm,

 

The lens "should" focus correctly wide open. If it does not, and it seem you have gone quite far to determine the focus of the lens, then you should return the lens or ask for a exchange, Stephen is good about that.

 

Im sure Stephen Gandy will get back to you if you bought the lens from him, I have purchased several lenses from him, and he have always treated me very well.

 

.

[dNorm]

Thanks Dan, appreciate your support. I think if you can get a good one, this lens is excellent value with very good optical performance. But, if you get one that is sub-par, it will become a very frustrating experience. Cheers. -Norm

 

I am sorry to hear about your lens. I agree 5x price argument or not, an 1100 dollar lens is still an expensive lens and you shouldn't have to guess or fudge focus. It's just unacceptable. Just one more reason to buy Leica glass...

 

I was looking to get one of these Noktons but you're experience coupled with others that I have read has convinced me to keep saving for a Summilux 50mm...

 

-------------------------------

Leica lens reviews and my photoblog:

Daniel Valente Photography

[Bo_Lorentzen]

Norm,

 

Ouch, that changes things a little I suppose, from what other posters are saying it seems the cam can no be adjusted. basically the issue you are describing could be fixed by a slight polishing of the cam, however I would not dare think about how to do that in a calibrated manner. :-) Stephen would be the closest guy to have a real answer to this.

 

.

[D&A]

Hi,

 

I do think its important to rule out the camera body itself (no matter how remote that possiblility might be)... since many have learned that it only takes a very slight miscalibration of an M8/M8.2 etc to throw focusing off with certain very fast lenses (like the 50mm f1.1's, 50mm f1.0's etc).....while other slightly slower lenses or lenses of different optical designs might focus just fine on same body. If the body is slightly ofI say with shooting a lens wide open at f1.1, it will continue to be off even when stopping down somewhat, until depth of feild hopefully will be large enough to compensate. Since there are various distances (apparently three) that Leica calibrates these bodies (close, mid-distance and infinity)..it's possible for one distance to be slightly off and another to be greater or less...although the various cams do seem to interact or have an effect on one another. Hence the infinity adjustment can alter or effect close and mid range focusing accuracy...thats for certain. There was a recent post on another forum where a person was experiencing back focus with a 50mm f1.0 and I also believe his 50mm f1.4 Lux, yet all his other lenses are spot on with both his M8.2 and M9. Again this is not a likely senario but one to quickly rule out. Yes, Stephen is very good about exchanging for another sample, espcially if a particular body's focusing has been ruled out as a possible cause in the case of a lens mis-focusing.

 

Dave (D&A)

Edited December 27, 2009 by D&A

[jaapv]

Actually, it is not THAT extreme a lens. With a DOF of 17 cm at 3 m, it is considerably easier to focus than a Summilux 75 or Summicron 90, that both have a DOF of 10 cm at 3 m....

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[D&A]

Hi Jaap (and All),

 

That's exactly correct! That of course assume lens when properly focused on subject, puts subjject well within the depth of field, even if quite narrow. Problem is with the numerous samples I and some aquantences have tried on perfectly focusing M9's, M8.2's and M8's, 50mm f1.1, generally puts the subject focused on at the every front edge of the depth of field. If a body even 10 percent exhibits backfocus, then the subject will fall out of (in front of) the edge of the depth of field If the lens was set up placing the subject well within the depth of field (wide open)...then there would be some room for user or body focusing errors. That's why many are fustrated focing with this lens. Some samples may focus front or back a little compared to one another that may help or conversely may make it more difficult. Otherwise what you say is very true all things being rqual in an ideal situation or set-up. Also keep in mind this assessment of backfocus, espeically when the subject is at the very edge of the depth of field, is primarily or readily seen when examining file near or at 100 % or "actual pixels"

 

Dave (D&A)