madaneerg Posted January 24, 2011 Share #1 Posted January 24, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) What's the difference between (besides the 1.2 being 2x the price): 1. Nokton 35mm f/1.2 2. Nokton 35mm f/1.4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 Hi madaneerg, Take a look here difference between two lenses. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Erik Gunst Lund Posted January 24, 2011 Share #2 Posted January 24, 2011 What's the difference between (besides the 1.2 being 2x the price): 1. Nokton 35mm f/1.2 2. Nokton 35mm f/1.4 The size and weight Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted January 24, 2011 Share #3 Posted January 24, 2011 And the 1.2 has a wider max aperture than the 1.4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted January 24, 2011 Share #4 Posted January 24, 2011 Hi the 1.2 is out of production the type II when it appears may have a different signature the 1.4 is available in SC and MC the 1,4 is a clone of the type I cron (35mm) the 1.2 will vignette a bit more aside from size, weight, cost, speed You might like the 40mm CV f1.4 more? Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madaneerg Posted January 24, 2011 Author Share #5 Posted January 24, 2011 sorry, I should have been a little more specific. How will the photos differ from lens to lens. Is there much difference in the photo result? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
el.nino Posted January 24, 2011 Share #6 Posted January 24, 2011 1.2 is great 1.4 is shitty Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madaneerg Posted January 24, 2011 Author Share #7 Posted January 24, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Is a Voigtlander Nokton 35mm f/1.2 and acceptable substitute? I don't want to fork over $3500 for a used leica equivalent Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted January 24, 2011 Share #8 Posted January 24, 2011 Hi The CVs and the Leicas are different lenses, with different photographic signatures. There are 'two' Leicas in f/1.4 the non asph and the asph. The non asph 62-94 'character' from 1.4 to 5.6 normal 5.6 to 16, needs a 12526 hood Three asph's sub types '89 to date high contrast sterile, might get some flare shooting into Profiles @/1.4, nothing like as bad as pre asph. The pre asph is 'cheap', small and light. The CV are different from the Leica lenses and from each other, the SC and MC will have different signatures, they may flare more then the Leica Asph, and the /1.4 has some distorsion. The 1.2 is gigantic, the 1.4 small The CV 40mm f/1.4 again different, no distorsion to speak of, little larger then 35mm /1.4. Looking at web shots to see the difference is 'abstract'. Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted January 24, 2011 Share #9 Posted January 24, 2011 My CV 35/1.4 SC flares a lot and has focus shift at f/2.8 and slower apertures. Similar fingerprint as the pre-aspheric Summilux 35/1.4 w/o the 'glow' (halo around highlights) of the latter. The CV 35/1.2 is said to be better as far as flare and focus shift but i have no experience with it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted January 24, 2011 Share #10 Posted January 24, 2011 My CV 35/1.4 SC flares a lot and has focus shift at f/2.8 and slower apertures. Similar fingerprint as the pre-aspheric Summilux 35/1.4 w/o the 'glow' (halo around highlights) of the latter.The CV 35/1.2 is said to be better as far as flare and focus shift but i have no experience with it. Hi Lct You detect this focus shift with a film camera? Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted January 24, 2011 Share #11 Posted January 24, 2011 No i've never used it with film. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted January 25, 2011 Share #12 Posted January 25, 2011 My CV 35/1.4 had focus shift and back-focussed visibly on my M8 so I encouraged it to 'seek new opportunities with another owner'. My CV 35/1.2 exhibits no focus shift or back-focus, is easy to focus wide open for such a fast lens, and has a lovely signature. Yes, it's comparatively large and heavy for a 35 mm rangefinder lens but not insufferably so imo. Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted January 25, 2011 Share #13 Posted January 25, 2011 Similar fingerprint as the pre-aspheric Summilux 35/1.4 w/o the 'glow' (halo around highlights) of the latter. I think it's a common misconception among people new to Leica to confuse some halos around highlights with the proverbial 'Leica glow'. The former just is an unwanted aberration which occurs primarily in older high-speed lenses at full aperture. The latter is the special balance between macro contrast and micro contrast that's intrinsic to many Leica lenses (and pretty much different from typical Zeiss lenses); it has nothing to do with halos. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted January 25, 2011 Share #14 Posted January 25, 2011 In spite of my using 30+ M lenses for 30+ years i don't see that special balance personally so i call glow what it is to me i.e. typical halos around highlights if you don't mind. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted January 25, 2011 Share #15 Posted January 25, 2011 So I call glow what it is to me i. e. typical halos around highlights if you don't mind. As long as you say just glow and not The Leica Glow™, I don't mind. Seriously—the glow around highlights at full aperture of less-than-near-perfect lenses is a common phenomenon with all brands of lenses, not just Leica. So that isn't what's meant be 'the Leica glow' specifically. To the contrary—the Leica glow will start shining at medium apertures, when fine detail starts to stand out in a very special ... umm, 'glowing' way that's typical for Leica lenses and that other lenses for 35-mm-format cameras mostly cannot match (medium-format and large-format cameras usually can—but that's a different kettle of fish). Today, with greatly improved computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing methods, the significance of tke 'Leica glow' has ceased to a degree, as other lens manufacturers can also make real fine lenses too these days, and the lens designers are less restricted by contradicting requirements to balance as they used to be, thanks to modern high-performance glass types, CAD/CAM methods, and cheap aspheres. Today, a high-end lens can have very high contrast and very high resolution at the same time, even at wide apertures. Also, most people theses days aren't used to see really well-crafted prints anymore; instead, they will look a cheap, small-format drugstore prints or at no prints at all but at computer screens. So no wonder people will confuse a mundane aberration for what once was known as 'the Leica glow'—they simply don't know any better. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted January 25, 2011 Share #16 Posted January 25, 2011 It's you who refer to 'Leica glow' not me. I try not to use concepts i don't understand as far as i can. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted January 25, 2011 Share #17 Posted January 25, 2011 As long as you say just glow and not The Leica Glow™, I don't mind. Seriously—the glow around highlights at full aperture of less-than-near-perfect lenses is a common phenomenon with all brands of lenses, not just Leica. So that isn't what's meant be 'the Leica glow' specifically. To the contrary—the Leica glow will start shining at medium apertures, when fine detail starts to stand out in a very special ... umm, 'glowing' way that's typical for Leica lenses and that other lenses for 35-mm-format cameras mostly cannot match (medium-format and large-format cameras usually can—but that's a different kettle of fish). Today, with greatly improved computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing methods, the significance of tke 'Leica glow' has ceased to a degree, as other lens manufacturers can also make real fine lenses too these days, and the lens designers are less restricted by contradicting requirements to balance as they used to be, thanks to modern high-performance glass types, CAD/CAM methods, and cheap aspheres. Today, a high-end lens can have very high contrast and very high resolution at the same time, even at wide apertures. Also, most people theses days aren't used to see really well-crafted prints anymore; instead, they will look a cheap, small-format drugstore prints or at no prints at all but at computer screens. So no wonder people will confuse a mundane aberration for what once was known as 'the Leica glow'—they simply don't know any better. Hi O1af If the 35mm preasph lux does not glow which Leica lenses would you recommend? Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted January 25, 2011 Share #18 Posted January 25, 2011 If the 35 mm pre-asph Summilux does not glow ... I didn't say it doesn't. ... which Leica lenses would you recommend? For example, the pre-asph Summilux 35 mm at apertures between, say, f/2.8 – f/8. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted January 25, 2011 Share #19 Posted January 25, 2011 ...For example, the pre-asph Summilux 35 mm at apertures between, say, f/2.8 – f/8. Pre-asph Summilux 35, f/5.6. Would you call this "Leica glow"? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted January 25, 2011 Share #20 Posted January 25, 2011 I didn't say it doesn't. For example, the pre-asph Summilux 35 mm at apertures between, say, f/2.8 – f/8. @/5.6 Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/142411-difference-between-two-lenses/?do=findComment&comment=1568941'>More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.